My Resignation

[Jonathan Bryant]

CJ on the ECF Website

"one major issue seems to have been my habit of putting my own money into chess and into the federation ....

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=14342#more-14342



The various (and conflicting) statements that CJ made about money raised for the British Championship, and his various unfulfilled promises to provide accounts, can be found here:-

http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... -post.html
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... -this.html
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... sness.html



Since Mr. G was kind enough to reference our little blog in his article, I'd also like to mention that the first question I had for the ECF AGM of October last year was,

Is the ECF confident that it knows the origins of the money that paid for Sheffield 2011?
(see this post from three months ago:-
http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... f-agm.html)

I also noted the link between RDK attending the Sheffield opening ceremony and CJ returning from one of Ray's events with a bucket load of cash back in November
(http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... again.html)




Mr. G asks some important questions with his post today. I hope they'll be answered this time.

[EDIT: I should say, that I have no idea whether it's true or not that CJ didn't put his own money into Sheffield. In the circumstances, I think it's a very reasonable question to ask.]



That said, while I'm here I'd also like to say that I am very sorry to hear that Andrew Farthing won't be standing for re-election for his post. That's a great shame.

[Alex McFarlane]

I had intended to post later this afternoon along the lines of the following. Events, including some pleasant correspondence with Andrew Farthing allows me to post a slightly amended version a bit earlier.

The first paragraph may sound patronising. Apologies for this – the sentiments are real.

I cannot in all honesty say that I am sorry that Andrew Farthing will not continue as CEO. My feeling has been from early days that the post needed someone who had a greater knowledge of the ins and outs of the chess establishment. Perhaps with a bit more political savvy. Having said that I do appreciate the effort that he has put in. He was extremely good at his previous post and it is a great shame that he was persuaded to 'take promotion'. I genuinely hope that he will still contribute to his previous role, though possibly with a lesser commitment.

Andrew has confirmed that his proposed Code of Conduct will have teeth and therefore I feel that sufficient progress has been made to allow me to resume assisting Lara.

Obviously I would hope that the Code would be applicable retrospectively but I would not make that a condition. For legal reasons I accept that if this is the case it will ar least review recent events and make recommendations.

It is difficult to see who will replace Andrew but it is to be hoped that the person will have an abundance of man-management skills and the wisdom to control the large number of loose cannons involved in the chess scene.

Whilst I cannot accept that some of Andrew's actions in this dispute were anything other than errors (and I made some too) I never the less wish him well in the future.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Very obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the wrong person is going to stand down at the next AGM.

Andrew going Alex gone and the person who caused it all in the first place still around in all but name only. No sense of shame I fear. It will be interesting to see who will stop the Keene band wagon rolling into the ECF come October.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It will be interesting to see who will stop the Keene band wagon rolling into the ECF come October.

Council, I should think. Even if Keene were to stand for an ECF position, I feel he'd comfortably lose to "none of the above".

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It will be interesting to see who will stop the Keene band wagon rolling into the ECF come October.

Council, I should think. Even if Keene were to stand for an ECF position, I feel he'd comfortably lose to "none of the above".

I think Ernie was referring to other people standing who are associated with Keene.

[John McKenna]

15000 is an even no. and looks like a straightforward sum of money for a corporate sponsor to donate.
16585 is odd and looks like a sum that may have arisen in a less straightforward and more personal (and/or person to persons) manner.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think Ernie was referring to other people standing who are associated with Keene.

I do wonder how you identify them. It's never really been established why CJ started an ECF association with RDK. Whilst the parting of the ways between the BCF and RDK is now many, many years ago, surely the collective memory of the falling out still exists?

[John McKenna]

The CJ-RDK connection lies in 'celebrity networking'.
And, if the President had agreed to personally provide sponsorship by say paying (certain) hotel bills then such a straightforward fact could easily be made public and there wouldn't be uncertainty and speculation.

[Roger de Coverly]

And, if the President had agreed to personally provide sponsorship by say paying (certain) hotel bills then such a straightforward fact could easily be made public and there wouldn't be uncertainty and speculation.

The Streatham blog link above records that questions about the funding of the British were asked at the AGM and the answer given then was that all payments had gone through the ECF Congress accounts. This was however queried by a contribution to the blog made by one of the managers. So there are conflicting stories.

[Jonathan Bryant]

If accounts had been provided in the first place, of course the question of whether CJ had or had not spent any of his own money wouldn't arise. Similarly, another problem is that the figures that CJ has given vary according to when he is writing (see link above).

If you look at his post on these boards from 12th July (http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 135#p64633) referenced on the S&BC Blog in October (http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... sness.html), you see CJ gives two figures. It seems perfectly possible that he received a donation and gave money himself.

Given the absence of formal accounts and given that he is not consistent with the figures he does quote, however, who can say? I think it's rather important for all sorts of reasons - not least fairness to CJ himself - that this matter be clarified.


Of course, even if it turns out that CJ had donated his own cash to Sheffield, the "fact" (Gidders' claim, if you prefer) that RDK facilitated the funding of the British Championship and that the ECF were apparently unaware of this, should not be overlooked.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I hope Andrews announcement does not result in some very important issues being swept aside. I am surprised no one picked up on an earlier post in this thread by Alex where he referred to an invoice being submited unsigned?

Sorry cannot help being a retired old copper who gets a sense of something being amiss to the extent David welch and Alex raised concerns, have those concerns now been put aside in view of todays announcement? or has an explanation been given for whatever caused a question to be asked in the first place?

[Roger de Coverly]

the "fact" (Gidders' claim, if you prefer) that RDK facilitated the funding of the British Championship and that the ECF were apparently unaware of this, should not be overlooked.

I could well believe the management of the British were unaware of the connection. If elsewhere in the ECF, RDK's involvement was known about, this could have been communicated to those running the British with a request that they co-operate in the general interests of the Championships.

Those who recall the first few days of the Championship were aware that the usual reporting of the Opening proceedings seemed to have been suspended. There seemed a general feeling among those working at the event, that RDK's visit had been unwelcome. Whether this contributed to the events before the closing ceremony and the later press comments after the ECF had presumed to have closed the issue, is in my mind an open question.

[Roger de Coverly]

I am surprised no one picked up on an earlier post in this thread by Alex where he referred to an invoice being submited unsigned?

These may just be routine accounting matters. More obscure are the references here and there to the "Gunn Report". This seemed to involve Alex Mcf in some way and to have been an issue discussed by the Board, but what is was about doesn't yet seem to be public.

[Carl Hibbard]

I am surprised no one picked up on an earlier post in this thread by Alex where he referred to an invoice being submited unsigned?

Yes that one needs a double check

[E Michael White]

15000 is an even no. and looks like a straightforward sum of money for a corporate sponsor to donate.
16585 is odd and looks like a sum that may have arisen in a less straightforward and more personal (and/or person to persons) manner.

Well it could be a net payment of £10000 grossed up at 40% tax less a handling charge of 1/2 %, commensurate with putting a payment through a charity umbrella. Dont see much wrong with that unless you have been indoctrinated by the ECF split into two brigade.