Andrew Zigmond wrote:Mick Norris wrote:Andrew Zigmond wrote:David, As has been pointed out to you several times Sean Hewitt has a mandate from Council to reform the voting system.
Indeed, and Dave's views can be an important start along that path - when I'm unsure what to do, I often find that doing the opposite to what Dave suggests is worth serious consideration
Another point David dodged was that the forum vote he attaches importance to only saw 81 voters from a potential electorate of almost 1,000 - although to be fair this forum has a lot inactive users so the vote was more representative of regular contributors. IF the ECF moves to OMOV we would need to ensure that the election goes to the members rather than expecting the members to go to the election.
In response to this and other comments...
I`ve simply echoed what the Forum membership have said in the poll. I didn't say it was a resounding victory for Roger Edwards. Merely that this expresses how those Forum members, many of whom are very active and knowledgeable in chess circles, and interested enough to vote in a free and transparent poll, had voted. Election votes can be won or lost on very small margins.. An example on Saturday was the 89 - 88 vote to reject proposals relating to the counties chess competitions, where positive initiatives to try to boost declining interest has been debated for years. Nobody has the clout to get stuck in and do something, despite the many suggestions on this forum, not least from myself.
Nothing unclear or ambiguous about that, just a plain statement of fact.
Clearly, just because some children on here don't like that message, i.e., that Roger Edwards is the preferred choice for ECF President of members of this chess forum, they have got all hot and bothered and started hurling abuse and throwing there rattles out of there prams. There`s no real confusion about the message..its quite unmistakeable. Its just that certain Muppetts don't like what they are hearing.
But some folk just love to put about there gross misrepresentations and bogus characterisations, in there vein attempts to score points for there street cred...and con people?
No wonder many people are frightened to speak out on these forums. They really don't need this abuse and nonsense, which has plagued this election circus.
Note that less than 40 ECF delegates actually turned up in London for that AGM on Saturday. How many would have showed up if the meeting had been in say York. Maybe a special ECF meeting should be held there, with only those delegates who bother to turn up, allowed to vote...card voting only. One vote per delegate who actually shows up. And Williams day out would be greatly shortened!
Mike seems to think that those who show up for such annual meetings are some kind of martyrs. Many might well be solid contributors to the ECF, but some are more correctly characterised as silent assassins, full of there own ego`s and self importance. Roger Edwards.said something similar in his election interview with Yorkshire chess, which many may have missed. Ernie Lazenby, another Teesside and long time associate of William Metcalf, has also said similar things.
Yes, seduce them with what they want to hear, pump out the right sound bites, and guess what...the sheep come running....like lemmings over the cliff. Its a very old trick...no wonder there is mistrust aplenty.
And there are those here who think Mr Paulson is genuinely interested in the ECF?? Since when. What planet are these dreamers living on. He only signed up to ECF membership very recently.
He claimed little knowledge of English chess, doesn't play, but has come to inspire us..and has learned much from reading this Forum?? But if he lost the election for President, he said he would walk away....and wish us well.
A real deeply committed ECF fellow.. ? Pull the other one.
Mr Paulson is only interested in one thing...himself and his vested commercial/FIDE interests. The ECF is merely a token for his collection, and Mr Ehr, many might perceive, is just the errand boy.
I dont say that people like Mr Paulson cannot make significant contributions to our UK Chess scene, just that it really should be done at arms length, where the ECFs impartiality and integrity would be less obviously at risk. We cannot know what happens in the corridors of power, behind closed doors, where the real plots can be hatched.
So, we exclude him from meetings...do we also exclude his chums & running mates. Should this include all business related to charitable status, and the possible split up of the ECF. Mr Paulson could be thought to potentially benefit from such moves. And certainly all financial/commercial related matters. So where does that leave him...a useless ornament on the board?
But...a final point. Julian Clissold, a long standing well regarded, and very committed contributor to British Chess, asked a very interesting question. He asked on here.... What is the ECF for?
It is precisely because of such questions and confusions that people like Mr Paulson are able to appear from nowhere, seduce the `Plebs` with sound bites that they want to hear, fly under the radar, and bamboozle his way to the top job.
PS. I have much experience of working with Mick in chess circles, and there`s quite a few things we don't agree about, as you might have guessed..He is rather prone to misrepresentations and exaggeration, to suit his own personal whims. Or perhaps its just his sense of humour??
For those who are not aware, I was Manchester's county chess team captain for both there county teams over several years. I also sat on the MCF council for several years, attended various AGMs, and was a delegate at the MCCU AGMs. So, I don't just sit on my fat ass, as some idiots on here try to imply. I`ve also done a fair bit of campaigning for that crappyy 4NCL outfit, run by mad Mike, and his south centric lunny club. No prizes for guessing what they want...and I too would like to see more rewards for our top GMs and International players. Yes, we`d all love to see the return of the glorious Fischer years.
Mike has been quite appreciative at times for my efforts at publicity for 4NCL Northern, although I am no part of the 4NCL establishment. He blows hot and cold.
He now says that I sit on this forum talking boll**x. Bluudyy farcical...which planet are you on Mike. And how many posts did I make on this forum on Saturday afternoon. Some people just love to indulge themselves in gross distortions of the truth.
The 4NCL Northern league is now booming, with 14 teams this year...nearly 50% up on last year. Pity we are condemned to travelling to Daventry for Finals week, but there you go.