Nominations 2021

[Roger de Coverly]

Who is Sue, please?

Don't you recall S Dunham, a prolific poster in the early days of the ECF's own forum? Even further back was a Dr Cular on this forum.

[Mick Norris]

Word document attached

Whether you agree with the content of the document or not, I welcome the fact that it avoids personal attacks.

Well, the covering email doesn't exactly attack Mike, it just accuse him of being misleading

Interestingly, said email is addressed to a number of MCF officials, yet not our ECF rep or reserve ECF rep who might actually cast the votes, as well as asking us not to make a decision at our AGM tonight (I think it's not on the Agenda, nor likely to be brought up, but there you go)

The idea of no contested election is for Mike to withdraw isn't it? Democracy is no fun at all I suppose

[Roger de Coverly]

Interestingly, said email is addressed to a number of MCF officials, yet not our ECF rep or reserve ECF rep who might actually cast the votes, as well as asking us not to make a decision at our AGM tonight (I think it's not on the Agenda, nor likely to be brought up, but there you go)

There's a question of principle which you might wish to discuss. it's whether the funds held in the name of the BCF, mostly contributed by legacies should be conserved for future crises and for the investment returns they can contribute. The alternative being put forward is that they should be spent now, on development officers perhaps. At the back of my mind I have the supermarket slogan "When it's gone, it's gone". If the funds are to be conserved the suggestion is that they be partly out of reach of ECF Boards by being under the control of the charity "Chess Trust" which has added taxation exemptions.

[Angus French]

Interestingly, said email is addressed to a number of MCF officials, yet not our ECF rep or reserve ECF rep who might actually cast the votes, as well as asking us not to make a decision at our AGM tonight (I think it's not on the Agenda, nor likely to be brought up, but there you go)

There's a question of principle which you might wish to discuss. it's whether the funds held in the name of the BCF, mostly contributed by legacies should be conserved for future crises and for the investment returns they can contribute. The alternative being put forward is that they should be spent now, on development officers perhaps. At the back of my mind I have the supermarket slogan "When it's gone, it's gone". If the funds are to be conserved the suggestion is that they be partly out of reach of ECF Boards by being under the control of the charity "Chess Trust" which has added taxation exemptions.

So far as I know there are two funds which come under the auspices of the BCF: PIF 1 and PIF 2. I believe each has its own set of deeds, defining how money is to be invested and released, and set of trustees. Trustees are appointed as needed by BCF Council. I'm not sure PIF decisions are something the ECF/BCF CEO will have a direct say on - but maybe the CEO can influence BCF Council and BCF Council can influence the trustees.

According to the latest set of BCF accounts available (to 31 August 2019, published for the BCF Finance meeting in April 2021), PIF 1 and PIF 2 had assets amounting to just over £110K (with total BCF assets amounting to £113K). Maybe these have increased in value (through donations or bequests or asset appreciation) to the £200K Malcolm quotes.

[David Sedgwick]

Who is Sue, please?

Don't you recall S Dunham, a prolific poster in the early days of the ECF's own forum? Even further back was a Dr Cular on this forum.

I have to confess that I didn't think of Sue Dunham.

However, I certainly recall the poster whom you mention. His exact name was Dr A Cula.

[David Sedgwick]

Well, the covering email doesn't exactly attack Mike, it just accuse him of being misleading

Interestingly, said email is addressed to a number of MCF officials, yet not our ECF rep or reserve ECF rep who might actually cast the votes, ...

Tim Wall is not renowned for his attention to detail.

[Roger de Coverly]

PIF 1 and PIF 2 had assets amounting to just over £110K (with total BCF assets amounting to £113K). Maybe these have increased in value (through donations or bequests or asset appreciation) to the £200K Malcolm quotes.

It would seem more plausible that the author of the document was out of date with the facts. The quoted accounts show donations in 2018 of £ 154, 381 and in 2019 of £ 70,500. So it would seem the money has already been spent or transferred elsewhere.

[Mick Norris]

Well, the covering email doesn't exactly attack Mike, it just accuse him of being misleading

Interestingly, said email is addressed to a number of MCF officials, yet not our ECF rep or reserve ECF rep who might actually cast the votes, ...

Tim Wall is not renowned for his attention to detail.

Even better, I've now discovered that the email addresses to 3 of the 5 of us were incorrect

You'd have thought if you were standing for CEO then attention to detail might be useful; or maybe I'm too stupid to see the bigger picture

[Mick Norris]

Will you be advising Malcolm to make himself available, John?

Malcolm needs zero advice from me not that he would seek it in any case.

Nor has Mike sought my advice for the same reasons.

What makes you think I have useful advice to offer either of them?

I would hope that there was no need for a contested election.

I'm sorry. I thought it was Malcolm, Tim, Chris, Sue - and John too.

Well, John has asked the question about how much support the ECF gives Shreyas Royal, and now Malcolm wants to use £10K from the John Robinson Trust to support Shreyas, so you might suspect there's a connection

I like John, and he's more than capable of speaking for himself though

[Simon Brown]

I hope the conflicts resolution committee is on good form. I think they will be busy.

[John Upham]

Well, John has asked the question about how much support the ECF gives Shreyas Royal, and now Malcolm wants to use £10K from the John Robinson Trust to support Shreyas, so you might suspect there's a connection

I suspect that this is an example of a coincidence rather than a connection.

Further support for any of our most talented juniors would be welcomed by myself and maybe a few others also.

For their record I will state that MBP and I started University College, London on the same day in September 1978. MBP had selected Chemical Engineering and I had selected Chemistry.

We both played in the University of London Championship in February 1979. Malcolm was 1st overall and I was runner-up having blown a very nice Grunfeld with Black in round 4.

At a later date I upgraded myself from "cooking" / wet chemistry to Chemical Physics / Quantum Chemistry when I convinced myself my mathematics was up to the upgrade.

[Carl Hibbard]

Are we expecting a Pein, Fegan, Wall all standing for various posts?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Are we expecting a Pein, Fegan, Wall all standing for various posts?

It's somewhat bizarre that there's no need to speculate about this because it is a matter of fact ... it's just that the ECF have chosen not to publish those facts for some reason.

It's not necessary to believe some rule has been broken or that anybody in particular is some kind of moral bankrupt for choosing it to be that way - for the record I believe neither of these things - to consider this a very strange way for a governing body to go about things.

In the past when publishing this sort of information in any meaningful way was quite tricky it makes sense to have a 'by this date' kind of procedure. With the internet being available for a little while now, publishing the information is a matter of a few minutes work. Trivial work at that.

I seen no benefit from withholding this information from paying members. I do see disadvantages in not sharing information with those people who actually fund the organisation* as soon as reasonably practical.







* This category not including me at the moment so I have no particular axe to grind right now. But this kind of attitude towards members and sharing of information is one of the reasons why I saw no reason to remain an ECF member when I was no longer in a position to actually play the game. I absolutely would have been happy to maintain my membership of the organisation and pay an annual fee if things had been different even if I was not able to play rated games.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Are we expecting a Pein, Fegan, Wall all standing for various posts?

It's somewhat bizarre that there's no need to speculate about this because it is a matter of fact ... it's just that the ECF have chosen not to publish those facts for some reason.

With respect that is not quite the case. The closing date for nominations isn't until tomorrow - Malcolm Pein appears to have anticipated this by launching his campaign but that has nothing to do with the ECF.

And the ECF will be publishing the information, they have just decided not to do so until 22nd September.

[Mick Norris]

Well, John has asked the question about how much support the ECF gives Shreyas Royal, and now Malcolm wants to use £10K from the John Robinson Trust to support Shreyas, so you might suspect there's a connection

I suspect that this is an example of a coincidence rather than a connection.

Further support for any of our most talented juniors would be welcomed by myself and maybe a few others also.

You would know John

I'd agree with the latter point; I wonder if the majority of ECF members would though; there's certainly no suggestion of actually asking them

I've spoken today to a chess player who expressed the view that other than the grading system, what does the ECF do for us? I'd imagine suggesting to him that the ECF should spend money on juniors would be popular with him, but that he's in a minority oop North