Gold Member Rep.

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
John McKenna
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John McKenna » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:11 am

Sorry to have to say that what the oracle revealed didn't quite add up. However, it did show that things are better than I thought.

My thanks to Michael for giving me that direction - even though I, also, cannot quite fathom what he expected me to come up with?!

Unless of course he sent me to the oracle simply to discover myself.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1773
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:16 pm

That you will not have done until you return to your beginning when you will know yourself for the first time.

I was expecting you to discover that the Council Position of Immediate Past President is recorded as vacant, so that though it is wrong on the website nevertheless Council composition is recorded correctly (I hope).

John McKenna
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John McKenna » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:10 pm

Well Michael, at your behest, I did go "there and back again".

The register was like the Council of Elrond - a throng, all bound by one thing, wearing a host of different hats, some with more than one. In the end I lost count of all those heads - just over 300 in all - and them tricky hats.

Now I'm going to hobbit off to the shop.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1773
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Michael Farthing » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:33 pm

Mmm.. The reference was to TSE not JRRT

John Hickman
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:35 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John Hickman » Sun Oct 08, 2017 4:41 pm

Image

benedgell
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by benedgell » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:14 am

Just a reminder that if you are a Gold member and have any opinions about items up for discussion at the AGM...

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17863
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:23 am

benedgell wrote:Just a reminder that if you are a Gold member and have any opinions about items up for discussion at the AGM...
Would someone like to raise the issue of the withdrawal of British Qualifying places from non-FIDE rated Congress and why this wasn't put to last year's AGM for approval? As a supplement, it's no longer possible to qualify for the British Championship by being a high scorer in a very strong domestic league such as London or Yorkshire. Again this change was never approved by any Council meeting. I know the ECF will bleat operational issues to dismiss the discussion, but the point is really that if the ECF thinks that individual members should be more involved in governance, it should put on the table for voting, issues of relevance to individual members.

benedgell
Posts: 1250
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by benedgell » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:09 pm

Have you contacted Alex directly to ask him about this? If so, what was his response?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17863
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:54 pm

benedgell wrote:Have you contacted Alex directly to ask him about this? If so, what was his response?
No and why should I?

Such issues shouldn't be the subject of private correspondence. Let both the questions and answers be in the public domain.

As another follow up, what is the position regarding sponsorship for 2018 and beyond? It's all very well the ECF excluding lower rated players from the Championship, but it also excludes itself from their enhanced entry fees. That becomes a problem if there are years without sponsorship.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:27 pm

Why not ask Alex through the Ask The Directors facility and then publish his response on here? John Upham did that when challenging Dave Eustace on a point recently.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17863
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:41 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:Why not ask Alex through the Ask The Directors facility and then publish his response on here?
Again why? The "Ask The Directors" facility has no credibility in my eyes until such time, if ever, the ECF publishes both the questions and the responses.

John Reyes
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by John Reyes » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:08 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
benedgell wrote:Have you contacted Alex directly to ask him about this? If so, what was his response?
No and why should I?

Such issues shouldn't be the subject of private correspondence. Let both the questions and answers be in the public domain.

As another follow up, what is the position regarding sponsorship for 2018 and beyond? It's all very well the ECF excluding lower rated players from the Championship, but it also excludes itself from their enhanced entry fees. That becomes a problem if there are years without sponsorship.
I asked alan a direct question about how he allowed 4 players who has never played for Lancashire, to play at the ecf open final?
I will be asking this same question tonight at the Lancashire AGM!!!
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by LawrenceCooper » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:16 am

John Reyes wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
benedgell wrote:Have you contacted Alex directly to ask him about this? If so, what was his response?
No and why should I?

Such issues shouldn't be the subject of private correspondence. Let both the questions and answers be in the public domain.

As another follow up, what is the position regarding sponsorship for 2018 and beyond? It's all very well the ECF excluding lower rated players from the Championship, but it also excludes itself from their enhanced entry fees. That becomes a problem if there are years without sponsorship.
I asked alan a direct question about how he allowed 4 players who has never played for Lancashire, to play at the ecf open final?
I will be asking this same question tonight at the Lancashire AGM!!!
Which Alan? The only one I could think of is Walton :oops:

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:56 am

LawrenceCooper wrote:
John Reyes wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
No and why should I?

Such issues shouldn't be the subject of private correspondence. Let both the questions and answers be in the public domain.

As another follow up, what is the position regarding sponsorship for 2018 and beyond? It's all very well the ECF excluding lower rated players from the Championship, but it also excludes itself from their enhanced entry fees. That becomes a problem if there are years without sponsorship.
I asked alan a direct question about how he allowed 4 players who has never played for Lancashire, to play at the ecf open final?
I will be asking this same question tonight at the Lancashire AGM!!!
Which Alan? The only one I could think of is Walton :oops:
I'm also assuming John means Alex. What is less clear is why the number of supposedly eligible players seems to have jumped from two to four. We have already had a lengthy thread about this where I pointed out more than once (and will now use capitals to emphasise my point) that ALEX MADE A CONSIDERED DECISION AFTER SPENDING A YEAR COLLATING DOCUMENTS AND CONSULTING TWO DISTINGUISHED PAST SERVANTS OF THE FEDERATION INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL DISPUTE. I fail to see which part of this you cannot understand.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17863
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Gold Member Rep.

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:12 am

Andrew Zigmond wrote: We have already had a lengthy thread about this
Is there a summary of the rules for
eligibility to play for Lancashire and not for Greater Manchester
eligibility to play for Greater Manchester and not for Lancashire
dual eligibility?

For that matter the rules for
eligibility to play for Lancashire and not for Merseyside
eligibility to play for Merseyside and not for Lancashire
dual eligibility?


The rules assume that there is a team to play for. Arguably they should be weakened if there isn't actually the alternative team.

Post Reply