UK Chess Challenge - Local Club coaching/support

[Adam Raoof]

Dear Scott,

I think it is important to realise that organisers are within their rights to refuse entry to anyone, without giving a reason. There is no 'right of entry', especially to events outside the purview of the ECF. Therefore it seems to me that one can say what one likes on this Forum, but in the end it's just something you have to accept. You might not like it, but the correct thing to do is to organise your own events and make the entry / selection process as democratic and transparent as you see fit - and you probably are. Simply making unsubstantiated allegations against individuals doesn't look appropriate for a representative of an organisation which itself contributes a great deal to the game, and is admired by many.

If you consider your post you may also notice that even you are not sure of your ground! Would it not be best to draw a line under this and move on?

[Carl Hibbard]

Sadly, that is the way or the world; not enough people have the guts to stand up and be counted, even when young people are mis-treated as those affected here were. I know this will upset a number of you and it will not make me popular (you may have noticed that I am not interested in popularity!), but I guarantee you all that I will (when the need arises) continue to put this matter into the public arena until enough people have the guts to deal with it.

This seems to be dragging on a little as this is not yet the Scott Freeman forum...

I feel you have made your point loud and clear, so it's time to close this one off please and move on to matters new before I am forced to do so myself

[Scott Freeman]

Loz
Sorry - with due respect, I totally disagree with you. I owe nobody an apology. If you had seen the detail of what happened, I have little doubt you would understand why.

Adam
I understand your argument but I was advised by a top legal bod that where prize funds are in place, it is questionable whether you do have a right to refuse entry.....at least without good legal reason. But even if you are right, if an organiser of a privately run event is behaving in this way, should the chess community do something about it? I asked Peter Turner at the time whether or not he would set up such an event under the ECF and he felt he couldn't - so we felt we had to set our own event up instead.

Carl
With repsect, I believe my view is as valid an anyone else's - and I believe have the facts to back me up. The only reason I post again is because I get asked more questions or people post needing a reply. If people want me to stop commenting, then all they have to do is stop asking questions. But with apologies, I will not let the matter rest until, at the very least, the ECF structures properly and has the framework to handle such issues in the future, so that the young people we claim to help are not treated in the way these girls were.

Re the whole dispute, the whole chess community washed their hands of it at a time they should have dealt with it and having continually swept it under the carpet, now argue it was so long ago, etc, that we should "move on." You will have gathered that I don't agree with this view. Croydon High have been competing in our event for the last 10 years and I know that Aaron and Claire periodically asked Mike whether the ban would be lifted. As at 12-48pm on 3 December I am as yet unaware it has happened, and even if it did now, the lifted would not benefit anyone that was damaged by the ban at the time, so Mike would appear to have done a wonderful thing knowing the only people he would harm is us (in a sense) because we would probably lose Croydon High as an entry.

The event that we run is an event we would be happy to link in with the ECF and established bodies so that financial benefit is shared by the chess community as a whole - and bring some much needed funds into the ECF. I promise you that we are not interested in the money side - this is a moral issue for us.

[GraemeTelBuckley]

you refused to give me the figures when I asked for them on countless occasions (despite me being an SCCA member and entitled to them).

I would have happily given you the figures if you had asked. That was my whole point of moving the county matches. They were much cheaper at Ashtead. (Susan Lalic)

When the maths was done and all things considered, I believe you found little difference.

No, I found it a big difference. The only reason I suggest some captains come to you now is if they are loathe to take on the job of serving refreshments. Our previous volunteer that managed the refreshments at Ashtead sadly died.(Susan Lalic)

Jumping to the present and in that regard and knowing that the "same figure as Ashtead" offer stands, I was amazed to hear that you had told one of the county captains only recently that "CCF was more expensive than Ashtead".....I am still trying to work that one out and would welcome your comments.

Thank you. I had no idea you offered to match Ashtead's price. I'll tell the treasurer that he can save £40 a match at CCF from now on. You should have told the treasurer that for the last 3 years instead of charging him top rates.

One last thing, just because I won't reply to you again isn't because what you say is true and I don't have an answer, it is just that I don't wish to spend any more time answering your illogical allegations.(Susan Lalic)

[Ben Purton]

Im still pissed off they put the 1st prize up 1k the year after i won it........

heheheh

[Carl Hibbard]

I am afraid to report that my patience is getting a little low on this thread

[Steve Rooney]

Carl, I think you've showed immense patience in letting this dull saga go on so long. Time for the 'off' switch I reckon.

[Scott Freeman]

I'll keep it brief - promise!

1 I have scanned my emails from 2005 and all I can find is requests to Susan for the cost and (indeed) the name of the venue. I never understand why we were not asked for a quote without the meetings taken into consideration....and the refreshments......and the setting up and clearing away...... It took a while to get the name of the venue out of her and all I got in response re cost was a total figure of what the SCCA expected to receive in board fees, which didn't give us the hire figure we needed to come up with a figure that would have worked for everyone. I'm sorry, we did ask for it and never got it as far as I can see.

2 Obviously the county captains that want to play at CCF value the refreshments (with a free cupper each) and the work we do that highly that, even if the cost is higher (which it shouldn't be as Dan and Howard I feel sure have spoken about this), they consider ir worth it. We stated ages ago that we would charge the same as Ashtead and Howard (I assume) had been paying whatever Dan (Rosen) told him was that fee. I will ask Howard to liaise with Dan and find out what is going on.

4 OK - some maybe board with this thread, but in that case, don't read it. To delete it or close it because some people have got "fed up" surely removes the right of free speech which, as long as rules are not broken, should be allowed to continue. Some feel I crossed the line with some of my comments but I had felt that what I had written was the truth and I could prove, so apologies to anyone who felt offended by it.

I did send a message to Carl with regardto replying to seek his advice in the light of his last comment on this thread, but I hadn't heard back so I hope he'll forgive me for going ahead and responding.

[Alex Holowczak]

I see 1, 2, 4... What happened to 3?

[E Michael White]

Dear Scott,

I think it is important to realise that organisers are within their rights to refuse entry to anyone, without giving a reason. There is no 'right of entry', especially to events outside the purview of the ECF.

In certain circumstances I dont believe this is correct. Where organisers are a charity or accept charitable donations towards the running of an event a policy of barring entry for some players may conflict with the distribution to beneficiaries policy stated in the charitable trust deeds. While organisers can still bar entry the trustees may get a big fat retrospective tax bill. Bear in mind I am not a tax lawyer.

I am afraid to report that my patience is getting a little low on this thread

Carl I am just about beginning to understand this thread so I think you should leave it open on the basis that Scott Freeman and Graham Buckley could answer questions put by others without diverting to side issues. So I would like to ask the two questions

1. To Scott. Does the preceding mean that some pupils of one school have been barred from entering the event other than by the route prescribed by the organisers, unlike some Oxford pupils who were free to enter via the non school Cowley club. ?

2. To Graham. Is the county match problem a separate issue from no 1 above.

[Carl Hibbard]

I did send a message to Carl with regard to replying to seek his advice in the light of his last comment on this thread, but I hadn't heard back so I hope he'll forgive me for going ahead and responding.

I sent you a message so please have a look there...

[Richard Thursby]

I see 1, 2, 4... What happened to 3?

He's counting in powers of 2. The next point would have been number 8.

[David Sedgwick]

I am afraid to report that my patience is getting a little low on this thread

Carl I am just about beginning to understand this thread so I think you should leave it open on the basis that Scott Freeman and Graham Buckley could answer questions put by others without diverting to side issues. So I would like to ask the two questions

1. To Scott. Does the preceding mean that some pupils of one school have been barred from entering the event other than by the route prescribed by the organisers, unlike some Oxford pupils who were free to enter via the non school Cowley club. ?

2. To Graham. Is the county match problem a separate issue from no 1 above.

Perhaps I might be permitted to respond.

The difficulty, surely, is that this thread, which raised important current issues, has been hijacked by comments about a dispute of ten years' standing. As I said to Christopher Kreuzer, my opinion is that if you hadn't heard of the dispute previously, you should count yourself extremely fortunate.

However, here is my take on your two questions:

1. In essence, yes that is the position, although to the best of my knowledge only one pupil (ten years ago) has actually suffered as a result. Whether CCF's response has been proportionate is one of the matters at issue.

2. It's a distinct subject; again, the extent to which it is or is not related is a matter of debate. Cost considerations are important, but in my opinion they are not the only consideration.

[E Michael White]

1. In essence, yes that is the position, although to the best of my knowledge only one pupil (ten years ago) has actually suffered as a result.

How do you know that other pupils in the 10 years since then but particularly 8-9 years ago, were not disadvantaged ? They may have opted out of the first stage, not seeing the point of entering to be defaulted later, or found the alternative entry tournament logistically difficult.

The difficulty, surely, is that this thread, which raised important current issues, has been hijacked by comments about a dispute of ten years' standing.

Although surfacing 10 years ago it remains a current issue if pupils are still being disavantaged. Ignoring it seems unwise.

[Carl Hibbard]

The difficulty, surely, is that this thread, which raised important current issues, has been hijacked by comments about a dispute of ten years' standing.

That is my main issue, it's very old news being dug up yet again on a matter where the "other side" of the issue is never going to be told!