English Chess Forum

A home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 2:16 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 38  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:51 pm
Posts: 11702
Angus French wrote:
Where does it say - or imply - that Andrew Paulson "gets to exercise the ECF's vote in favour of Kirsan"?


The motion that Council are to be asked to support seems to imply that AP gets to exercise the ECF's vote. As he is a known business associate of Kirsan and Kasparov hater as well, he might be expected to vote for Kirsan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 879
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Angus French wrote:
Where does it say - or imply - that Andrew Paulson "gets to exercise the ECF's vote in favour of Kirsan"?


The motion that Council are to be asked to support seems to imply that AP gets to exercise the ECF's vote. As he is a known business associate of Kirsan and Kasparov hater as well, he might be expected to vote for Kirsan.

It doesn't! AP only gets to vote in the ECU election (and then only if ECF Council approve the motion which the Board is recommending).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:27 pm
Posts: 117
Well the board has lost a president and, presumably, runs the risk of losing its famous fide delegate, and all without the vast majority of its paying members knowing a thing. We get what we deserve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:20 pm
Posts: 408
Location: Horsham, Sussex
Angus French wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Angus French wrote:
Where does it say - or imply - that Andrew Paulson "gets to exercise the ECF's vote in favour of Kirsan"?


The motion that Council are to be asked to support seems to imply that AP gets to exercise the ECF's vote. As he is a known business associate of Kirsan and Kasparov hater as well, he might be expected to vote for Kirsan.

It doesn't! AP only gets to vote in the ECU election (and then only if ECF Council approve the motion which the Board is recommending).


The point being that there is an ECU meeting at Tromso, to which this refers, as well as a completely separate FIDE meeting, for which Nigel will presumably still be the delegate.

The logic that says that a person is unfit to be ECF President after only 3 months in the role, yet is deserving of support as ECU vice-presidential candidate rather escapes me. The unedifying scent of a cynical back-room deal is rather strong, isn't it?

Still presumably that's felt to be simpler than troubling the membership with difficult decisions; much better if everything is agreed up-front and waved through with as little debate and as possible. Wouldn't want any awkward scenes now, would we old boy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:51 pm
Posts: 11702
PeterFarr wrote:
Still presumably that's felt to be simpler than troubling the membership with difficult decisions; much better if everything is agreed up-front and waved through with as little debate and as possible. Wouldn't want any awkward scenes now, would we old boy?


With only a limited number of actual voters, have there been soundings? I could guess on no support for the notion that the directors supposedly reporting to Malcolm should be removed and no volunteers to replace them. How much support there would be for the President in a wider confidence election will not now be tested. The pay-off seems to be support for the Zurab campaign and permission for AP to participate in the meeting about his potential election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:20 pm
Posts: 408
Location: Horsham, Sussex
Why does there need to be a pay-off? AP is either fit for the job, or he isn't. If he isn't, he gets voted off by Council. No deal required.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:14 am
Posts: 194
Guys, this was a compromise by the Board (at my expense) to get rid of Andrew Paulson as President immediately. He has now gone - and good riddance too. On the downside, he now has 7 votes in his favour, out of c.300 at the Council meeting. Hopefully the ECF members will have the good sense not to support him in the ECU. Doing so would be a vote for the entirely unsuitable Candidate, Zurab Azmaiparashvili. It would also very seriously compromise my position as Delegate in favour of a guy who has, in the space of a few short months, lost the confidence of the Board and precipitated his own downfall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:24 pm
Posts: 1028
PeterFarr wrote:
Why does there need to be a pay-off? AP is either fit for the job, or he isn't. If he isn't, he gets voted off by Council. No deal required.

Correct. Only the Board in its locked-in isolation thinks otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:51 pm
Posts: 11702
David Robertson wrote:
Correct. Only the Board in its locked-in isolation thinks otherwise.


I think it is reasonable to suppose that a motion to remove the supposedly card carrying Pein employees on the Board would have had no chance of success with the voting members. Equally an attempt to remove AP had reasonable prospects of success.

It's double edged though, the stitch up of Nigel has reasonable prospects of going through, given the number of proxies held directly by Board members and their close associates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 2067
Whatever the general perception of Danialov (arising i think mostly from his association with the Kramnik/Topalov match), from a position of limited knowledge I get the impression that the ECU under Danialov has been quite a serious thorne in Kirsan/FIDE's side over the last few years. Considering the assumptions that many make about Kasparov's chances in the FIDE election (not least as a result of the serious efforts Russia will make to prevent his election for reasons of external politics), there is a strong argument that the ECU election is therefore far more important to the ECF (given it's anti Kirsan stance) than the FIDE one. Not to mention that i assume the ECU should be an organisation in which we should realistically aspire and want to have influence in, given that its membership is dominated by major chessplaying nations. The Board on the other hand seems to have taken the view that the election is of little consequence. In fact the suggestion that we should be foisting an unsuitable candidate upon it as a consolation prize to solve an internal problem makes it look like even more of a laughing stock.

It is interesting that Nigel states that Paulson will only have 7 automatic votes at the Council Meeting. Is it therefore the case that other votes known to be at Directors' direct discretion (ie. excluding the proxy votes) are still up for grabs or even in the opposition camp? (not knowing the voting on this 'compromise' it is of course possible that certain Directors are opposed anyway).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 6:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am
Posts: 779
John Philpott wrote:
The following Board statement appeared on the ECF website half an hour ago:
Quote:
The English Chess Federation Board resolved nem con on 7 March 2014 to amicably settle an internal matter.

The Board has today accepted the resignation of Andrew Paulson as President. The Board gratefully recognises Andrew Paulson’s contributions to English chess, from his organising of the FIDE Grand Prix and Candidates Tournaments in London to his untiring service since his election as President. Further, the Board nominates Andrew Paulson for the position of Deputy President of the European Chess Union and looks forward to a close and constructive collaboration between the ECU and the ECF. The Board recommends that the ECF Council at its April meeting approves a Motion to give Andrew Paulson standing during the ECU General Assembly election meeting in Tromsø in August by designating him as the official ECF Delegate at that meeting.


On both the Susan Polgar and Chessdom sites today the above press release features together with a further statement from AP:

Andrew Paulson stated: “Yesterday’s Board Meeting was an opportunity to address differences through compromise. We are all happy and parted friends and look forward to working together going forward.”

Looking forward to seeing the minutes of this meeting to see just how happy and friendly the other Board members were to AP...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 2320
Richard Bates wrote:
Whatever the general perception of Danialov (arising i think mostly from his association with the Kramnik/Topalov match), from a position of limited knowledge I get the impression that the ECU under Danialov has been quite a serious thorne in Kirsan/FIDE's side over the last few years. Considering the assumptions that many make about Kasparov's chances in the FIDE election (not least as a result of the serious efforts Russia will make to prevent his election for reasons of external politics), there is a strong argument that the ECU election is therefore far more important to the ECF (given it's anti Kirsan stance) than the FIDE one.


So we support the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate against the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate?

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 2320
In re: the stitch-up, why complain about the details? I mean why complain that a secretive backstairs stictch-up ends in a secretive backstairs stitch-up, just because it's not the particular secretive backstairs stitch-up that you wanted?

Why complain about the outcome if you were happy with the process?

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:51 pm
Posts: 11702
JustinHorton wrote:

So we support the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate against the dubious and and untrustworthy candidate?


In the absence of a "None of the above" option in the election, what other choice is there? It's complicated by the decision of the ex-President to join one of the teams and seeking the endorsement of the ticket by the ECF.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 2320
It's compulsory to vote, is it?

_________________
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 566 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 ... 38  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group