Emergency Board Meeting - Draft Minutes

[Roger de Coverly]

If you really want clarity ov vision then you could elect a single leader who would then appoint the equivalent of the functional directors and they could be dismissed by him (like a political President or Prime Minister does).

Didn't Andrew Farthing when CEO look into structures used elsewhere in the voluntary sector? I think he discovered that provided you had a licence to spend other people's money, it was recommended that you ended up with a dual structure. There would be an (elected) policy Board remunerated only by prestige and expenses, coupled with an appointed Board of paid CEO and team to actually run the show on a day to day basis. Oddly enough that seemed to be a structure discussed for Agon, although without a directly elected Board.

Given that a majority of English chess isn't run by the ECF in any material sense, a dual structure would be far too expensive.

[Jonathan Rogers]

That's what I thought, but one might not think so if one were to to read MP's post on this forum. True, there are many who seem to think that his views are the most important of all in English chess (some such people have posted here to that effect) so no doubt someone will invite him.

If Andrew Paulson had alleged that ECF Board members were in the pay of Jonathan Rogers and were seeking to oust him on your instructions, then your response would probably have been regarded as rather important.

That has little or nothing to do with the FIDE / AGON contract.

Hi David

I accept that MP should have a right to be there (and I also know that he is not a Board member!) - put this sort of thing down to me typing late at night ...

But the point I was trying to make, and which still seems important, is that it may not be wise for him to be there. There are two strands to this:

1) The meeting is about whether AP or the rest of the Board should go because they cannot work together. It is not about MP. If the directors who want AP out explain themseves properly, surely no one in Council will believe for a second that they are in fact acting on instructions from MP. Any attempts by AP to say so will be more easily sidestepped if MP is not there to be drawn into any such discussion.

2) I am surprised that you say that this has nothing to do with FIDE or AGON. Malcolm has, I believe, promised to give his side on exactly this issue at the EGM. It is a distraction at best and it could backfire at worst - since Malcolm has still to explain why AP should have wanted to claim before the election that Kirsan was a shareholder in AGON when the documents seem to prove otherwise, and further why he still publicly supported AP at this stage?

No doubt there are several important facts which I and most of the rest of us don't know, but that's how I see it on the facts available now.

[Mike Gunn]

(answering Roger). The Sports and Recreation Alliance have got some detailed advice on the governance of sports organisations (warning: it's a lengthy document), see http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/si ... Online.pdf

[David Sedgwick]

I am surprised that you say that this has nothing to do with FIDE or AGON. Malcolm has, I believe, promised to give his side on exactly this issue at the EGM.

That may well be the case, but, if he has said that, I've missed it.

When I said that "that has little or nothing to do with the FIDE / AGON contract", I was intending to refer solely to the claim that the Directors were acting on Malcolm's instructions - a claim which you seem fully prepared to accept is baseless.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I am surprised that you say that this has nothing to do with FIDE or AGON. Malcolm has, I believe, promised to give his side on exactly this issue at the EGM.

When I said that "that has little or nothing to do with the FIDE / AGON contract", I was intending to refer solely to the claim that the Directors were acting on Malcolm's instructions - a claim which you seem fully prepared to accept is baseless.

Sure. Who does believe that claim?!

But, thinking ahead, it may be the sort of claim which will gain some purchase overseas, where the board members are not so well known; and AP might at some time feel called upon to explain why he is no longer President of the ECF. Should that ever happen, he will presumably present this as an inside stitch-up. Since it seems a safe assumption he will lose the vote at the EGM anyway, some thought should be given to managing proceedings at the EGM in such a way to minimise his opportunities to make any of this sound plausible. Having Malcolm standing up and giving his AGON version, for example, would be one very easy such opportunity.

[NickFaulks]

If MP were interested in my advice, which I expect he isn't, I would suggest that he avoid wading deeper into this toxic mess. I said the same to FIDE some time ago, and they thought I was wrong. Of course, I still could be.

[JustinHorton]

some thought should be given to managing proceedings at the EGM

If that were to happen, isn't the very likely outcome that everybody agrees it's all Paulson's fault and nobody else's, just as CJ's various scandals were dealt with by everybody agreeing it was all CJ's fault and nobody else's and the great CAS disaster was dealt with by everybody agreeing that it was absolutely nobody's fault at all?

Which of course will just serve to set us up for the next disaster....

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, if everything is confined to the internal issues within the Board, perhaps it really will be thought to be all AP's fault? At least that is a possible outcome. I take the general point that "live and not learn" is very much the motto of Council, of course.

[JustinHorton]

To be fair, maybe lessons have been learned. I mean in 2011, when the then President publicly humiliated a couple of ECF officials, he didn't get his head handed to him. Perhaps some progress has been made?

[David Robertson]

Which of course will just serve to set us up for the next disaster....

Interesting.

In what sense would this be a problem for you?

[Richard Bates]

Which of course will just serve to set us up for the next disaster....

Interesting.

In what sense would this be a problem for you?

[JustinHorton]

Which of course will just serve to set us up for the next disaster....

Interesting.

In what sense would this be a problem for you?

Is it a problem for you?

[Malcolm Pein]

If MP were interested in my advice, which I expect he isn't, I would suggest that he avoid wading deeper into this toxic mess. I said the same to FIDE some time ago, and they thought I was wrong. Of course, I still could be.

I am always interested in your advice except on matters relating to GK where you have the most amazing blind spot.

[Malcolm Pein]

That's what I thought, but one might not think so if one were to to read MP's post on this forum. True, there are many who seem to think that his views are the most important of all in English chess (some such people have posted here to that effect) so no doubt someone will invite him.

If Andrew Paulson had alleged that ECF Board members were in the pay of Jonathan Rogers and were seeking to oust him on your instructions, then your response would probably have been regarded as rather important.

That has little or nothing to do with the FIDE / AGON contract.

Hi David

I accept that MP should have a right to be there (and I also know that he is not a Board member!) - put this sort of thing down to me typing late at night ...

But the point I was trying to make, and which still seems important, is that it may not be wise for him to be there. There are two strands to this:

1) The meeting is about whether AP or the rest of the Board should go because they cannot work together. It is not about MP. If the directors who want AP out explain themseves properly, surely no one in Council will believe for a second that they are in fact acting on instructions from MP. Any attempts by AP to say so will be more easily sidestepped if MP is not there to be drawn into any such discussion.

2) I am surprised that you say that this has nothing to do with FIDE or AGON. Malcolm has, I believe, promised to give his side on exactly this issue at the EGM. It is a distraction at best and it could backfire at worst - since Malcolm has still to explain why AP should have wanted to claim before the election that Kirsan was a shareholder in AGON when the documents seem to prove otherwise, and further why he still publicly supported AP at this stage?

No doubt there are several important facts which I and most of the rest of us don't know, but that's how I see it on the facts available now.

I agree with JR . I have made my points re AP loud and clear and will do so again at EGM if required. This is a board matter and I am not on the board and do not wish to be. I had been asked for some input on other operational matters where I think I can be of assistance but will do that in writing. - MP

[John Upham]

It would appear that JHo craves gossip, "disasters", subterfuge, intrigue etc within the ECF, ECU, AGON, FIDE and various newspaper columns.

If these bodies were ever to operate smoothly, efficiently and progress their remit then JH would have much less to occupy blogging and posting time.

This surely must be the incentive for FIDE and the ECF improve!

I note that DR has almost concurred.