An entirely reasonable response. Perhaps you could do so here?
I’m not disputing what you say, but the ECF has rather left itself opening to something like this happening. By not having a proactive strategy re: explaining the decision I mean (as per my comment upthread).
On a positive note, at least it’s clear from the comments at the end of the article that the ECF recognise that the appointment of a man to the role wasn’t ideal. I wonder how many people - non-chessers - who say the headline actually read that far, though.
Accurate or not, the story makes the ECF and chess in general look bad.
The fact that ‘ordinary’ ECF members aren’t able to make an informed decision as to whether the Telegraph piece is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ is a secondary but also signifcant problem.
A minor point but Chris Fegan isn’t a “tutor”at CSC as suggested in the article.