Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21314
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:44 pm
Andrew Zigmond wrote:Do we have the NED result?
and the actual count in the CEO election.
But what happens next? It's a Board with two empty chairs, so either they have to make temporary appointments amongst themselves, abolish the position or recruit. I don't think you can abolish the CEO position unless you have an Executive President instead and maybe not even then, but Commercial Director could be downgraded to Commercial Manager if you wanted to do things slightly differently. At least, I suppose, they are prepared to talk to one another with the possible exceptions of the International Director and FIDE Delegate.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:45 pm
Martin Regan wrote:And he has nobody to blame but himself
Justin - That may indeed be true - but the cost will be carried by the Federation.
I agree that it's an undesirable situation and one that could and should have been avoided. But this would have involved people listening who have not shown any inclination to listen.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Roger Lancaster
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Post
by Roger Lancaster » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:48 pm
The AGM options were a bad outcome or a worse outcome.
-
JustinHorton
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Post
by JustinHorton » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:49 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:But what happens next? It's a Board with two empty chairs, so either they have to make temporary appointments amongst themselves, abolish the position or recruit.
Surely they're going to need a filler.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
Jonathan Rogers
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm
Post
by Jonathan Rogers » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:50 pm
The new look Board could do worse than to announce the closing down of the official forum as a starting cost cutting measure. Its main advocates seem all to have gone.
-
Andrew Zigmond
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Post
by Andrew Zigmond » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:51 pm
There will be differing views on today's events. I'm reasonably satisfied with them but at the same time those of us who pushed for this outcome we now need to make sure we justify our actions in the twelve months ahead.
I'll risk nailing my colours to the mast. Under OMOV I would have voted against Bob Kane although I have to remember I don't know the man personally. I'm not sure I could have brought myself to vote against Phil Ehr, even if I didn't agree with his approach. I do think he deserves some appreciation for the work he's put into English chess and what seemed to be a successful stint as Junior Director should be remembered.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21314
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:59 pm
Jonathan Rogers wrote:The new look Board could do worse than to announce the closing down of the official forum as a starting cost cutting measure.
I cannot help feeling the new Publicity Manager has been dealt a poor hand. Not only did his attempt to raise the profile of the English Women's Championship fall foul of its cancellation, he also has no-one to report to on the ECF Board and presumably now has the job of putting a gloss on the dismissal of the CEO and Commercial Director.
-
Roger Lancaster
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Post
by Roger Lancaster » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:00 pm
I don't think anyone has any interest in putting the boot in. I'm very prepared to believe that Phil Ehr and Bob Kane had good intentions and, on a purely personal level, I am sad for them. Whether their ideas were right or not is debatable. What I think is less debatable is that, in seeking to implement those ideas and perhaps also by other actions, they antagonised too many people.
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21314
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:05 pm
Mick Norris wrote:I think a special meeting to discuss the Pearce Report would be useful
Presumably the discussion at the AGM was brief. Someone reported that it had been welcomed so it must have got somewhere.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:06 pm
Roger de Coverly wrote:
and the actual count in the CEO election.
I think 119 for and 172 against.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:08 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:I don't think anyone has any interest in putting the boot in. I'm very prepared to believe that Phil Ehr and Bob Kane had good intentions and, on a purely personal level, I am sad for them.
I agree.
-
Matthew Carr
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:19 pm
Post
by Matthew Carr » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:12 pm
Any word on the other positions on the board yet?
Finance, Membership, Junior, president?
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21314
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:15 pm
Matthew Carr wrote:Any word on the other positions on the board yet?
Finance, Membership, Junior, president?
Presumably they all went through with little or no dissent.
-
Angus French
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Post
by Angus French » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:16 pm
Matthew Carr wrote:Any word on the other positions on the board yet?
Finance, Membership, Junior, president?
Previous Directors voted back in, in each case with large numbers of votes for and few if any against.
-
Brendan O'Gorman
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm
Post
by Brendan O'Gorman » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:22 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:I don't think anyone has any interest in putting the boot in. I'm very prepared to believe that Phil Ehr and Bob Kane had good intentions and, on a purely personal level, I am sad for them. Whether their ideas were right or not is debatable. What I think is less debatable is that, in seeking to implement those ideas and perhaps also by other actions, they antagonised too many people.
Well said. John Foley too. From my slight acquaintance with the participants in this tragedy, I think they are all good people trying to do their best for English chess. Such a shame that they couldn't get on.