CCF v Surrey

[Alex Holowczak]

However, in twenty-five years of involvement with events (admittedly not on the same scale as your involvement) I've only known significant amounts of equipment go missing on two occasions.

BUCA had a fairly significant equipment theft at the end of its Championship this year. At least 150 scoresheets went missing. That's £2.50 we'll never see again.

[Paul Dupré]

the SCCA were never responsible for the 2006 Surrey Chess Congress, so leave them alone as well.

OK, obviously I need to clear this one up as Kevin is claiming not to understand. 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.

CCF made no attempt to get their money the honest way, ie. by reporting the incident and getting a crime number. They went behind our backs and made an arrangement with Ben Ogunshola. As were all their 'arrangements' in the first place, we offered CCF 4 free entries into the 2006 Congress for providing us with some chess sets and scoresheets and allowed them to run the Bookshop. They took 6 free entries claiming that the two extra (for the rapidplay) had already entered the main events and tried to scam us out of £600.00 as well.

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?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"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 stated facts - The Congress has continued to be an agenda item at SCCA meetings, (and various people have asked why), so it is clearly not completely independent.

I said CCF should have gone to the police. I said nothing about CCF's innocence or otherwise, and you are foolish to pretend otherwise. There really is no point trying to threaten me as I have no involvement with CCF, other than playing in their events on a very occasional basis.

If you wish to pursue a vendetta with CCF (or anyone else), feel free. Maybe we should adopt a Deli approach - just take a ticket and wait to be called.

[Louise Sinclair]

"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?"

tsk tsk sounds like a thrreat. Chess in Surrey is always a lively affair

[Mike Gunn]

I'm really sorry I mentioned these clocks now!

I think there is no point continuing to discuss this 5 years after the event, but for the sake of the record I will add some facts.

1. I was involved in the running of the 2006 congress (I was arbiter/controller for the Major section). During the congress I am not aware of ever seeing the 21 CCF clocks (although they may have been used in my section, who knows).

2. I was there right until the very end, clearing up, but again I have no recollection as to these particular clocks, black dustbin bags etc.

3. I was told about the absence of the clocks the next day and I went to the venue and searched for black dustbin bags. There were none at all, because (I believe) there had been a rubbush collection that very morning.

4. This Congress was the first one to be run by a company set up for the purpose (Surrey Chess Congress) and although I was one of the organisers, I was not a director of the company. I did however, decide that (as SCCA President)I would try and recover the cost of the clocks using the coompany's insurance. To that end I obtained the insurance claim form and reported the clocks lost to the Surrey Police. (When reporting the loss they asked me if I thought the clocks had been stolen and said that I thought they had probably been accidentally thrown away.)

5. In filling in the insurance form I faced 2 difficulties (i) I was receiving from some friends the advice that this would not be a proper claim because the clocks were not owned by the company and (ii) I needed to produce evidence of the value of the clocks i.e. a receipt. CCF were unable to produce this receipt because the clocks had come from Ben Ogunshula (see above) and he had left the country. I therefore devised a cunning plan whereby I would myself buy 21 chess clocks (thereby obtaining a receipt). Having done this (I still have the receipt) I was then told by some of my legally minded friends that it would be an act of fraud to send in this receipt as part of the insurance claim and I decided not to.

6. CCF received two offers of compensation/ ways of sharing the cost of the lost clocks (they turned down both offers). Surrey Chess Congress offered a sum of money in compensation (I can't remember how much) and I made a personal offer to Howard Curtis to pay half the cost if he would pay the other.

Incidentally this year I became a director of Surrey Chess Congress (the other director is Mike Adams) but this is a legally different company (i.e. different company number) to the one which held the 2006 congress.

[David Shepherd]

Why not open a seperate thread where parties concerned can post every few months/years/decade.....

Its time to move on, there are more important things in life. If you doubt then listen to the news at the moment about another disappearance that happened in Surrey a few years before and all grow up.

[David Shepherd]

PS My post was not aimed at any of the above posts individually if they help to clear the air but really just time to move on.

[Scott Freeman]

Scott, you keep quoting that you (CCF) lent them to us. This is blatantly untrue as I am us, and I knew nothing of this arrangement. The open controllers were Ray Ryan (CCF) and David Sedgwick (CCF). After the event, you tried to claim £600.00 from us knowing we had £3,000.00 sponsorship - you thought we were an easy target and would just give in. However, we asked you for a Police crime number which you did not produce and then a receipt for the new clocks, again NO RECEIPT. What do you think we are just mugs ripe for picking.

Please note: I am no longer involved in the organisation of the Surrey Chess Congress, and nor is anyone else from the original SCCA committee, so you are just banging on for no reason. The 21 clocks are gone - just get over it. Also, the SCCA were never responsible for the 2006 Surrey Chess Congress, so leave them alone as well.

1 It is true that CCF lent the clocks. CCFMindgames were offered the book stall and we provided some of the equipment. Part of the equipment we lent was digital clocks. We were later asked (I believe) to lend some extra sets for the analysis area, which we happily did.
2 As Kevin Thurlow has pointed out as someone on the board, they discussed the matter at length.
3 Ray Ryan and David Sedgwick were fully aware of the presence of the lent clocks; whether they used them doesn't matter and is irrelevent.
4 It was hoped that the matter could be dealt with internally, but when that became unlikely as a result of the rude response from the Congress Copany Directors, I recall Howard saying that the SCCA should be calling the police and not us. I would have called them myself, but that is a minor point.
5 Yes, they are gone. Ben paid for them and I am grateful. What annoys me is that no-one at the SCCA will come out and thank him. And it is a fact (I checked this with more than one person in the legal profession) that the SCCA and/or the Congress Company were liable.

Finally, Paul seems to think we have former employees unhappy. Former members, etc. Paul, bring it on! I have always said that I am prepared to challenge any reasonable question head on in a public arena if anyone so chooses. I am guessing who you are referring to and if you are going to defend them, you may end up biting off a little more than you can chew!

[IM Jack Rudd]

I've moved all the posts relating to the CCF/Surrey/21 clocks incident into this thread.

[William Metcalfe]

Back to the real topic on this thread Darlington chess club play in a CIU club there insurance covers all our equipment if any of the MCF clubs play in a similar venue that might be the best place to store the clocks.
The free insurance saves us a lot of money a year so in return we make a contribution to the xmas party they put on every year for disabled children and children from very deprived circumstances

[Scott Freeman]

Following on from my post from last night (which I did in the pitch black at the local scout centre between clearing and burning overgrown undergrowth and wood - not that this would worry anyone!), I am going to state now that I do NOT (edit!!! ) believe that anyone who used to work with CCF can have any legitimate negative issues with us. I am also not aware of any ex-members (apart from the one family I referred to - wothout naming) in my previous post who will try and claim the same.

Seeing as Jack beat me to it by moving this section of the thread across, I am going to use it to invite anyone who wishes to ask me questions about CCF (we don't have to mention names if preferred) and I will give direct answers. I am aware that there are a lot of lies flying around (as proved by the comments of Paul Dupre who has clearly genuinely believed them) and would welcome the opportunity to tackle them all head on.

An accusation of duping people is quite a serious accusation - especially on-line. I want that accusation to remain on-line (so relax Carl & Jack - no issue with the web site!) because I know it is not true, but as such, I now expect Paul (and others) to come forward with evidence for me to tackle in public view.

I will finish this post by saying that I know some people are saying "it's all in the past." The fact is that it isn't, because the issues have never been dealt with and consequently, CCF has suffered with people avoiding us or believing these lies. It's time to put them to bed.

[Alex Holowczak]

Seeing as Jack beat me to it by moving this section of the thread across, I am going to use it to invite anyone who wishes to ask me questions about CCF (we don't have to mention names if preferred) and I will give direct answers.

OK, how about: Is the following what you meant to write?

I am going to state now that I do believe that anyone who used to work with CCF can have any legitimate negative issues with us.

[Scott Freeman]

Seeing as Jack beat me to it by moving this section of the thread across, I am going to use it to invite anyone who wishes to ask me questions about CCF (we don't have to mention names if preferred) and I will give direct answers.

OK, how about: Is the following what you meant to write?

I am going to state now that I do believe that anyone who used to work with CCF can have any legitimate negative issues with us.

Probably not!!! - will go back an correct it.

[Scott Freeman]

Paul Dupre wrote:

CCF made no attempt to get their money the honest way, ie. by reporting the incident and getting a crime number. They went behind our backs and made an arrangement with Ben Ogunshola. As were all their 'arrangements' in the first place, we offered CCF 4 free entries into the 2006 Congress for providing us with some chess sets and scoresheets and allowed them to run the Bookshop. They took 6 free entries claiming that the two extra (for the rapidplay) had already entered the main events and tried to scam us out of £600.00 as well.


1 Paul has accused us of being dishonest. Aside of stating catagorically he is incorrect, I would ask him what right he has to suggest this? It is just his (convenient) opinion because he doesn't want to face the facts. At the time, Howard decided that it was the Congress Organisers' job to call the police if they thought it appropriate. Legally he is probably correct although I wish we had anyway. Because the organisers did not want to accept responsibility, they of course will argue that CCF should have done it because (as they see it) we were responsible.

2 No agreement was made behind anyone's backs. Ben came forward with the offer very soon after the issue arose - and told us that he was not looking to be refunded but did want the Congress Organisers to at least work out who should have been liable - and he was insulted for his efforts. Everyone should bear in mind here that Ben had been appointed by the rest of the Congress committee to be the "go between" between the committee and CCF - and it had worked well. As such, when Ben asked for us to lend the digitals for the event, we did so. When Ben offered to sort the clocks out, we accepted. There was nothing underhand here - we worked through the channels that were set up by the SCCA (ie. Ben). As such, Paul Dupre clearly owes an apology here for his comments as there was nothing underhand done. Even if Paul doesn't apologise, it would be nice if someone on the SCCA board/committee comes forward to confirm that fact.

3 We were offered 4 free entries (I think it was) in return for board, sets, clocks, move sheets. Before Paul tries again to claim that we didn't lend equipment, he might like to ask Susan Lalic, who actually correctly handed over boards and sets and counted them out with (I think) Howard. A strange thing for her to do if we hadn't lent equipment to them; perhaps Paul was the only member of the committee who didn't know about it?

4 We didn't ask for the free entries, but Ben informed us in the build up to the congress of the offer by the committee as a gesture of thanks for the extra levels of help we were giving them beyond what they were expecting. I don't recall there being any free entries for the rapid play but will have to ask Howard about that. I recall Howard was being "accused" of using a free entry when facts were being twisted by the Congress Directors immediately after the event, but Howard had actually paid for his (including a late fee as I recall). I actually think this accusation is complete nonsense but I will speak to Howard when I see him.

5 I love the idea that we tried to scam them out of £600. All we did was to ask for them to replace the clocks that they lost. The law clearly states that the person borrowing them is responsible for the item(s) until such time as they are returned to the owner's satisfaction.

It is amazing to me that the committee seemed to be so happy with our help, support, advertising and accommodation of them in re-starting the congress that they made the extra offer of the free places for CCF people, yet this is suddenly used against us when our property (through no fault of our own) disappeared.

[Mike Truran]

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?