English Chess Forum

Sean Hewitt wrote:Playing devils advocate for a second, why would anyone on here expect to be presented with evidence that this forum is the reason certain sponsors walked away? What constitutes evidence?

I just hoped for more Sean considered the amount of FREE work I do for the ECF I felt I was entitled to more than just rumors

Fair enough Carl - I would certainly have thought that Chris Majer would have made contact with you to tell you what was happening and why. I just dont think there would be any "evidence".

Sean

You have made your point with the 'footnote' on your posting, now may a good time to consider changing it.

Best wishes for for more mutually respectful New Year

Peter T

Peter Turner wrote:Sean

You have made your point with the 'footnote' on your posting, now may a good time to consider changing it.

Best wishes for for more mutually respectful New Year

Peter T

Yes agreed - already pointed that one out

Charles,

Interesting post, reveals quite a few home truths in my opinion!

But I managed to keep the Sponsor who was in charge of me in place right until a competitor became my boss. I have still have no problem with IM Andrew Martin but the Renaissance Academy Board and Potential Board do have problems with a competitor being my boss.

So it is revealed, "Competitor became my Boss", so from this we can infer that the Renaissance Academy were in line to profit from a Chess For Schools Project?, I guess now the certification scheme is in Andrews grasp it leaves the Renaisance Academy rather high and dry to make revenue. I guess that would make the Board rather unhappy. As I have said before I have no problem with anybody making money from the labour they put in for any project like this, it takes a lot of hard work, but why all the secrecy?

If you guys want to know who went by the wayside due to this Forum, it was Parcel Force

Looks like we did them a favour then, there won't be any sets to shift any time soon in any event.

This forum will be the fall guy, but I am afraid this is the Internet age, no more hiding, no more sweeping things under the carpet. We have only been voicing concerns and pointing out weaknesses that sadly have proven to be true.

This further 2 week delay in my mind confirms this project is absolutely dead in the water, It does not make me happy to say this, however, one good thing can come of it, a total shake up of the ECF to its very core.

Greetings to all from Davenport, Iowa, USA where it is 650am and 10F as I write; I am shivering as I type!!

Until we all find out,including me ,what the final intentions are about the sets, we seem to be going round in circles. I am as much in the dark now as I was 9 months ago. I know the intention is to produce the sets, but how,why,with whom and when is still completely under wraps.

Get the sets out and I will make the ECF some money to be put back into junior chess or chess in general. No sets, no income as far as I can see.

Happy New Year

Andrew

andrew martin wrote:Until we all find out, including me, what the final intentions are about the sets, we seem to be going round in circles. I am as much in the dark now as I was 9 months ago. I know the intention is to produce the sets, but how,why,with whom and when is still completely under wraps.

It appears (as expected really...) that Holloid were very busy at companies house on the 17th of December

Hopefully this information can be shared in due course

Carl Hibbard wrote:

andrew martin wrote:Until we all find out, including me, what the final intentions are about the sets, we seem to be going round in circles. I am as much in the dark now as I was 9 months ago. I know the intention is to produce the sets, but how,why,with whom and when is still completely under wraps.

It appears (as expected really...) that Holloid were very busy at companies house on the 17th of December

Hopefully this information can be shared in due course

Indeed they were. However, I'm not sure much can be read into it. 3 Directors resigned, but this looks like they were late notifying CH of the August resignations given that one of the resignations is Fergus Christie. The company secretary has also gone, but this is probably reflecting the fact that under the 2006 Companies Act small companies no longer need a secretary and 300,000 new shares were issued but this is in fact a conversion of a director loan to equity, perhaps not surprising given the prior years losses.

Looks like a sale and Quacks like a sale

I've started talking with hardened southern GFW fans (the kind that would vote for him no matter what : "don't forget that GFW achieved something in 1972") and even they are wilting under the pressure.

John - I find this a very annoying post.

It was I who brought up Teeside 1972 and, no, I am not a GW fan, I don't need proselytised either. The reason I brought up Teeside 1972 was in connection with the unnecessary abuse that the man was receiving ("useless tub of lard", &c.) and I wished that he would be left in his dignity and I wished to place on record too, that, despite rantings to the contrary, he had, over many, years achieved many good things for chess in England. I also said, however, that it had been a long time since he had last done anything positive of note and that he should certainly go, but I thought that when he left, he should be allowed to go with dignity and not the ignominy of having cruel epithets sniggered behind his back.

Go back and look at the thread concerned. In the meantime, please, do not reinvent history merely for the sake of cheap laugh. If we keep it clean and keep to the point, we all have a better chance to persuade others of the need to change the ECF's management and to reform its structures.

Best wishes to all in this New Year.

Best Regards,
Paul M.