Jack Rudd's election Q&A thread

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

I thought the rule that the Bronze member rep etc had to be a Bronze member was abolished.

What was abolished was the requirement for the representative to remain a member of the same class throughout the year, which would indeed have led to a bronze representative who upgraded to silver or gold having to stand down at the point of upgrade. It remains necessary for a representative to be a member of the class that he or she is seeking to represent at the time of nomination.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I’d like to ask a question that a seven year old asked me a little while ago. One for which I just didn’t have an answer.

The question: "Why is chess?"

[Jonathan Rogers]

Here's one for all the prospective NEDs - though I am much more confident that Jack will answer it than the others (who will no doubt see it, of course):

suppose you had been a NED this last year and were asked your view on the ECF joining the judicial review brought by EBU. It would be great if we could win it but the most likely outcome is that the ECF will just end up subsidising the costs of the losing EBU. Do you recommend staying away or supporting it only to a limited extent, and if the latter, what do you think would be an acceptable limit?

(The answer can be answered more than one way, which is why I ask it. Interested to see how the candidates think).

[IM Jack Rudd]

I wouldn't support going in with unlimited liability unless victory were certain, which it isn't. The amount I'd be willing to risk would be dependent on how likely I thought victory was and how much we'd stand to gain from it.

[Jonathan Rogers]

suppose 10% chances of success, but, if successful, speculative chances of success for several bids of lottery money, estimate an extra of 25K per year for chess in England on average, but mostly not to ECF projects as such.

presumably you would want also to know what else the money would be spent on? Team captains for the European chs, for example, which I gather are not at the moment in place (again)?

[Roger de Coverly]

suppose 10% chances of success, but, if successful, speculative chances of success for several bids of lottery money, estimate an extra of 25K per year for chess in England on average, but mostly not to ECF projects as such.

Rather than take it out of current income, why not attempt to see if the Permanent Investment Fund would be allowed to pay for it? I wouldn't know what sort of sums participation in a losing case might cost.

[IM Jack Rudd]

So a 90% chance of 0 and a 10% chance of £25,000/year? Hmmm, that's an interesting piece of decision analysis. Would I risk £1000 on it? Probably, but it would be a tough call.

[Jonathan Rogers]

suppose 10% chances of success, but, if successful, speculative chances of success for several bids of lottery money, estimate an extra of 25K per year for chess in England on average, but mostly not to ECF projects as such.

Rather than take it out of current income, why not attempt to see if the Permanent Investment Fund would be allowed to pay for it? I wouldn't know what sort of sums participation in a losing case might cost.

A good question for the AGM, Roger.

Some questions really ought to be asked about this latest likely losing court battle - although this time we have at least been told about it, we have been given virtually no further information. (I can imagine it being justifiable, but given overall financial constraints, we are entitled to be told much more about it).

I somehow expect we are in for more than £1,000, but how would any of us know?

[Michael Farthing]

And more to the point - how can the Board know?

[Neville Belinfante]

Hi Jack

A couple of questions.

In your roles of ECF Officer or Election Candidate, have you ever been advised not to post on this forum?

What proposals would you like to see in Gareth Pearce's Constitutional Review Report which is being presented to Council?

[Matthew Carr]

I just did a google search for the ECF's Policy Framework, but couldn't find anything specific that seemed to refer to. Is it the name of a group of documents?

Hi Jack

Thank you for your answers to my questions. My guess is that if I were looking for the ECF Policy Framework I would be looking at all the documents listed on this page:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ec ... documents/

I wonder if Mr. Philpott could point you/us in the direction of the ECF Policy framework if im wrong?

[Martin Crichton]

Good luck Jack
You will make a good addition to the board.

[JustinHorton]

suppose 10% chances of success, but, if successful, speculative chances of success for several bids of lottery money, estimate an extra of 25K per year for chess in England on average, but mostly not to ECF projects as such.

Rather than take it out of current income, why not attempt to see if the Permanent Investment Fund would be allowed to pay for it? I wouldn't know what sort of sums participation in a losing case might cost.

A good question for the AGM, Roger.

Some questions really ought to be asked about this latest likely losing court battle - although this time we have at least been told about it, we have been given virtually no further information. (I can imagine it being justifiable, but given overall financial constraints, we are entitled to be told much more about it).

I somehow expect we are in for more than £1,000, but how would any of us know?

Well, you could always try writing to Phil Ehr for clarification on financial matters. Let us know how you get on.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I've had it suggested to me that I shouldn't post on this forum. I've treated those suggestions with all the respect they deserve.

I don't know what specifically I would like to see in the Constitutional Review. More generally, I would like to see something substantial that we can have a proper discussion about.

[Roger de Coverly]

More generally, I would like to see something substantial that we can have a proper discussion about.

Description of a practical method of holding AGMs and meetings about Finance in an OMOV context would be helpful. You could at a potentially seriously high price send out voting papers for elections of Directors and perhaps well publicised motions. Would attendances at actual physical meetings be any greater than they are now? If attendees no longer represented organisations, that by itself makes the meeting unrepresentative unless it becomes a fight (as sometimes at present) between proxy barons.

It was the Council motion asking the Board to look at OMOV which set off the whole Constitutional Review palaver.