My Resignation

[Alex Holowczak]

I am still fully involved with the 4ncl, and junior competitions, and Bucks local events.

And the Universities event in High Wycombe, of course!

[David Pardoe]

Just a few observations...
Firstly, Andrews news regarding his decision to stand down this year as ECF Chief Exec is indeed disappointing to hear. In my view Andrew has done a first rate job for the ECF, and his honesty and dedication is to be applauded. It highlights a serious issue, which runs right through our chess organisation....from top, Unions, Counties, leagues, congresses, and junior ranks...i.e., the critical need for more volunteers to carry through the work, and help keep the wheels turning. Can we do more to flag up these needs and encourage more support. I`d like to see more effort to flag the needs to fill officer posts..not just via web site notices, but from some positive networking throughout the chess scene..down to ordinary club players (even via more active support from various secretaries in getting messages out.
Much of the work is not rocket science...just requires willing hands (and loads of assistance & advice can often be obtained)..
I suspect many will read Andrews account and think `Mugs required`....the workload he is trying to carry, totally without reward, is ridiculous. I hope some offers of assistance will be forthcoming, because non of our posts should occupy that amount of our officers time. And the only thanks they get is a slagging off on these Forums, when things don't go to plan...?
Looking just at the IT/project requirements for this new membership scheme...surely we have an abundance of IT project people who might help. Can some of this be farmed out across the organisation. Offers to Andrew I`m sure would be welcome.
And talking of support and assistance, I`m sure that Alex & Lara/other Arbiters & the team looking after this years British Championships would love to hear from people who could assist them....can you help...do you know of others who might.
So, this highlights our critical need for more resources....

The other key area that needs to be addressed, regarding resources is funding.... We try to keep going on the shoe string budgets available.....almost impossible, putting yet more strain on our Officers.... Lets hope those accounts can be squared and any monies due for gamefee etc swiftly submitted.

So, in that regard I`d just say that CJ and the ECF team (and others...) deserve great credit for managing last year to get so many of our top players to appear at the British at Sheffield. £15k for 20 GMs sounds like a bargain....and a step in the right direction for our top players.. This was a truly outstanding performance, and no doubt required a considerable commitment from those involved. Yes, some might want to contribute `privately`....
To have managed to get so many of our top GMs to appear was a truly excellent result....not even closely matched for many years.
Can we again raise the funding and support to attract our top players in good numbers. I`m sure some of our `experts` on here might have some good ideas and contacts that can help. I do feel that some of our companies and wealthy bodies could do more to support our cultural and sporting events and organisations. Our publicity needs to be pitched more effectively. Even our press coverage of these events, particularly regional and local press, needs to devote more space to these events, to inform joe public that chess is indeed a great cultural pursuit....and local clubs nearby would love to see them, whatever level they play to.... If we could double our numbers it would certainly boost our funding position...and a few fresh faces would be great news for our local clubs.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Why would anyone want to volunteer to end up being treated like ALex and Lara. Equally sponsors don't like controversy. Anyone reading Keenes comments could be forgiven for keeping the cheque book closed. Sheffield gate is a running sore and until it's resolved openly I fear volunteers and sponsors are going to be hard to find. I wanted to support our nationals in some way however I would rather eat worms than give any of my money to an ECF event while the board continues to act as if all is well. Get some honesty and integrity back into our organisation first.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think, therefore, that it is unlikely that anybody at the ECF knew about RDK's involvement with the funding arrangements. If it proves to be otherwise then that also - the deliberate hiding of the knowledge from other elements within the ECF - would be a huge story in itself. I don't think at this stage, though, that there's any reason to believe it happened like that.

RDK's involvement now seems to be confirmed, as summarised at
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... mours.html and various Twitter comments

There's also the "let's take legal action against FIDE in the CAS" plan dating from February 2011. Perhaps there's no connection.

It's not unknown for GMs to be privately sponsored for the British or the England team for that matter. If CJ did handle it that way, that's a matter between the sponsor and the GMs. It's dangerous to quote amounts as that leads to speculation as to who got what. The Congress accounts, when eventually published for the ECF's end of year, should show the Darwin sponsorship and how it was disbursed.

[Carl Hibbard]

Hard to believe that RDK is kicking this nonsense off again so it is now up to the ECF to pass comment rather than keeping silent

[IM Jack Rudd]

Hard to believe that RDK is kicking this nonsense off again

On the contrary. It is annoying, disruptive, and unnecessary, but it is all to easy to believe.

[Carl Hibbard]

The ECF need to pass comment on the blog and twitter of Laurel and Hardy this time!

[Jonathan Bryant]

The timing is rather curious. Why now, do you think?

[Roger de Coverly]

The timing is rather curious. Why now, do you think?

The ECF Council has now been added to Gidders' ridicule list (two posts in one day). But not Raymondo, notwithstanding the latter's call for Lara to step down as manager of the 2012 British and for that matter his tweets disagreeing with the G man's theory on who paid for the 2011 British.

Although why the Times Correspondent should have any interest in who the ECF appoints to run its events is another question.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... his tweets disagreeing with the G man's theory on who paid for the 2011 British.

I thought he confirmed Gidders' account, but said that although CJ hadn't funded Sheffield he had nevertheless lobbed in loads of cash elsewhere? Am I misunderstanding something?

[Alex Holowczak]

The ECF Council has now been added to Gidders' ridicule list (two posts in one day).

It's actually remarkably similar to what I wrote in this post: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 904#p81459

[Roger de Coverly]

I thought he confirmed Gidders' account, but said that although CJ hadn't funded Sheffield he had nevertheless lobbed in loads of cash elsewhere? Am I misunderstanding something?

his account is accurate-however cj has undoubtedly poured much of his own funds into british chess-best president ever imho

Gidders seemed to be saying that CJ didn't put his own money into Sheffield. General reasoning, given Sheffield hotel prices, suggests that the Darwin £ 15,000 would not have been enough to both enhance the prize fund and pay for the accommodation and bar bills of 15 to 20 invited players. We know, more or less, that not all payments to players went through the Congress/ECF books, so on the face of it must have been privately financed by CJ ,other sponsors or patrons.

You could read the times_chess comments in two ways. I read it that G's account of the Darwin sponsorship was correct documenting the probable behind the scenes influence of RDK, but that CJ contributed as well. As you say, it can also be read that Sheffield didn't involve CJ but other events did.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's actually remarkably similar to what I wrote in this post: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 904#p81459

As you say at the end, it (abolition of Council) is unlikely to be adopted. The problem with abolishing Council is there would be even less control over the Board going off on a wild goose chase, than there is at the moment. Examples were chess sets for schools " and "Let's take legal action against FIDE".


I agree the chess public could influence matters by who it voted for, but that would then be making policy decisions by personalities. The ECF isn't a commercial company, nor given its special monopoly status as the national sporting/gaming/cultural English body for chess should it attempt to act as such.

The ECF doesn't have shareholders, so the normal concepts of shareholder votes at company AGMs don't apply. Many organisations of a similar "not for profit" nature and limited by guarantee have needed to have some sort of intermediate representative body so that you don't have to run AGM's with potentially 5,000 attendees.

[Alex Holowczak]

As you say at the end, it (abolition of Council) is unlikely to be adopted. The problem with abolishing Council is there would be even less control over the Board going off on a wild goose chase, than there is at the moment. Examples were chess sets for schools " and "Let's take legal action against FIDE".

It's exactly this control of the Board that isn't needed.

Council should not have the power to decide things like:
(1) The team that the International Director sends to international events. The International Director should say who he intends to pick in his team, whether it is amateur or professional, during his manifesto. The AGM elects him, and he implements it. Rather than tying his hands behind his back, as they did at the last AGM.
(2) The venue for the final of the Counties Championship. This should be a manifesto policy of the Home Chess Director. The AGM votes for him, or someone else.

If the Board wants to embark on your quoted goals, then it should have the power to do so. If the members don't like it, you call an EGM, and vote for someone else, or none of the above.

The ECF doesn't have shareholders, so the normal concepts of shareholder votes at company AGMs don't apply. Many organisations of a similar "not for profit" nature and limited by guarantee have needed to have some sort of intermediate representative body so that you don't have to run AGM's with potentially 5,000 attendees.

But it will once we go to Membership! £12 per share, effectively, under OMOV. You just don't get any return on your shares. The Green Bay Packers NFL team has this structure. It has 110,000 shareholders. No other NFL team is allowed to have more than 32.

[Roger de Coverly]

But it will once we go to Membership! £12 per share, effectively, under OMOV.

They aren't shares, it's just an annual cost for the right to play graded league chess without any additional costs per game.

The EBU is a Company limited by shares with the shareholders being the county associations. A company limited by guarantee is not the same. As you may have noticed, the ECF abolished the white form requirement, so there's only a limited (future) number of guarantors.

As shown by the ECF Council structure, it's possible to have almost any voting structure. The point remains, it isn't practical to hold an AGM with a theoretical 5000 attendees, so some representative body is needed.

1) The team that the International Director sends to international events. The International Director should say who he intends to pick in his team, whether it is amateur or professional, during his manifesto. The AGM elects him

Where this breaks is that you are unlikely to get two candidates to personalise the issues

Candidate (a) advocates a policy that you send the strongest possible team regardless of the cost
Candidate (b) advocates a policy that you send the strongest team that you can afford.

Even if you did have two candidates, why do you want them to fight over the issue?

(2) The venue for the final of the Counties Championship. This should be a manifesto policy of the Home Chess Director. The AGM votes for him, or someone else.

Whilst I'm aware, as with many essentially trivial issues, that it's contentious, it shouldn't be an issue that encourages selection of one candidate over another.

In the dim and distant past, the venues for county finals were determined, like all other matches, by assigning a home team and an away team, or even a neutral venue. In the early eighties that resulted in Bucks facing Devon in Bristol and Sussex in Guildford. That's a policy decision for the ECF and should be independent of individual candidates. There's a case for neutral/central (read Midlands) venues and a case against. Potential office holders may have a view, but it's hardly a black mark against a candidate if they prefer what transpires to be the minority view.

What should have been a black mark against candidates for directorships, but wasn't, was whether they favoured compulsory membership schemes.