2013 Final Stage

[Simon Brown]

Angus argues that a rule couldn't be changed if it didn't exist in the first place. If he is right, the officers responsible have arguably acted negligently and therefore lose the statutory protection afforded by the Act. If Angus is wrong, no problem, and we can go back to discussing the morals of this unfortunate series of events.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well, why should I? There's so much ill-informed drivel in this thread that I can't be bothered wasting my time replying to it all.

What ill-informed drivel?

A match was played between representatives of the Middlesex County Association and the Kent County Association. The match was won by Kent. You have overturned the match result on the basis of a rule written by yourself without signoff by the ECF Council that Kent marginally failed to comply with.

[Richard Bates]

Regardless how much is drivel and how much is ill-informed, and how much is both, I would just have one question in relation to the appeal decision, which i hope is not.

One of the grounds for the appeal was, in effect, that the penalty was unfair because it hadn't been applied previously to identical circumstances in a previous Kent match. (or indeed i think, but don't know, in any match). The response being, in effect, that there was no time limit in the rules for applications of penalties so the previous non-application of penalty (subsequently rectified) could not be taken as evidence that a precedent for non-penalising the circumstances had been set.

Whilst it is hypothetical, what would have happened if one of the penalties applied to the quarter-finals had changed the outcome of that match, and therefore invalidated the semi-final line-up? Or is that just to be treated as a lucky break?

[John Swain]

No reason why Alex H could not just tell us ...

Well, why should I? There's so much ill-informed drivel in this thread that I can't be bothered wasting my time replying to it all.

Why not reply to the key points?

A cursory reading of the unanimous judgment by Messrs Edwards, Hewitt and Rudd seems to imply significant criticism of past events and a wish to see things done differently in the future.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Appeal.pdf

eg.
The Committee recommends that consideration should be given to a time limit for penalties to be applied, and to consider whether questions of eligibility should only be considered upon receipt of a properly formulated protest from the opposition……..

The Committee recommends that the Director should consider whether result altering penalties are desirable in cases such as this and, if not, alternatives should be considered for future seasons.

[Peter Ackley]

I have sent an email to the Middlesex captain (as I suspect others have) drawing his attention to this thread, enquiring (a) whether he wishes to respond and (b) whether he wishes the (any) response to be via the forum.

Given the way this thread is progressing (as have others on this forum) I hope it dispels any possible confusion regarding why the chess world is struggling for volunteers (unpaid or, quite frankly, paid). I had given the job description a glance - it's now firmly deleted.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why not reply to the key points?

A member of the company is someone who has signed a form to that effect, and
guaranteed the debts of the company in the sum of £1 in the event of insolvency.

Article 4.4 of the Company states that “A member shall cease to be a
member:...
in any case, if any subscription or membership fee due to the
Company remains outstanding for more than three months unless the
Board otherwise determines. Thus Mr Scholes, whose subscription was
well short of three months overdue, had not ceased to be a member.

Presuming that James Scholes was an old fashioned "you must sign the white form" member of the ECF, then he was still a member by these rules.

So the ECF's insistence on white form signing comes back to bite it. By the same argument, J Rogers was still eligible to play for Essex.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Presuming that James Scholes was an old fashioned "you must sign the white form" member of the ECF, then he was still a member by these rules.

So the ECF's insistence on white form signing comes back to bite it. By the same argument, J Rogers was still eligible to play for Essex.

Yes, that was indeed one of Kent's grounds for appeal. I believe you'll find the reason we rejected it in the document mentioned above.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe you'll find the reason we rejected it in the document mentioned above.

Explain why it's a valid rejection then. New members of the ECF are not required to sign a white form, but what of existing members? I'm not aware that I'm off the hook for £ 1 in the event of ECF failure.

It is after all the case that "membership" was implemented using the Game Fee regulations and no constitutional change was proposed and voted.

[Alan Walton]

I have read the decision and I am struggling to see where it says that James Scholes hasn't signed the white form

I presume that the office doesn't have a copy of James' and that's why the appeal failed, what happens if he challenges this and says he did sign it?

I least this thread has confirmed to me I have 3 months grace to renew membership, I definitely signed that white form

[Roger de Coverly]

I have read the decision and I am struggling to see where it says that James Scholes hasn't signed the white form

If he's been a member for a number of years, he probably has.

To judge from his membership number, he became a member at around the same time as Lorin D'Costa or Clive Rice. This was when the 4NCL caved in and demanded membership from every participant.

[Sean Hewitt]

I least this thread has confirmed to me I have 3 months grace to renew membership, I definitely signed that white form

Hi Alan - this thread confirms that you do not have months grace to renew. I don't want there to be any confusion here, so state this unequivocally.

The point is that membership of the company, and membership of the federation are two different things. The first is a £1 legal liability hook obtained by signing a white form (for which there is 3 months grace) and the second is something which allows you to play chess free of game fee in return for payment of the appropriate fee (for which there is no game fee).

The Articles of Association are clumsily worded. I don't know why they were worded in the way that they were but they clearly need to be re-worked, hence the recommendation of the appeal committee. I have no doubt that the board will act on this recommendation.

[Sean Hewitt]

Angus argues that a rule couldn't be changed if it didn't exist in the first place. If he is right, the officers responsible have arguably acted negligently and therefore lose the statutory protection afforded by the Act. If Angus is wrong, no problem, and we can go back to discussing the morals of this unfortunate series of events.

Angus is wrong.

[Alan Walton]

I least this thread has confirmed to me I have 3 months grace to renew membership, I definitely signed that white form

Hi Alan - this thread confirms that you do not have months grace to renew. I don't want there to be any confusion here, so state this unequivocally.

The point is that membership of the company, and membership of the federation are two different things. The first is a £1 legal liability hook obtained by signing a white form (for which there is 3 months grace) and the second is something which allows you to play chess free of game fee in return for payment of the appropriate fee (for which there is no game fee).

The Articles of Association are clumsily worded. I don't know why they were worded in the way that they were but they clearly need to be re-worked, hence the recommendation of the appeal committee. I have no doubt that the board will act on this recommendation.

Therefore how do I go around getting my white form ripped up, as I signed this form under different conditions at the time

[Roger de Coverly]

The point is that membership of the company, and membership of the federation are two different things. The first is a £1 legal liability hook obtained by signing a white form (for which there is 3 months grace) and the second is something which allows you to play chess free of game fee in return for payment of the appropriate fee (for which there is no game fee).

The ECF used to be adamant that they were the same thing, so much so that it asserted that those who hadn't signed as guarantors weren't allowed to play in FIDE rated events. It created a new class of non-guarantor membership, but did it remove existing rights from guarantor members?

I think you are asserting that had the ECF been wound up on the day of the semi-finals, that the player in question would have been liable to pay his £ 1, but not allowed to play.

As it was the directors who approved the rule about defaulting players who were late renewing their membership, it's hardly an unbiased appeal tribunal to be chosen from those directors.

The ECF set an entry fee for the national stages of the Counties Championship. It would be able to set the entry fee at £ x plus £ 2 per game per non-member. Anyone would think it delighted in adjusting results so as to make the controller more important than the players.

[Angus French]

Angus argues that a rule couldn't be changed if it didn't exist in the first place. If he is right, the officers responsible have arguably acted negligently and therefore lose the statutory protection afforded by the Act. If Angus is wrong, no problem, and we can go back to discussing the morals of this unfortunate series of events.

Angus is wrong.

Sean, assuming the published rule A4 is correct, can you tell us how it, including the reference to the penalty clause, came into being?
If (all of) it was approved in the April 2012 Finance Council meeting, why isn't that recorded in the minutes when other, arguably more minor, changes for the County Championships are?