ECF elections 2016

NickFaulks · Post by **NickFaulks** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:31 am

Mick Norris wrote:The other document is a bit more outspoken

More outspoken, this I look forward to reading.

It reminds me of Nigel Farage saying yesterday that now he is no longer constrained by party office he will feel free to speak his mind!

Sean Hewitt · Post by **Sean Hewitt** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:16 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:The other document is a bit more outspoken
More outspoken, this I look forward to reading.

Me too. The first was, shall we say, interesting!

Michael Farthing · Post by **Michael Farthing** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:21 pm

It strikes me that Carl should agree to publication.

The only person whose reputation can possibly be damaged (if it hasn't already reached its nadir) is that of the author. And I don't think you can libel yourself.

Michael Flatt · Post by **Michael Flatt** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:02 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:It strikes me that Carl should agree to publication.
The only person whose reputation can possibly be damaged (if it hasn't already reached its nadir) is that of the author. And I don't think you can libel yourself.

Like most, I haven't been privileged to seen it.

Should it be passed to the Governance Committee for them to examine possible allegations that might be levelled at current or past board members?

Andrew Zigmond · Post by **Andrew Zigmond** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:03 pm

It is an interesting read. For a relatively short document there is one hell of a lot to pick over as well.

Mike Truran · Post by **Mike Truran** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:25 pm

Should it be passed to the Governance Committee for them to examine possible allegations that might be levelled at current or past board members?

That has been done, and the Governance Committee chairman and one of the NEDs have discussed its contents in detail with selected ECF directors.

Carl Hibbard · Post by **Carl Hibbard** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:33 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:It is an interesting read. For a relatively short document there is one hell of a lot to pick over as well.

How have so many people seen this second document?

I have already been "advised" against its publication.

Michael Farthing · Post by **Michael Farthing** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:40 pm

Sounds like the ECF equivalent of a super-injunction. I assume that the giver of "advice" is also not to be named?

Jonathan Rogers · Post by **Jonathan Rogers** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:27 pm

pedantic and otherwise unimportant point: if there were a "super-injunction", no one would be allowed even to refer to the existence of the confidential document.

Michael Farthing · Post by **Michael Farthing** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:28 pm

Yeah Jonathan - but lets face it - can you expect the ECF to do it properly

Gary Kenworthy · Post by **Gary Kenworthy** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:13 pm

Although various injunctions have been used in the past, over the years, this one sounds more like jest. Plenty of legal action as well. So, thats chess admin and organisation for you. Kick the people who put the effort in. Mix in money issues and you have a never ending story.

Congresses got the voting suffrage because they were revenue earners to the central body
Years of memberships cards, game fees, membership rates, adjusted bands - etc they always get addressed as unfair.

A word on Glynne Jones, great man, a mate, he had good additional recognised pairing systems that worked well and were fair, especially in complex situations. He came in for much stick. Once I played in an event of his, in rd 1 i was on a bye situation, he stepped in himself. Whilst In round 6 I did get a bye, the other games had finished, I had already played Glynne, and already won the event. My 6/6 was heavily ridiculed in the press, e.g. as 4/6 with two byes and poking fun at Glynne. I wrote to one ignorant editor and pointed that my last round opponent had been killed, (no details going on here) and thus he did not make to the board. Otherwise, it was no byes with Glynne Jones. Some congresses do have lopsided reports, that is not unusual.

Can we now get on with the business in hand please?
rgds GK

Roger de Coverly · Post by **Roger de Coverly** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:35 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote: How have so many people seen this second document?

If you consider seeking nomination as an ECF Director and send material in support of your case to most or all organisations represented at the ECF AGM, there is every reason to suppose that what you write will not be confidential to the recipients.

JustinHorton · Post by **JustinHorton** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:02 pm

Gary Kenworthy wrote: Can we now get on with the business in hand please?
rgds GK

Well, now we've read that extremely important story from years gone by, I guess we're well-informed enough to do just that.

Gary Kenworthy · Post by **Gary Kenworthy** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:16 pm

Justin,
membership fees - unfair
congress reports - unbalanced
organisers - verbally attacked
etc

ancient information - never happens nowadays? Have you made many helpful posts on several threads - perchance?

JustinHorton · Post by **JustinHorton** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:30 pm

Now and then, Gary, but none as helpful as yours.

English Chess Forum

ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016

Re: ECF elections 2016