ECF AGM 2018

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:08 pm

benedgell wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:34 pm
Adrian Elwin 147, Tim Wall 135, not this candidate 5.
Close then. Any impressions as to why the meeting or proxies preferred Adrian?

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1566
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:22 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:08 pm
benedgell wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:34 pm
Adrian Elwin 147, Tim Wall 135, not this candidate 5.
Close then. Any impressions as to why the meeting or proxies preferred Adrian?
Nigel Short on Twitter (possibly getting his information from here) has blamed it on the `defamatory` tweet he made about the FIDE elections. He also notes with glee that Malcolm Pein got the lowest vote of all the uncontested elections.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

benedgell
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by benedgell » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:27 pm

Heard from a couple of people privately that felt Tim was an unsuitable candidate. I personally wasn't impressed by Adrian as a candidate. Would be happy to eat humble pie on that once Adrian gets into the role, but if I had a personal vote (all of the organisations I represented, either directly or through proxy, gave specific instructions on this one) I would've voted for Tim.

benedgell
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by benedgell » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:29 pm

Regarding the Tweet, Tim stated that he has now removed it, and I think probably recognised it was a poor choice of words.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 5563
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by JustinHorton » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:55 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:22 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:08 pm
benedgell wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:34 pm
Adrian Elwin 147, Tim Wall 135, not this candidate 5.
Close then. Any impressions as to why the meeting or proxies preferred Adrian?
Nigel Short on Twitter (possibly getting his information from here) has blamed it on the `defamatory` tweet he made about the FIDE elections. He also notes with glee that Malcolm Pein got the lowest vote of all the uncontested elections.
That would be the grace and magnanimity we were talking about
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

John Reyes
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by John Reyes » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:09 pm

benedgell wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:27 pm
Heard from a couple of people privately that felt Tim was an unsuitable candidate. I personally wasn't impressed by Adrian as a candidate. Would be happy to eat humble pie on that once Adrian gets into the role, but if I had a personal vote (all of the organisations I represented, either directly or through proxy, gave specific instructions on this one) I would've voted for Tim.
Same here, I feel that tim presentation was a lot better then Adrian! It was his Twitter comments and also other stuff went against him
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1566
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:21 pm

John Reyes wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:09 pm
benedgell wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:27 pm
Heard from a couple of people privately that felt Tim was an unsuitable candidate. I personally wasn't impressed by Adrian as a candidate. Would be happy to eat humble pie on that once Adrian gets into the role, but if I had a personal vote (all of the organisations I represented, either directly or through proxy, gave specific instructions on this one) I would've voted for Tim.
Same here, I feel that tim presentation was a lot better then Adrian! It was his Twitter comments and also other stuff went against him
Did that actually change anything? Three years ago there was the controversy over Chris Majer's partisan intervention at the meeting but by that point a lot of proxy vote holders must have already been instructed.

Am I right in thinking that Tim Wall is still likely to be appointed development officer?
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Nigel Short
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Nigel Short » Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:45 pm

For the record, Tim Wall took several days to remove his defamatory tweet accusing me of being a spy and a traitor, even after I wrote to him. I might add that he has not apologised for it either.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by David Pardoe » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:13 pm

I hope a role can be found for Tim at some point. He strikes me as a great enthusiast for uk chess. and might add balance and a northern voice in chess circles.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:31 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:37 pm
Thanks to all those volunteers who gave up their time to attend the meeting today. It doesn't sound like there was much drama and I'm looking forward to hearing how the chess development strategy is going to work in real terms.
Very kind of you to say so Andrew. Nick and I had a discussion about whether he was the third man (in the curry rather than the Wall sense) but were not sure. Someone with a few more decades experience of going to council meetings than me described it as one of the more interesting ones.

I felt it was important to ask Alex about his financial plans. "Don't know" was not what I was hoping for. But I voted for him anyway like pretty much everyone except the arbiter he has annoyed.

The two card votes were on whether to approve the boards plan and its associated significant increase in membership fees. The first vote was whether to remove the approval of spending plans because it puts the Council over a barrel if it is the only option on the table at the finance meeting. The board has a significant number of votes and voted unanimously to back their own proposal as you would expect. The second on the issue itself saw votes along similar lines. My expectation is the board will win the vote by a similar margin in April.

I had a frustrating afternoon, I think you have to see Council in action to understand how clunky it is and how little what is said matters. With only five minutes each for questions on the Home Director contest, I doubt anything said made any difference. I don't see grading prizes at the British as crucial to the future of English chess myself.

Nigel's doctor is probably glad he missed Malcolm's account of the FIDE election, or his blood pressure would be at the same level as Hok's, whose questions were generally misunderstood. Malcolm did say he has met Dvorkovich and is trying to build bridges.

The low point for me was the discussion on the development plan. The Board did not want to be micromanaged, but also said they had not had time to revise the strategy document when I asked about the apparent contradiction. It does not leave much for Council to do, other making a choice on a simple back us or sack us ultimatum in April.

Malcolm did express his position on International spend. He views full strength international teams and some additional support for elite players as core spend which should be covered by membership fees, unless sponsorship is available. Angus pointed out this does directly contradict his position when elected. In fairness to Malcom, he is probably doing a better job raising sponsorship than anyone else could. But less than he hoped, and since this is the one major item that the Chess Trust cannot help within the limits of charitable aims, that does indicate likely significant membership fee rises.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17303
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:39 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:31 pm
I don't see grading prizes at the British as crucial to the future of English chess myself.
The question is whether the finances of the event require entries from players with little chance of winning the event. If they do, than the insult of excluding those below a particular rating from grading or rating prizes is not an inducement to enter.

But whose policy is it? Is it the retiring Home Director or that of the International Director?

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:51 pm

The question was asked to the incoming Home Director, He needed to think about it and to discuss with Championship manager. But did note he faced the decision whether to enter the British or major open himself recently. A good answer I thought, but not on something I view as critical.

No discussion on who sets the rules, but I think we know who has the relationship with the sponsors.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8493
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:57 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:51 pm
But did note he faced the decision whether to enter the British or major open himself recently.
I didn't mention it at the time, but as it happens, he did neither - he accepted an invitation to be an arbiter at it instead.

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 1566
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:22 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:31 pm
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 6:37 pm
Thanks to all those volunteers who gave up their time to attend the meeting today. It doesn't sound like there was much drama and I'm looking forward to hearing how the chess development strategy is going to work in real terms.
Very kind of you to say so Andrew. Nick and I had a discussion about whether he was the third man (in the curry rather than the Wall sense) but were not sure. Someone with a few more decades experience of going to council meetings than me described it as one of the more interesting ones.
Unfortunately I'm lumbered with a job that involves weekend work so I decided a long time ago that when I did have a free weekend to do something chess related I'd prioritise congresses over AGMs, which I think is reasonable enough. I also think it was six years ago when you and I clashed over what I still think was an unfair attack on a very hard working volunteer; if not for that you and I would probably get on a lot better than we do. I hope you and Nick enjoyed the curry; I'm not a fan of Indian food myself but should we ever end up in the same place I'm prepared to fork out for a round of Cobras.

Thank you for a very concise and informative account of the meeting, probably the best one I've seen. Council is not an ideal system; it has its rotten boroughs and place holders; but it's hard to see what could easily replace it. I certainly think a few middlemen could be removed to allow better consultation with direct members.

It's disappointing that membership income is now being used to fund the international teams; we should send the strongest possible team and meet the fees of professional players but it's very hard to justify that as a reason for financing the ECF (I have to defend the ECF in a part of the country still hostile to it). That said, hopefully Malcolm is still committed to finding sponsorship and with the FIDE elections now over he may have more time to devote to it.

Regarding the strategy statement I think it's a case of the board and the grassroots meeting in the middle. The key players on the board do have a track record in increasing participation in chess (Malcolm with CSC, Mike with the 4NCL, Alex with BUCA) and will have some knowledge of what needs to be done and where investment can be made. Those of us on the ground who want to get more chess played and attract new players - and I don't know how many sit on council, Hok being at least one exception - will know what we can possibly do and where we might need support. Plus where it can tie into wider initiatives. I may just be an idiot on this forum but I am passionate about the future of chess and ensuring that it has a future.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

NickFaulks
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF AGM 2018

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:30 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:31 pm
Nigel's doctor is probably glad he missed Malcolm's account of the FIDE election.
I did try to set the record straight, but I wonder whether anyone who has not been immersed in the inner workings of FIDE for the past six months and who was not in Batumi can really grasp the depth of multi-layered corruption in Makro's 2018 campaign.
Malcolm did say he has met Dvorkovich and is trying to build bridges.
It is serendipitous that new FIDE administration and the ECF have a common interest in preventing the World Championship match from being another Agon shambles. However, if the ECF Board believe that they now share a great degree of mutual respect, they are fooling themselves.

Post Reply