My Resignation

[John Upham]

Earlier today I played devils advocate by tweeting to GMRDKOBE as follows:

jeupham John Upham
@Times_Chess Ray, Which individuals would you want to be running the 2012 British Championships? Do you support the current 2012 team?
Feb 01, 11:53 AM via web

I received this reply:

Times_Chess times chess
@jeupham of course i dont support the current team ! how about proven competents such as stewart reuben and malcolm pein to run the british
Feb 01, 4:44 PM via web

Over to you!

[Phil Makepeace]

There's a fast-paced conversation between Alex McFarlane and RDK on Twitter right now. Brian Stephenson seems to be retweeting the lot, so his profile is probably the best way for non-Twitter users to follow it.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Responding to Steve, who suggest that we should look nicely upon each other because we don't know all the facts and most bad events turn out to be simple cock-ups:

generally, perhaps ... but with the ECF, CJ and RDK, if none of us know all the facts, it is because they are being kept from us.

For example, have you an "innocent cock up" theory about how we were not told that the ECF was suing the FIDE President, even though the decision was made a year ago and no one on the Board ever mentioned it in a thousand opportunities, including two Council meetings and the report from the ECF Delegate to FIDE* which was directed towards a vilification of the FIDE President and alluded to a court case (if I remember rightly) but still managed to omit to mention our own involvement?

As for CJ allowing us to believe that he has pumped thousands of pounds in to chess: perhaps. But he has never offered precise accounts to anyone, including the ECF Board itself, and has now vanished from the public eye (including his own re-election) for six months now that people have acquired the habit of asking detailed questions - well, this might be an unfortunate lapse in accountability, but it's rather a long drawn out sort of cock-up, isn't it?

And is it a separate cock up that CJ has never acknowledged or responded to the implication from the Times itself that he told the Times that he suspected the organisers of the British of homophobia (or words to that effect), and that after he was requested to do so several times, the Board removed the chief complainant from his position?

And further - there are some facts that are not disclosed, for reasons of privacy, or because informants request confidentiality, or because "rumours abound" that both RDK and CJ speak with libel lawyers more or less as a matter of routine. Even though we don't have all the facts on this forum, can you really say that you are not somewhat concerned about what we do know?

* I meant to write this originally, but got mixed up. Apologies to those who read the earlier version.

[John Upham]

It would appear that Lara has acquired her own hash tag viz: http://hashtags.org/larabarnes

[Jonathan Bryant]

As for CJ allowing us to believe that he has pumped thousands of pounds in to chess: perhaps. But he has never offered precise accounts to anyone ....

It's perhaps worth reminding ourselves that CJ has frequently offered accounts, it's just that he has never actually delivered any.

That said, I'm broadly in agreement with your post. That we are not in full possession of the facts is precisely the point of concern. It makes no difference whether I know the answers to the questions that have been raised, but what's troubling is that the ECF don't seem to know.

As far as I can see it, either CJ has been misleading/selectively reporting his activities to the wider ECF, or the ECF has been misleading/selectively reporting CJ's activities to us. I'd like to know which it is.

[JustinHorton]

Responding to Steve, who suggest that we should look nicely upon each other because we don't know all the facts and most bad events turn out to be simple cock-ups:

generally, perhaps ... but with the ECF, CJ and RDK, if none of us know all the facts, it is because they are being kept from us.

For example, have you an "innocent cock up" theory about how we were not told that the ECF was suing the FIDE President, even though the decision was made a year ago and no one on the Board ever mentioned it in a thousand opportunities, including two Council meetings and the report from the ECF Delegate to FIDE* which was directed towards a vilification of the FIDE President and alluded to a court case (if I remember rightly) but still managed to omit to mention our own involvement?

As for CJ allowing us to believe that he has pumped thousands of pounds in to chess: perhaps. But he has never offered precise accounts to anyone, including the ECF Board itself, and has now vanished from the public eye (including his own re-election) for six months now that people have acquired the habit of asking detailed questions - well, this might be an unfortunate lapse in accountability, but it's rather a long drawn out sort of cock-up, isn't it?

And is it a separate cock up that CJ has never acknowledged or responded to the implication from the Times itself that he told the Times that he suspected the organisers of the British of homophobia (or words to that effect), and that after he was requested to do so several times, the Board removed the chief complainant from his position?

And further - there are some facts that are not disclosed, for reasons of privacy, or because informants request confidentiality, or because "rumours abound" that both RDK and CJ speak with libel lawyers more or less as a matter of routine. Even though we don't have all the facts on this forum, can you really say that you are not somewhat concerned about what we do know?

* I meant to write this originally, but got mixed up. Apologies to those who read the earlier version.

I reproduce the above in full because I agree with it in full.

[Ernie Lazenby]

Reading between the lines I think much is going on in the background and it wont be very pleasant.

Libel rumours are put around to try and frighten people off.
Fact- Taking civil litigation for libel is very expensive with no guarentee of being awarded a penny piece. No legal aid.
Taking such action usually opens up a whole can of worms for the person taking such action as the defence seek to destroy the litigants integrity. Sheffield gate would no dout open up such a can of worms. Something that would do the ECF no good at all.(The organisation would be drawn in to it even if they wanted to keep out)

Remember something written is not libel if its true!

Theres been a great many questions raised in the last week but very few answers. We have reached an appauling state of affairs and perhaps its time for an EGM to sort this all out before many more people become victims.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... perhaps its time for an EGM to sort this all out before many more people become victims.

Perhaps, but raising the same issues - where did the money come from? where did it go? Why didn't the ECF know the answer to either of these questions? - didn't actually help that match.

As I recall it was reported that one prominent member of the ECF responded with something about not looking gift horses in the mouth, but then I wasn't there so can't confirm this.

[John McKenna]

Last season this colloseum, I mean forum, brought us Troy I - Hector vs. Achilles - a score draw, Hector took a step back but Achilles sulk left him out of it.
And now, Gladiator II - two tribunes vs. two emperors - a largely uncommited senate and the plebs watch the spectacle with incredulity.
A couple of quotes - Juvenal would be best but Suetonius:
"Would that the Roman people had but one neck."
"Above all he was carried away by a popularity craze and jealous of all who stirred the feeling of the mob."

[Lara Barnes]

It would appear that Lara has acquired her own hash tag viz: http://hashtags.org/larabarnes

What does this mean John?

[PeterTurland]

Last season this colloseum, I mean forum, brought us Troy I - Hector vs. Achilles - a score draw, Hector took a step back but Achilles sulk left him out of it.
And now, Gladiator II - two tribunes vs. two emperors - a largely uncommited senate and the plebs watch the spectacle with incredulity.
A couple of quotes - Juvenal would be best but Suetonius:
"Would that the Roman people had but one neck."
"Above all he was carried away by a popularity craze and jealous of all who stirred the feeling of the mob."

My horse my horse, my kingdom for a horse, if not a horse, a knight will do.

[Carl Hibbard]

It would appear that Lara has acquired her own hash tag viz: http://hashtags.org/larabarnes

What does this mean John?

I have to say fair play to you for not sticking two fingers in the direction of the ECF for their general lack of support

[Alex Holowczak]

I am of the opinion that the International Director should be able to pick:
(a) an amateur team or a professional team
(b) a team composing of any player he so wishes

Depending on the finances at the time. The official has the necessary competence to realise "Oh, hang on, the ECF hasn't got much money, we'd best not spend £30k on an Olympiad team this year". Council does not need to tell him this.

Just to remind you - again! - that a selection committee picks the players. That said, the ID presumably sets the budget, and later negotiates with the selected players within that budget, so he will nonetheless have the most influence on account of that.

No, the ID doesn't set the International chess budget. Council does! Council is invited to approve the budget for everything at each Finance Council meeting.

And so Council can set a budget of £0 for International chess, at which point the selection committee - which yes, picks the players - suddenly has the amateur v professional decision made for it.

This is a typical example of a situation where a Director, who may want to do one thing (i.e. field his strongest team), could be told to do another (i.e. field the best team he can get without spending anything).

[John McKenna]

Peter Turland >A horse a horse, my kingdom for a horse...<
One Roman emperor made his horse a senator.

[Alex McFarlane]

Lara and I have been discussing our positions since September.

To Lara's credit she has stuck with the task because she feels she has a duty to the ordinary chess players in this country and in particular to the players of the North East. It is very important to her that the British 2012 is a success.

I am concerned for her well-being. She really needs all of this conflict to end and to end soon. I am not confident of this happening. It continuously seems to be one step forward and two back. There are not many things in my life that I regret. I do regret suggesting to Lara that she should put her name forward as Manager. It seemed like a simple solution. Instead it has put her under increasing pressure not helped by exaggerated claims by RDK.

How has the current situation arisen. Basically a breach of confidence somewhere. I obviously have my opinion of where that breach took place. I would also argue strongly that if the Board had taken firmer action from the outset we would not be in this situation today. Too often the benefit of the doubt has been given instead of demanding a proper explanation.

I have not seen finalised accounts for the British 2011. As any profit could be used for the forthcoming event that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The President of the ECF refuses to comment on exactly what he did say to the papers. My feeling is that before closure can take place the truth must be known. By saying nothing the President prevents us from moving towards closure.
The President has made financial claims which are now disputed in blogs. Again he refuses to comment.
It is alleged that the President may have been one of the people pushing for legal action against FIDE. He has not commented.

It is his right to remain silent but it must be asked "Is this silence doing chess in this country any good?" Perhaps the time has come when he should either answer at least some of these questions or terminate his involvement with the ECF.

I supported the Board decision to reject his resignation immediately following the fiasco that was the outcome of his refusal to participate in the prizegiving. If he had shown as much concern at that time for the event as Lara has he would have gone ahead with presenting the prizes as suggested by the two Managers at the time. He did not do so. He was invited to speak at the Prizegiving. He declined. Perhaps if he had spoken then instead of to the press immediately afterwards we would not be in the position we are. It is puzzling that he thought it better to go to the press rather than speak to the people directly involved - the players.

I feel that CJ De Mooi should resign as the ECF President. It is possible of course that if he exhibits the openness that he campaigned on then he could re-establish everyone's trust. It will take courage to do either. The chess playing public deserves to know more.

We can but hope.