Chief Executive 2021

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Locked

Chief Executive 2021

Mike Truran
51
62%
Malcolm Pein
25
30%
None of the above
6
7%
 
Total votes: 82

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:59 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:50 pm
Publishing emails now this one is getting worse :roll:
You expected anything else?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by JustinHorton » Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:28 pm

Matthew Read wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm
. The attached redacted ECF Board correspondence refers.
The attached redacted ECF Board correspondence tells us absolutely nothing helpful since it does not tell us what "overtures" were made or when. It also seems to have been put improperly into the public domain.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Mick Norris » Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:33 pm

Matthew Read wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm
One thing Malcolm wants to put to bed is some misinformation from the Truran camp that he did not try to resolve their policy differences. There were several overtures over the summer, both direct and via the good offices of NED Stephen Woodhouse. The attached redacted ECF Board correspondence refers.

Malcolm wants to make it clear he believes a compromise is still possible.
The emails are dated 11 September, that's a bit late in the day isn't it?

And what's the compromise? Council voted in 2018; Malcolm's suggesting the vote is reversed; not clear what a compromise position might be
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Nick Ivell » Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:34 pm

From what I can make out, Malcolm's proposals go against positions agreed by Council. So what compromises did he have in mind?

Also, did not Malcolm wait several weeks before getting in touch with Mike, having failed to come up with any proposals?

Just trying to clarify.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger Lancaster » Mon Sep 27, 2021 4:40 pm

Matt, welcome to the forum. However, while I can't profess any enthusiasm about the prohibition on ECF directors from posting here, I'm even less enthusiastic about directors using proxies as a loophole to circumvent this. This forum has already heard enough about "misinformation" and it has come almost exclusively from one camp, with the language at times being downright offensive. If people are judged inter alia by those with whom they associate, and I'm not referring to you, I suspect that one of the CEO candidates is doing himself no favours. As to the substantive point, the views of the two candidates seem so far apart that a "compromise" would be difficult in normal circumstances - and it has probably been made harder still by the nature of the campaigning.

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Chris Goodall » Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:16 pm

Matthew Read wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm
Malcolm wants to make it clear he believes a compromise is still possible.
Give half the money to the ECF and the other half to the Chess Trust?

"If there is to be an election, I will contest it solely on the issues where we disagree, on which I repeat, I believe there is a compromise to be found."

Malcolm may need to check the password on his Twitter account. An impostor claiming to be Malcolm has been contesting the election on the issues of a) the internal decision-making of the 4NCL, b) how to win Honourable Friends and influence people, and c) the survival of local chess clubs, on which we are waiting with bated breath for a "revelation" about Mike's views. And so far, nothing about the important issue on which Malcolm sought a compromise with Mike.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:34 pm

Matthew Read wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm
Malcolm wants to make it clear he believes a compromise is still possible.
I hope it is common ground that the funds in question are held by the Trustees of the BCF PIF and as such have been built up over the last hundred years or more by legacies, donation and investment returns. Currently they are managed by Smith & Williamson who have them invested in various stock market instruments.

I think there is also general agreement that after more than fifteen years it's becoming time to wind up the BCF and thereby simplify the ECF.

The question arises as to the disposition of the PIF assets. The Truran position is reasonably clear and is as agreed the previous time it was discussed by an ECF Council meeting. That is that the funds should be transferred to the Chess Trust, a charity set up by the ECF and in principle influenced by it, but not controlled by it.

I'm not so clear on Malcolm's position. Certainly he doesn't want the funds to be under the control of the Chess Trust. But is it that he just wants to emulate the treatment employed by the BCF, that the assets are regarded as permanently invested (the P and I in PIF) and generally speaking only the income and capital gains are spent? Or is it that the whole lot, or most of it should be cashed and the proceeds spent on near future projects? These might include development officers, Norm tournaments, international teams or whatever.

None of this covers tax and an opinion on the tax consequences of various options would be desirable.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Nick Ivell » Mon Sep 27, 2021 5:39 pm

Anyway, Matt, thanks for posting.

Chris Fegan hasn't exactly shown the Pein campaign in glowing colours. Perhaps you can do better.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:03 pm

Matthew Read wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:26 pm
Malcolm wants to make it clear he believes a compromise is still possible.
It feels like "possible" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Nick Ivell
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:33 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Nick Ivell » Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:31 am

We still have little idea of what this notion of 'compromise' might be.

In fact, it seems to be little more than a euphemistic phrasing of the following straight question: 'Mr Truran, after your years of outstanding service, would you like to resign?'

And if the answer is a resounding NO?

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by John Upham » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:38 am

Nick Ivell wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:31 am
We still have little idea of what this notion of 'compromise' might be.

In fact, it seems to be little more than a euphemistic phrasing of the following straight question: 'Mr Truran, after your years of outstanding service, would you like to resign?'

And if the answer is a resounding NO?
I'm not convinced that the word "outstanding" would have been used in any question of that nature from the person you think might have posed it.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

User avatar
Chris Goodall
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Chris Goodall » Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:24 pm

John Upham wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:38 am
I'm not convinced that the word "outstanding" would have been used in any question of that nature from the person you think might have posed it.
It feels like there is a lot of plausible deniability being maintained by supporters of Malcolm's campaign right now.
Donate to Sabrina's fundraiser at https://gofund.me/aeae42c7 to support victims of sexual abuse in the chess world.

Northumberland webmaster, Jesmond CC something-or-other. Views mine. Definitely below the Goodall Line.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1910
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:34 pm

John Upham wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:38 am
Nick Ivell wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:31 am
We still have little idea of what this notion of 'compromise' might be.

In fact, it seems to be little more than a euphemistic phrasing of the following straight question: 'Mr Truran, after your years of outstanding service, would you like to resign?'

And if the answer is a resounding NO?
I'm not convinced that the word "outstanding" would have been used in any question of that nature from the person you think might have posed it.
John, I believe that's called irony. Leaving that to one side, are you perhaps able to elaborate on what 'compromise' means in this context ?

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by John Upham » Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:45 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:34 pm
John, I believe that's called irony. Leaving that to one side, are you perhaps able to elaborate on what 'compromise' means in this context ?
I have no more insight on this matter than the collected wisdom of this place.

I am attempting to remain "on the fence" in this whole sordid nest of vipers.

I'm told that the BCN editorial office is considering offering a Zoom (streamed to YouTube) live Q&A session available to all candidates with an impartial host doing the moderation. Since "everyone knows everyone" there is the risk of accusations of "alignment".
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Bob Kane
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: Chief Executive 2021

Post by Bob Kane » Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:13 pm

Its a simple choice .. Do you think that the chess would benefit from Government or lottery funding? Then you should vote for Malcolm as CEO.
He has a proven record of creating major chess events and improving the profile of the game in the public conciousness.
Mike has declared his support for the "enabling only" model, (organize very little) this model would never get any funding, I know from experience that this model has great difficulty in attracting sponsors.
New officers have come on board in key roles and have done a good job, perhaps too good a job. The CEO seems threatened by these initiatives and this has led to Boardroom friction.
The world has changed , our game has changed, its NOW time to change the structure of English chess organization.
we owe it to the game
Robert Kane EX commercial director ECF

Locked