He seems to have had a certain amount of luck.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:22 amHow did he fare for non-Russian sponsorship when organising the World Cup?
https://www.slingshotsponsorship.com/20 ... orship-xi/
He seems to have had a certain amount of luck.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:22 amHow did he fare for non-Russian sponsorship when organising the World Cup?
Nick,maybe I disagree. The ECF may have a reputational risk , with among others potential chess sponsors. Supporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing! Does anyone agree?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:24 amYes, they certainly do. Abstaining from the main event, either by actually doing so or by voting for Short in the second round, is one of three options.Do they actually need to decide?
Which one are you talking about?IanCalvert wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:06 pmNick,maybe I disagree. The ECF may have a reputational risk , with among others potential chess sponsors. Supporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing! Does anyone agree?
It really is that badNickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:10 pmWhich one are you talking about?IanCalvert wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:06 pmSupporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing!
Yes, very muchIanCalvert wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:06 pmNick,maybe I disagree. The ECF may have a reputational risk , with among others potential chess sponsors. Supporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing! Does anyone agree?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:24 amYes, they certainly do. Abstaining from the main event, either by actually doing so or by voting for Short in the second round, is one of three options.Do they actually need to decide?
It's go big or go homeIanCalvert wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:40 amI was thinking of a scenario in which nigel was eliminated in the first round.
Maybe the ECF should then try(!) to extract a "price" for voting for Malcolm's slate in a second round :such as a review of K=40 for juniors or even a more radical rating review (for juniors)??
Nigel might come third in the first round, but is only eliminated if he chooses to withdraw. The electoral rule is that if the first ballot doesn't produce a decisive winner, there's a second ballot where it's only necessary to finish first. Votes from the third placed candidate might be switched to the leader or runner up, but it isn't mandatory.IanCalvert wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:40 amI was thinking of a scenario in which nigel was eliminated in the first round.
Mick, since Ian won't tell me, perhaps you will. What are you agreeing with? Which campaign do you believe is getting wickeder and wickeder? Both, perhaps? I'm asking because I don't know.Mick Norris wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:25 amYes, very muchIanCalvert wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:06 pmSupporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing! Does anyone agree?
Nick, sincere apologies.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:07 amMick, since Ian won't tell me, perhaps you will. What are you agreeing with? Which campaign do you believe is getting wickeder and wickeder? Both, perhaps? I'm asking because I don't know.Mick Norris wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:25 amYes, very muchIanCalvert wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:06 pmSupporting a "slate" that becomes wickeder and wickeder is a bad thing! Does anyone agree?
That's this tweet and this oneChris Rice wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:30 am#yourowntweetssayitall August4 August5 #whatsthedealNigel ?"
At least there is some fun to be had speculating.Jonathan Rogers wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:43 amIt wouldn't surprise me if Makro won the second ballot by getting a reasonable share of Short supporters.
No need, but I am still not certain that I understand. I think you are suggesting that, if both candidates are considered unacceptable, it would be better to abstain, one way or another.