English Chess Forum

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Oh, I was going to catch up at the end of the day. Is there some fun being missed?

Nothing much apart from Chris Fegan fulfilling his promise to "fully engage with the members who fund the ECF through their annual membership fees" by signing off his last e-mail "As you are seemingly incapable of acting with any restraint or good manners, I have no intention of communicating with you further." following on from telling me "With all due respect you need to learn to read more accurately before you throw wild comments around."

Thankfully it's a lot less toxic over here

Evidence is starting to emerge of policy differences between the Commercial Director and the Home Director. The example cited is the National Club.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a personality issue. If you have a Director looking for ways to attract sponsorship and other finance, making changes to existing ECF events is certainly an approach and one that might tread on the shoes of the Director currently responsible.

That's an area where I probably agree with the Commercial Director. If the National Club is to be run on the basis of "a weekend away" as opposed to weekend matches between clubs, then allowing 4NCL squads to enter teams alongside genuine club sides would seem to have its points as a means of boosting entries. The captain of at least one 4NCL squad drew attention to the event, before finding out that they weren't eligible.

But instead of having internal fights, what is wrong with putting these issues forward as policy decisions for the AGM or the Finance meeting to vote upon? Whoever stands for ECF Director positions is then expected to follow policies approved by the Council meetings.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Evidence is starting to emerge of policy differences between the Commercial Director and the Home Director. The example cited is the National Club.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a personality issue. If you have a Director looking for ways to attract sponsorship and other finance, making changes to existing ECF events is certainly an approach and one that might tread on the shoes of the Director currently responsible.

That's an area where I probably agree with the Commercial Director. If the National Club is to be run on the basis of "a weekend away" as opposed to weekend matches between clubs, then allowing 4NCL squads to enter teams alongside genuine club sides would seem to have its points as a means of boosting entries. The captain of at least one 4NCL squad drew attention to the event, before finding out that they weren't eligible.

But instead of having internal fights, what is wrong with putting these issues forward as policy decisions for the AGM or the Finance meeting to vote upon? Whoever stands for ECF Director positions is then expected to follow policies approved by the Council meetings.

At least Alex took the time to consult with players and teams and changing the format from the one game at a time over separate weekends so it seems rather bizarre for him to be publicly criticised by a fellow director after showing initiative, consulting with the relevant people and making changes.

The thread in the other place is most entertaining! It is certainly informative, but not in the way that certain individuals active there would like to believe... I've rarely seen such blatant double talk in action.

I have been reading all the comments. but no one is talking about Jack Rudd?

why is that?

Paul McKeown wrote:The thread in the other place is most entertaining! It is certainly informative, but not in the way that certain individuals active there would like to believe... I've rarely seen such blatant double talk in action.

Also deeply ironic; can't help feeling there is a risk of potential sponsors being lost with all this dirty linen being aired in public on an official forum.

Nobody's talking about Jack Rudd because Jack Rudd is standing for a non-executive position and has as yet shown little of his motivations for standing. Thus there is not an awful lot to talk about.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Thus there is not an awful lot to talk about.

Jack, best of luck, Do you have a view on the best strategy for Tigers against Heffalumps?

In general? Try to play to the tigers' strengths and the heffalumps' weaknesses. (The old "pushing up expectation" thing.)

John Reyes wrote:I have been reading all the comments. but no one is talking about Jack Rudd?

why is that?

Foley needs a backup plan.

I see that one candidate for a NED post is suggesting that officers should simply delete offensive emails rather than making formal complaints about the senders.

Surely a responsible candidate should be seeking more protection for an officer of the federation? Although it is a shame he did not offer the same advice to the Commercial Director.

I've also heard that this candidate's election slogan was going to be "Vote for Sue Denham".

To go:

Fegan, Foley, Kane.

I'd also back None of the Above for CEO.

Will you also be canvassing support for that position from others?

It's turning into a bit of a right old tear up on the other forum. I'd advise people to steer clear, it's in danger of becoming a bit toxic I think.