Who should the ECF Council elect as President?

[Simon Brown]

At least with the alternative, you know he wouldn't achieve very much.

[Roger de Coverly]

At least with the alternative, you know he wouldn't achieve very much.

As an example of tinkering for the sake of it, take the hyped Chess Casting. At best this was a sideways step in coverage of live chess events, at worse a step backwards. It hasn't been seen since, the remaining Grand Prix events and World Cup coverage using an evolutionary approach.

[Sean Hewitt]

Council has soul its sole to an American living in Russia.

That all sounds very fishy

I do wish the forum had a like button.

[David Pardoe]

It has!!
This forum`s membership have said they`d like Roger Edwards to continue as our ECF President.

[John McKenna]

The ECF forum membership by yesterday afternoon, had indeed indicated its preference for Roger Edwards to be returned as ECF President, in the Poll conducted, with no block/multi proxy votes, and they were clearly not seduced by Mr Paulson's patter, as ECF delegates seemingly had been. A point to note is that almost 80 members on the forum cast a vote, whereas only about 40 ECF delegates actually turned up at yesterdays ECF AGM.
This shows that there is indeed interest amongst the membership for voting at elections...and they could make a difference.
Last years elections were another farce. Some appear to have (conveniently) forgotten that Roger Edwards stood against the then incumbent, CJ..who withdraw late on. Then the circus erupted again, when rumours of mystery candidates waiting in the wings circulated. These turned out to be fantasy stories, and caused certain parties and ECF delegates to clutch at the `non of the above` option, in the hope that some shining knight might appear. What a comedy show these elections have become, many will think. Presumably any such knights were deterred from running the gauntlet of ECF forum candidate scrutiny, and even Mr Paulson seemed to run out of steam part way through, under a barrage of questioning...arriving back late on for some last minute exchanges. Many questions and concerns remain unanswered, many might feel.
Many delegates were still unsure, even after lengthy consultations with various parties, due, in part, to the various issues and concerns being vented on this forum.
That there is a need for reforms to this election process goes without saying.
Roger Edwards did a good job last year, under difficult circumstances, many feel. The CEO position remained vacant last year..nobody wanted it, apparently, such was ECFs malaise following CJs departure.
Mr Edwards bravely set about trying to pick up the pieces, working with a rather divided and inexperienced board. He made mention of this in his election interview with Yorkshire recently, I believe.

David Pardoe has peaked, in his posting (above), after the final - though he did have a couple of purple patches just before.

The thing is, David, those in Council are the few who are supposed to represent the many. Here on the forum we mainly just represent ourselves as individuals.

Your post above is a eulogy to Roger Edward's presidency and, hopefully, an epitaph to the pre-RE ECF - the funeral of which Roger Edwards may be said to have solemnly presided over, if not actually directed.

Now is the time for all those at the ECF to make use of new concepts and enter a different mindset to what has existed for too long in the past. It may have preserved the long historical legacy of the BCF but it ended up doing so in aspic. I am not saying the ECF should change from embalmers to plastic surgeons overnight but the ECF's Victorian era should have ended long ago. There was a brief episode of Oscar Wildean excess and high jinks that almost ended in litigation and... The Edwardian era followed and was a very quiet time - too quiet for some - after the initial shouting against its inception. We must wait and see how the ECF's American period turns out. Just let it get going before trying to shoot it down, I say.

The forum will remain full of hard-headed individuals, no doubt. They could, however, cut some slack and give things a chance to take shape. After all, the Council voters have not elected a rabid Di Canio to replace a stately Hodgson. At least I hope not. Anyway, the new rock-steady CEO should be a considerable bonus, too, and there are good men and true backing up. Enough said, it's deeds that really count!

[Liam Varnam]

The ECF council sadly has a long and undistinguished track record of questionable decisions, but it is shocking that so many of them were taken in by this egomaniac snake oil salesman, Paulson. His whole campaign was based on promises entirely unsupported by any evidence that they can or will be achieved, and the reason for his sudden interest in English chess remains unexplained. At best, yesterday's result represents the triumph of hope over reality. Those council members who elected Paulson must be the kind of people who get excited when they receive unsolicited e-mails from Nigeria, promising vast wealth if they will only hand over their bank account details. In any case, voting out a longstanding servant of English chess in favour of an American with no prior involvement in or concern with English chess is shameful.

Once people like Paulson (egomaniacs with lots of money) get into positions of power, they tend to be very hard to dislodge. Just look at the example of Ilyumzhinov. For the next year at least we can look forward to the ECF becoming Paulson's plaything, used to satisfy his own whims or commercial imperatives. With all due respect to them, I can't really imagine any of the executive directors, at least, standing up to him (particularly as the new chief executive is really just Paulson's sidekick).

[David Robertson]

Applause!

[Ernie Lazenby]

I feel the need to repeat infull what I said earlier. spelling errors corrected.

Council has sold its sole to an American living in Russia. No doubt in the forelorn hope he can input money into English chess. Another English organisation being run by overseas interests.
I am pleased I have packed chess in. I have not in the past had much reason to support David Robertson however his comments on another thread sum up the current situation very well.

I consider the ECF is a disfunctional organisation riven with egos and those who posture rather than doing.(not to mention several thoroughly nasty individuals)
My parting comment is this. That Lara Barnes has seen fit to call a halt to involvement in the British championships speaks volumes about the ECF and those who run it. I suspect in 12 months time there will have been much to moan about for those who visit this forum. I dread to think how far it would really sink without John Phillpott.
Glad I am out of it.

Added at 22.19- I suggest those with a responsibility for the purse strings keep a tight hold during the coming year. No repeat of the recent past which seems to have been buried.

[Neil Graham]

It has!!
This forum`s membership have said they`d like Roger Edwards to continue as our ECF President.

On the contrary, this forum's membership has shown the usual disinterest one associates with chess players. Out of a membership of 989, 81 actually voted - a turnout of a staggering 8.2% which even makes the vote for police commissioners look like a hotly contested affair. Of those 81, the majority actually voted against Roger Edwards with "none of the above" putting up a creditable performance.

This is exactly why OMOV would be a failure; even committed forumites couldn't be bothered to vote. Imagine the normal club player who wouldn't know either candidate actually voting?

[David Robertson]

Ernie, Ernie, please! I know we rarely see I to I, but for crying out loud! ECF has sold its fvcking soul, not its fish!

[IM Jack Rudd]

It has!!
This forum`s membership have said they`d like Roger Edwards to continue as our ECF President.

Winning by 2 votes when the sample size is 81? There's no way any statistician would accept that as a meaningful result.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I've now followed ECF politics through four Presidents all of whom have come under a firestorm, often on this forum. To be fair Walsh and de Mooi brought it on themselves but I do wonder if we sometimes get the ECF we deserve.

I voted for Roger Edwards in the straw poll here (and for David Pardoe to suggest that two votes is a decisive victory shows he perhaps inhabits a different universe to the rest of us) and I have reservations about Andrew Paulson but I'm starting to find the attacks on here a bit wearing. Council has made their choice, let's see what Mr Paulson has to offer while keeping a close eye on his activities and holding him to account where necessary.

One point nobody has made yet. This time last year people were talking up Stuart Conquest as a potential President; there was a strong indication that he would have stood if nominations had been re-opened after de Mooi withdrew or accepted an offer had Edwards lost to None Of The Above. We've now had twelve months to persuade him to stand this time around. Maybe he (and a lot of other credible candidates) just doesn't want the job. I wonder why.

[David Pardoe]

Andrew, I never said that Mr Edwards had won decisively, just that the Forum members had expressed there preference for Roger Edwards to continue as our ECF President.
You might recall that one vote at the actual ECF AGM was lost by 89 votes to 88, I believe. Nobody claimed it to be a decisive vote, but it did illustrate part of the reason that the ECF gets nowhere fast.

Meanwhile, many might feel that the keys to the asylum have been handed to the lunatics.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I was echoing what a few people have noted above, namely that the poll on this forum is a) unrepresentative b) so close in terms of the vote it's practically a statistical tie and c) when none of the above votes are added Roger Edwards only wins on a plurality.

Some within Council may be easily taken in by hollow promises, others may have thought long and hard about the issue before putting THEIR trust in Andrew Paulson. I for one am going to approach his Presidency with an open mind.

[David Pardoe]

Andrew,
Many believe the current ECF voting system to be unrepresentative, fundamentally flawed, and wide open to abuse.
The Forum does at least consist of a number of people who show genuine interest in matters chess, who have shown a keen interest in the debates, and are prepared to ask serious and challenging questions about what is going on in our UK chess.