CCF v Surrey

[LozCooper]

I don't really see why this particular batch of dirty washing continues to be washed in public, however entertaining it may be to the uninvolved. None of the parties to the dispute are never going to agree, and the argument will just get more and more acrimonious until you all run out of steam or Carl intervenes. Surely it would be better to curtail it or, if not that, to pursue your various grievances via PMs?

One other alternative: http://londonchessboxing.com/

[Scott Freeman]

For the record, I would love to be able to deal with it privately - but properly! Too often things have been swept under the carpet when we have sort to deal with things privately - and the public area becomes the only place. Sadly, people are not interested because it doesn't affect them. There is no structure in chess for "issues" to be properly dealt with and the net result of our situation is that so many lies and pieces of mis-information have been put out, that people have believed it - and we as organisation have been shown in a bad light as a result. Paul Dupre's postings are proof of that as he clearly doesn't have all the facts and that was shown by how little he knew of the deal between the SCCA Congress Committee and CCF.

My question to those who want the situation to go away is how can we ever resolve them unless people are prepared to come and check the true facts. As such, the door is open on this thread. It is ideal in that those not interested don't have to read it as part of another. Those that want to ask a question are welcome to. I want everything out in the open because I know it will vindicate us. I am not offended by any question, no matter how delicate, so long as it is asked with genuine intent to hear the facts of any situation.

[Paul Dupré]

I recall Howard saying that the SCCA should be calling the police and not us.

This is the reason why people can't be bothered with you, I explained why in a previous post that the SCCA were NOT, and I repeat NOT responsible for the 2006 Congress. So, stop getting them involved.

You just don't listen to what you're being told is fact, and keep coming up with fiction. If your opinion is the only one that counts then great, all hail the magnificent CCF - because obviously you never make a mistake.

Jack, by the way if you are going to rename this thread, it needs to say CCF (the Howard Curtis Cash Fund) vs the rest of Surrey chess players and organisers. Because it's not just the SCCA, it's almost everyone that does good work running events and teams (mostly for free), who is now pissed of with them, and their attempts to take over the running of all Surrey Chess. They even had the cheek to call themselves Surrey Junior Chess at one point. And, the http://www.englishchesschallenge.co.uk/ an inferior carbon copy of the successful http://www.ukchesschallenge.com/.

[John Upham]

And, the http://www.englishchesschallenge.co.uk/

There appears to a problem with http://www.englishchesschallenge.co.uk/ ... rchive.htm

[Paul Dupré]

Paul Dupre's postings are proof of that as he clearly doesn't have all the facts and that was shown by how little he knew of the deal between the SCCA Congress Committee and CCF.

I don't care about the deal - as I don't have any connections with CCF or SCCA. Oh and by the way there is no SCCA Congress Committee. So stop lying.

I just care about the truth - and that is something that you are brushing under the carpet.

[Scott Freeman]

I recall Howard saying that the SCCA should be calling the police and not us.

This is the reason why people can't be bothered with you, I explained why in a previous post that the SCCA were NOT, and I repeat NOT responsible for the 2006 Congress. So, stop getting them involved.

You just don't listen to what you're being told is fact, and keep coming up with fiction. If your opinion is the only one that counts then great, all hail the magnificent CCF - because obviously you never make a mistake.

Jack, by the way if you are going to rename this thread, it needs to say CCF (the Howard Curtis Cash Fund) vs the rest of Surrey chess players and organisers. Because it's not just the SCCA, it's almost everyone that does good work running events and teams (mostly for free), who is now pissed of with them, and their attempts to take over the running of all Surrey Chess. They even had the cheek to call themselves Surrey Junior Chess at one point. And, the http://www.englishchesschallenge.co.uk/ an inferior carbon copy of the successful http://www.ukchesschallenge.com/.

Paul also wrote:
I don't care about the deal - as I don't have any connections with CCF or SCCA. Oh and by the way there is no SCCA Congress Committee. So stop lying.

I just care about the truth - and that is something that you are brushing under the carpet.


Let's start with the last point first shall we.

Paul accuses me of lying. There may or may not be a congress committee now but there certainly was at the time. SCCA records will show that. It was from the congress committee that the Congress Company was formed. On Wednesday 11 May at 1-19pm, Paul (in a posting to clarify something to Kevin Thurlow) can see seen quoted as saying, "The 2006 congress (unlike all the events since), was originally a SCCA committee." It was Ben Ogunshola, on behalf of that committee, who approached us. I don't think it's me that's lying.

I am quite happy to hear other opinions; I just find that none of the ones that spray hate and accusations at us actually have any substance or fact behind them. If you actually re-read your latest post, it is purely your opinion, which I am clearly not going to change. However I can easily tackle the issues you raise that lead to that hate.

"Curtis Cash Fund?" Very amusing! Perhaps you are not aware that Howard earns nothing out of the chess activities we do. In fact, he has pumped thousands into the chess activities to get them off the ground. All of the money that comes in (that incorrectly makes it sound a lot) is used to pay those of us who are on the PAYE system and working on the chess, cover the cost of the computers that we use, etc. I am challenging you Paul to come down and speak to Howard and myself about this, with a witness if you like, and I am sure Howard could show you the books! The trouble is that I suspect you will just dismiss that as a lie on my part rather than accepting the invitation or considering making the apology you now owe.

You think we want to take over Surrey Chess? Never wanted to and certainly have no interest at all in being involved at the moment. You clearly have the impression that we do and again, you are not going to accept what I am telling you is the truth. We genuinely wanted to help the SCCA and still believe we have the structure and organisation to do so. Initially we came into conflict with people who attacked us for championing the cause of quick play finishes. Then the Basman issue came up and suddenly, because we had dared to threaten the his standing, loads of people in the SCCA suddenly started attacking us on issues not related, such as the Surrey Congress that we ran in 2000. We just withdrew from that - hardly the actions of someone wanting to take over.

Surrey Junior Chess is a web site we have. We are active with junior chess in Surrey and there is nothing legally wrong with using that name if we can so justify it. Richard Davey later set up a limited company in the same name and tried to bully us to drop the name, but we held our ground, knowing that he had no case. No regional name can be claimed autonomously by anyone in law. There is a perception that you can. But why it became as issue for the SCCA I don't know as they were not involved with junior chess and legally had far less right to claim use of such a name than anyone else.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to your opinion that you would rather we did not use it, but that is all it is - an opinion which you have no right to force on us, but are more than welcome to have if you so choose.

The English Chess Challenge was set up in 2001 after 3 of our juniors were excluded by Mike Basman the previous year, purely for being members of Croydon High School. They were members of our junior club, which had nothing to do with the dispute. I had agreed with Mike that we would not allow members of Croydon High to join the club with the intention of bypassing a ban that he had placed (questionably as we found out as we started to look into the matter), whilst apparently wanting to reolve the issues. What I did not agree to (and this was the mis-understanding) was that I would not ever have agreed to exclude members of our junior club from their own club tournament. It turns out that this was what he was expecting me to do.

We had 3 choices. 1. Enter and exclude them - no chance under Child Protection Rules/Morality. 2. Not enter at all - but then everyone missed out. 3. Run our own event. We did - and get this sort of criticism from people who still cannot tell me what other action we should have taken which would have been acceptable. So I now challenge you Paul to tell me exactly what we should have done?

It is true that our event is smaller. Yes, it maybe similar in design to the UK Chess Challenge. But by the same token, does that mean that the first ever Swiss system weekend tournament that ran has the right to prevent anyone else doing the same? I don't think so. When people accuse us of making money out of chess, I just laugh! We don't. However, I can only wonder how much money is generated by the UK Chess Challenge - and where it all goes.

Everything I have said is the truth - I will sweep nothing under the carpet. You are welcome to give specific examples of where you claim I have done so. I also still await information on these ex-CCF staff members and club members who have issues with us.

[Paul Dupré]

Paul accuses me of lying. There may or may not be a congress committee now but there certainly was at the time. SCCA records will show that. It was from the congress committee that the Congress Company was formed. On Wednesday 11 May at 1-19pm, Paul (in a posting to clarify something to Kevin Thurlow) can see seen quoted as saying, "The 2006 congress (unlike all the events since), was originally a SCCA committee." It was Ben Ogunshola, on behalf of that committee, who approached us. I don't think it's me that's lying.

That's exactly what I said and I quote the whole paragraph:

The 2006 congress (unlike all the events since), was originally a SCCA committee. However, after we received sponsorship we had to become a limited by guarantee company. So, in the event of the SCCA getting sued (an ongoing theme at the time), the party involved could not get their hands on the £3,000.00 sponsorship. Therefore, the SCCA are no longer directly linked to the Congress.

Please read all that I say before you quote me OR quote the whole thing instead of small clips - out of context.

I was part of that committee, and have been actively involved in the organisation until last year - don't tell me I don't know the facts...Ben approached you because none of us could possibly, could we?

For the record, I would love to be able to deal with it privately - but properly! Too often things have been swept under the carpet when we have sort to deal with things privately - and the public area becomes the only place. Sadly, people are not interested because it doesn't affect them. There is no structure in chess for "issues" to be properly dealt with and the net result of our situation is that so many lies and pieces of mis-information have been put out, that people have believed it - and we as organisation have been shown in a bad light as a result. Paul Dupre's postings are proof of that as he clearly doesn't have all the facts and that was shown by how little he knew of the deal between the SCCA Congress Committee and CCF.

There may have been a deal between the SCCA and CCF. But, not the SCCA Congress Committee.

Please tell me the date of this deal so that I can check.

[Ben Purton]

Scott is just an ordinary guy who runs the CCF,
Mike is just an ordinary guy whos runs some Surrey Chess.

But there lives are about to be turned upside down in

You,Me and Dupre.

In Box Offices Friday

[Scott Freeman]

Paul accuses me of lying. There may or may not be a congress committee now but there certainly was at the time. SCCA records will show that. It was from the congress committee that the Congress Company was formed. On Wednesday 11 May at 1-19pm, Paul (in a posting to clarify something to Kevin Thurlow) can see seen quoted as saying, "The 2006 congress (unlike all the events since), was originally a SCCA committee." It was Ben Ogunshola, on behalf of that committee, who approached us. I don't think it's me that's lying.

That's exactly what I said and I quote the whole paragraph:

The 2006 congress (unlike all the events since), was originally a SCCA committee. However, after we received sponsorship we had to become a limited by guarantee company. So, in the event of the SCCA getting sued (an ongoing theme at the time), the party involved could not get their hands on the £3,000.00 sponsorship. Therefore, the SCCA are no longer directly linked to the Congress.

Please read all that I say before you quote me OR quote the whole thing instead of small clips - out of context.

I was part of that committee, and have been actively involved in the organisation until last year - don't tell me I don't know the facts...Ben approached you because none of us could possibly, could we?

For the record, I would love to be able to deal with it privately - but properly! Too often things have been swept under the carpet when we have sort to deal with things privately - and the public area becomes the only place. Sadly, people are not interested because it doesn't affect them. There is no structure in chess for "issues" to be properly dealt with and the net result of our situation is that so many lies and pieces of mis-information have been put out, that people have believed it - and we as organisation have been shown in a bad light as a result. Paul Dupre's postings are proof of that as he clearly doesn't have all the facts and that was shown by how little he knew of the deal between the SCCA Congress Committee and CCF.

There may have been a deal between the SCCA and CCF. But, not the SCCA Congress Committee.

Please tell me the date of this deal so that I can check.

The issue I had with the last post was that I had been accused of "lying." A lie is when somebody states something that they KNOW not to be true. If, as I think you are suggesting, the congress committee was dissolved at the 2006 AGM, then that would have been about 2 months before the congress in question - if so, it was well after preparation work had started. In any case, I don't think that it is a relevant point other than clarifying who would have been legally responsible for the cost of the clocks.

As I say, I am still not clear what I supposed to have "lied" about. The rest of the paragraph you quote is fine and I have no problem with it; a sensible decision to set up the limited company based on your concerns as quoted, albeit that we were concerned that the people chosen as Directors should really have been elected by the SCCA meeting if the congress was to be run for the benefit of the SCCA. I have checked back and found the 2005 SCCA Yearbook and found the committee names listing Richard Davey, Paul Dupre, Mike Gunn, Richard Jones, Susan Lalic, Ben Ogunshola. Needless to say I can't find the 2006 yearbook but I did find 2007 where there was no committee. I have also found the Easter 2007 Surrey Congress leaflet, which was the first one back at Easter - and the first in Cheam. So the previous event, where the clocks found their way into the Bermuda Triangle ( ) was in the event held in August 2006 at Guildford University.

I think what you are telling me is that the Congress Committee was dissolved at the 2006 AGM? Maybe it was (I don't know - or don't remember if I did), but I don't really see that it is any issue in the spirit of what we were trying to do to be helpful. We were responding to the principle of the SCCA wanting to re-start their congress - and as far as we were aware everything had gone beautifully. The attitude between all parties (despite past issues) was wonderful up until the end of the event. A court of law would see that Ben was acting on behalf of the SCCA Congress (whatever that may mean) and would consider the fact that all the items he requested were used by the congress (aside of most (if not all) of the clocks) and therefore conclude in our favour. You may disagree, but I think most people reading this will see the point I am trying to put over here. The fact that the staff of the congress took the items from us "as items to be borrowed for the Congress Company's event" means that the Congress Company was liable and not the SCCA.

By the way, not that it will be likely to worry you, I forgot to mention that although I was aware that the congress had sponsorship, the first I knew of how much was in your recent postings, and it was irrelevant to any decision to claim for the clocks. I mention that to set the record straight on what you felt was our intention - I think you said that we thought you had money and so would roll over, etc? It was unrelated. It does, however (to be honest) annoy me a little that the congress then returned to clash with us at Easter (not that there was any legal problem with that in of itself), effectively using some of the money that should have been used to replace the clocks to support it.

The planning for this event began in the Autumn of 2005 when the congress committee was in post. Ben Ogunshola phoned me up (on behalf of the congress committee - which was in place at the time) and over the next few weeks and months, I helped find them a date, Howard offered the backing of CCF to advertise the event (we put out leaflets and sent emails), agreement was reached that we would provide equipment and that CCFMindGames would do the bookstall (the intention was to keep things within Surrey). If that is the date of agreement you are asking about, I have no idea what it was other than sometime in the Autumn of 2005. I think most people will see that we were actually extremely accommodating and were acting in good faith that we were (as we still believe) dealing directly with the representative of the Congress (Committee or Company - it doesn't matter). If you are referring to the date of any agreement with Ben Ogunshola re the clocks, Ben made us the offer within days of the incident. He could see that we had been left in a very difficult situation (having a congress oursevles the next week) and could see that there was, at least, a moral obligation on the SCCA/Company (whichever you choose to say) to help us out - or we wouldn't have had clocks for our event. South Norwood Chess Club very kindly lent us theirs to bridge us over.

For the record, any of you on the committee could have approached Howard and he would have given you the same response as was given to Ben. To say otherwise, you are pre-judging him (and CCF) incorrectly on the basis of your misapprehension of our motivation and intentions. I feel that if you could try and realise that we are not what you think we are, it might help you appreciate that there is another alternative view which I hope you will take on board. Also for the record, until 2 days ago, I was not aware that you had any negative issues with us at all (I think I do now!) - I recall bumping into you in Tescos about 4-5 years ago and everything was really friendly and warm.....so I thought!). So on that basis, if you feel that we would have turned our noses up to the others on the committee, as much as I can tell you that you are wrong, I can point out that from your point of view, even if you had been right, you as much as Ben could have contacted us.

And finally, nobody ever reports that, despite the issues over the clocks, Howard spoke to Mike Gunn in (I think it was) November 2006 to offer to work with the SCCA to return the congress to Easter without a clash with CCF. I don't blame Mike Gunn for the offer being declined, but the first we knew it had was when somebody turned up here (or was it that they phoned us? - can't remember) in January with a leaflet about the event - with no CCF involvement, and the book stall offered elsewhere. That was somewhat harsh after we had done so much to help resurrect the event. Howard had been prepared to drop our Easter event to work with the SCCA, even after everything. The decision to ignore us left us to run our own event and we have the clash to this day.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have been on the road all week and having just come back what a lot to wade through....

I need to ask why this particular topic is being discussed yet again when I felt we had flogged it to death already?

It's a long time ago - nobody is going to agree so should we just all move on?

Or as somebody else suggested take your argument into private PM's if you need to please people

[IM Jack Rudd]

I need to ask why this particular topic is being discussed yet again when I felt we had flogged it to death already?

It's a long time ago - nobody is going to agree so should we just all move on?

I think part of the problem is that, for whatever reason, "just all move on" isn't something the parties in the dispute can do. They can put the issues to one side for a while, but then whenever a dispute arises between them, all the previous disputes come tumbling back out and the situation gets worse than ever.

[Carl Hibbard]

I can of course close the thread Jack but I try my best not to do that...

[Scott Freeman]

As long as legal lines are not crossed and as long as debate is rational and objective, surely if all parties are happy discussing this way, it is the perfect arena. What Jack says is correct; the subject is never going to go away by just trying to sweep it under the carpet each time. If we just shut something down because some people find it unpleasant, we are killing a possible oportunity for the subject to be at least partly resolved. The matter is now under a specific topic heading which means that those not interested don't have to touch it if they don't want to, although of course some people may see the thread as like putting a fruit pastel in your month in that you can't help chewing!

[IM Jack Rudd]

I can of course close the thread Jack but I try my best not to do that...

I don't think it should be closed, anyway. I think these issues have arguably reached the point where the people involved can't resolve them on their own, and opening up the discussion to the world might just be the only thing that ever gets anything done about them.

[Carl Hibbard]

Please don't try to make out that CCF are innocent Kevin, otherwise I will have to list all the grievances I have uncovered from former CCF employees, former CCF members and other people who have been duped by them, and that would just get nasty. I'm sure you don't want that?

I don't want that and clearly this would be going too far on this forum to suggest that level of detail on a subject so old, please try to refrain from this one