My Resignation

[Lara Barnes]

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?p=16650#more-16650

A statement by the board on this matter.

[Jonathan Rogers]

As one would expect the statement says nothing about what is going on at all.
It finishes in a most unequivocal fashion:

"This matter has been the subject of a lengthy and time-consuming correspondence between the involved parties. It is deeply regrettable that a more amicable resolution could not be reached, but it is the considered view of the Board that this correspondence must now close."

I think that this releases Alex from any undertakings of confidentiality that he may have given on the basis that the ECF was working towards an amicable solution.

[Alex McFarlane]

Having been involved for most of the day in voluntary work I return home to discover through this forum that the ECF Board has published a statement.

I have sent the following to the ECF Chief Executive as a result.

Dear Sir,

Would you please explain your actions. I find out that the ECF Board has published a statement on its website without (a) having the courtesy to let me see it or (b) informing me of its existance.

I trust I will be given the courtesy of a right to reply.

In light of the ECF's disregard for anything to appear in public being mutually agreed I assume that all restrictions on what I am allowed to publicise are also to be disregarded in the same manner.


Alex McFarlane

As always the ECF Board statement fails to address the Sunday Times allegation that its President did indeed accuse its officials of homophobic actions. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding Mr De Mooi's silence.

For clarity here was my initial requests to the Board which they found so abhorant.

“As far as I can see there are two possibilities.
a) CJ thought he had been 'snubbed' and went to the papers complaining that he had been prevented from wearing his Stonewall t-shirt. The papers then embellished the story.
b) CJ thought he had been 'snubbed' and went to the papers complaining that he had been subjected to homopbobic treatment.
If it is (a) and we hope it is then we would like him to state this and to tell that to the Press Complaints Commission. We would not expect him to file a complaint himself but to back us.
If it is (b) then we would want him to acknowledge that his original statement was not fully accurate and to apologise to both Managers and Lara. A contribution towards the running costs of the 2012 British as a tangible token of regret would be appreciated. (This last sentence was dropped before being given to Andrew Farthing.)
Reasoning: If it is (a) then we need support to get proper redress from the Sunday Times. We would obviously be seeking a more substantial sum from them. The effect of their story on Lara and the potential damage to her career is enormous. If they maliciously planned this then it is gutter journalism of the worst sort.
If it is (b) then we accept it was a heat of the moment thing but it has done damage and this should be acknowledged.
My personal feeling is if it is (b) then the Board should acknowledge that they handled the whole situation badly and forced me into action I would much rather not have taken. I'd rather this was public but will accept a private apology. The wording of any public apology would be open to negotiation basically giving me a right to veto if necessary.”

The Board seem to think that I was immovable on a claim that they handled the situation badly. But that statement only applies IF De Mooi did actually make allegations of homophobia. Are they actually admitting something?

As you may gather from my letter to Andrew Farthing he has refused me permission to publish the Board's rejection of mediation. He has also refused to allow me to publish further allegations made by Raymond Keene. He has ignored requests for the Board to ask Mr De Mooi to assure Mr Keene that the De Mooi statement (it falls short of being an apology) he issued is accurate and that Keene should withdraw the allegations he made and subsequently added to.

I have two regrets over my resignation,
(a) It has put Lara under tremendous pressure. I had effectively continued to work as joint Manager after my 'sacking' as a measure of my goodwill and
(b) I should have walked away immediately and allowed the boycotts to go ahead.

To conclude may I thank all those who have taken the time to post messages of support here, on facebook and in personal emails.

[Roger de Coverly]

but it is the considered view of the Board that this correspondence must now close."

In terms of what the ECF have said to the chess playing public, there hasn't been any correspondence. A row between the President and the team who manage one of the ECF's major events has to be a serious problem and one that unilaterally closing correspondence doesn't resolve. Why was it not possible to issue a statement on behalf of the ECF disassociating itself from the wilder opinions expressed in the Times or Sunday Times?

Elements of the ECF are very much in bunker mode and refusing to communicate:-

to cite two examples
- any explanation or comparison of the shortfall of Congress Game Fee from 2010 to 2011
- any explanation or comment as to why the ECF appears to be a party to legal action in the CAS against FIDE, not least as to why it wasn't considered an issue that should be reported at the AGM.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex.

I was going to PM you but let's keep it open.
(there has been enough behind closed doors shenanigans.)

I think you are wrong mate.

The fact the ECF were/are willing to let you run the British shows their support.
If they sided with this homophobic nonsense then they would have asked you and Lara to resign.
The chess players support you and Lara, they know this is all nonsense.
And does look like that is all you going to get from this mess.

These two items clearly stand out from the notice on the ECF site.

• The ECF stated (and restated) its confidence in, and support for,
the officials involved. (actually naming them would have been nice.)

• The ECF stated categorically that any allegations of bigotry or
homophobia published after the incident were entirely without foundation.

Alex your beef is with Keene and not the ECF.

Forget trying to squeeze an apology out of CJ. You don't need it.
Anyway he admitted somewhere on this forum he over-reacted and
being the President of the ECF you have to figure that he had some
hand in it's writing or at least OK'd the notice.

For the good of the game let it go. You are good at what you do.

I've no idea why Keene wrote that trash. Perhaps he wanted you out of the way so he
could run the British.....(Is there money to made running the British?).

Secondly you are right about the pressure Lara will be under without you.
It's not fair on her Alex. She undertook this task of getting the British to the North East
thinking you would be by her side to help and assist her.
Not in the capacity as a background hired help but as the hands on tournament controller.

If she trips up who is going to catch her?

Reconsider. Please reconsider.

If you still decide that your only option is to stand down then so be it.
It won't affect out friendship. (I have a plan B.)

Plan B:

Openly state that you are infact gay and have been for many many years.
Then RK wil have to print an apology else he will the Gay Rights mob
throwing themselves under his car.
You cannot go around writing that gay people are homophobic.
That would be homophilic. (I think that is the correct word.)

[Paul Buswell]

Having been involved for most of the day in voluntary work I return home to discover through this forum that the ECF Board has published a statement.

I have sent the following to the ECF Chief Executive as a result.

Dear Sir,

Would you please explain your actions. I find out that the ECF Board has published a statement on its website without (a) having the courtesy to let me see it or (b) informing me of its existance.

I trust I will be given the courtesy of a right to reply.

In light of the ECF's disregard for anything to appear in public being mutually agreed I assume that all restrictions on what I am allowed to publicise are also to be disregarded in the same manner.


Alex McFarlane

As always the ECF Board statement fails to address the Sunday Times allegation that its President did indeed accuse its officials of homophobic actions. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding Mr De Mooi's silence.

For clarity here was my initial requests to the Board which they found so abhorant.

“As far as I can see there are two possibilities.
a) CJ thought he had been 'snubbed' and went to the papers complaining that he had been prevented from wearing his Stonewall t-shirt. The papers then embellished the story.
b) CJ thought he had been 'snubbed' and went to the papers complaining that he had been subjected to homopbobic treatment.
If it is (a) and we hope it is then we would like him to state this and to tell that to the Press Complaints Commission. We would not expect him to file a complaint himself but to back us.
If it is (b) then we would want him to acknowledge that his original statement was not fully accurate and to apologise to both Managers and Lara. A contribution towards the running costs of the 2012 British as a tangible token of regret would be appreciated. (This last sentence was dropped before being given to Andrew Farthing.)
Reasoning: If it is (a) then we need support to get proper redress from the Sunday Times. We would obviously be seeking a more substantial sum from them. The effect of their story on Lara and the potential damage to her career is enormous. If they maliciously planned this then it is gutter journalism of the worst sort.
If it is (b) then we accept it was a heat of the moment thing but it has done damage and this should be acknowledged.
My personal feeling is if it is (b) then the Board should acknowledge that they handled the whole situation badly and forced me into action I would much rather not have taken. I'd rather this was public but will accept a private apology. The wording of any public apology would be open to negotiation basically giving me a right to veto if necessary.”

The Board seem to think that I was immovable on a claim that they handled the situation badly. But that statement only applies IF De Mooi did actually make allegations of homophobia. Are they actually admitting something?

As you may gather from my letter to Andrew Farthing he has refused me permission to publish the Board's rejection of mediation. He has also refused to allow me to publish further allegations made by Raymond Keene. He has ignored requests for the Board to ask Mr De Mooi to assure Mr Keene that the De Mooi statement (it falls short of being an apology) he issued is accurate and that Keene should withdraw the allegations he made and subsequently added to.

I have two regrets over my resignation,
(a) It has put Lara under tremendous pressure. I had effectively continued to work as joint Manager after my 'sacking' as a measure of my goodwill and
(b) I should have walked away immediately and allowed the boycotts to go ahead.

To conclude may I thank all those who have taken the time to post messages of support here, on facebook and in personal emails.

Alex:

I think this has gone as far as it reasonably can. For what it's worth I did not find the Board's statement inherently unreasonable. The time has come for you too to walk away from further dispute; obviously you will take whatever decisions you see fit about your future involvement in English chess, but I think you are at risk of this becoming an obsessive canker.

Paul Buswell

[Jonathan Rogers]

Alex:

I think this has gone as far as it reasonably can. For what it's worth I did not find the Board's statement inherently unreasonable. The time has come for you too to walk away from further dispute; obviously you will take whatever decisions you see fit about your future involvement in English chess, but I think you are at risk of this becoming an obsessive canker.

Paul Buswell

Depends what you mean by not "inherently unreasonable". If by adding "inherently" you mean that the statement is Ok in itself if you separate it from all the cover-up and refusal to negotiate/apologise/admit unwelcome facts in public, then maybe so, but what's your point? Context is everything...

But I do agree that we should want closure soon. I think that Alex should now reveal all the facts, so that others who have not already reached the obvious conclusions about certain persons may now do so, and hopefully act accordingly. There are many who still cling to any excuse not to draw what seem to be obvious conclusions - indeed, it was largely because certain facts seemed "unclear" that I was unable to persuade one of my Council reps to vote against CJ as President in October.

[Matthew Turner]

We are now five months on. There is not going to be any mediation and an impasse has been reached.
In truth, I suspect that once the dispute was elevated to the level the Press Complaints Commission there could only be two outcomes - either CJ would go or Alex and Lara would. In retrospect, it would have been better if the Board had accepted C.J.'s resignation. I am not seeking to apportion blame to either side, but I just note that since his aborted resignation, C.J. has gone AWOL as President.
It is admirable that Lara has stayed on as Manager of the British Championships in order to support the event in the North-East. However, I think that there is a real danger that this might prove to be counter-productive. It is allowing this dispute to drag on and as the Championships draws nearer there will always be tensions arising. It could be very detrimental to the Championships if there has to be a change of Managers nearer to the event. I feel that the best thing now would be for Lara to step down and for the ECF to have a reasonable period to put a team in place to run the Championships.

[Alex McFarlane]

The following is my response to the statement posted on the ECF website which seems to me to break the agreement reached prior to mediation. I have asked John Philpott to investigate this.
I'm sorry this is so long. If you are only interested in my comments to Jonathan Rogers please jump to the black text at the bottom.

The Board notes with regret the decision of Alex McFarlane not to offer his services as Chief Arbiter of the British Chess Championships 2012 and to withdraw from all future ECF activity. His services will be missed by players and officials alike.

Mr McFarlane’s decision comes as a result of his dissatisfaction with the ECF’s response to the incident that took place prior to the prize-giving of the 2011 British Championships, which led to the ECF President, CJ de Mooi, not presenting the prizes.

My decision has nothing to do with the incident prior to the prizegiving but more to the actions of the President during or after the prizegiving which led to accusations of homophobia, bigotry and brutish behaviour being levelled at ECF officials. Any incident before the prizegiving was minor. Mr De Mooi refused to present the prizes to the Championship players because, as he acknowledges, he misunderstood a simple question.

The Board is sorry that its actions in this matter have not been satisfactory to Mr McFarlane, but it stands by the approach adopted and the decisions taken and cannot in good conscience apologise for them.

I have only asked the Board to apologise IF Mr De Mooi did indeed make allegations that officials acted in a homophobic manner. If this is not the case then there is no need to apologise, although requesting Mr De Mooi to clarify his actions would have been appreciated. I admit that I have asked Mr Farthing to apologise for some of his emails which left Lara in tears. He has not done so but that was not part of my ‘starting’ position regarding mediation. I believe the Mediator explained to Mr Farthing that I was anything but intransigent on the matter of a Board apology.

The Board’s position has consistently been as follows:
• A line was drawn under the original incident with the publication of the ECF’s statement on the day after the prize-giving, which included apologies by President CJ de Mooi and Senior Arbiter Lara Barnes and an acceptance that there had been a misunderstanding;

The line drawn under the original incident was drawn prior to the Sunday Times allegations that Mr De Mooi had indeed, whilst not using the actual word, accused at least one official of homophobia in a recorded interview. This revelation requires either a refutation or an acknowledgement. The ST have refused to release a copy of the recording to me as it could be used in legal action against Mr De Mooi (its interpretation). Mr De Mooi’s silence on this matter has done considerable damage to British chess.

• The ECF stated (and restated) its confidence in, and support for, the officials involved;

The ECF has indeed stated its confidence and support for the officials involved. The ECF Board, on the other hand has mouthed the words but failed to follow through with anything concrete. It even failed to reappoint me as the Manager of the event. Is this an example of its confidence and support?

• The ECF stated categorically that any allegations of bigotry or homophobia published after the incident were entirely without foundation;

The Board has dealt with published accusations but it has refused to consider the possibility of verbal accusations made by its President.

• The ECF would not comment on individual expressions of opinion by third parties concerning the incident, but, given the categorical statement above, its rejection of any specific allegation of bigotry or homophobia was clear.

I have never had any explanation of why the Board has refused to condemn Keene’s accusations. I’m sure this could have nothing to do with the rumours circulating that it was actually Keene who arranged the sponsorship of the event.

The position of Mr de Mooi, with the agreement of the Board, has consistently been that the statements made on the day after the incident represented an agreement to draw a line under the matter. As a consequence, he has refrained from any further public comment on the incident and this remains his position.

In light of the seriousness of the Sunday Times allegations, is making no further statement a sensible position to adopt? The line was drawn before the subsequent allegations were known. The albatross attitude adhered to has caused this situation to escalate. If the press had subsequently claimed that one of the officials had indeed banned Mr De Mooi for his sexual orientation would the Board have continued to claim that a line had been drawn? Would Mr De Mooi continue his self-imposed vow of silence?

An offer by a third party to mediate between Mr McFarlane and the ECF Board was given serious consideration. After considerable discussion, the Board reached the conclusion that there was no prospect of the mediation process achieving success, given what was being asked of Mr de Mooi and the Board. Under the circumstances, the Board reluctantly took the view that it would be acting in bad faith to continue the process and advised the mediator that it would not be proceeding.

The Board has failed to grasp the concept of mediation. In general, people with opposing viewpoints meet and common ground is found and built upon. Rejection to even start mediation seems to me to imply that the ECF Board is intransigent and prefers to have continuing doubt hanging over its President . One must wonder why this is.

This matter has been the subject of a lengthy and time-consuming correspondence between the involved parties. It is deeply regrettable that a more amicable resolution could not be reached, but it is the considered view of the Board that this correspondence must now close.

The Board would appear to have closed communication without even having the courtesy of informing me of the publication of this document, nor of even informing me of its existence. I hope that they will give me the right of reply but I will not hold my breath.

Jonathan Rogers is correct. There is more to this than the above. Mr Gunn made a trumped up allegation about me which I believe the Board considered. When I queried it I was told he got the time-line wrong. A corrrect timeline would have negated his whole report. I have been repeatedly refused access to information which would allow me to confirm my suspicions or to allay my fears. I have other reasons to doubt the accuracy of what members of the Board were told but again I have been refused permission to see any correspondence which was distributed and which mentioned me. The Information Commissioners Office has asked me to put in a formal complaint about this which I am in the process of doing.

A third reason for continuing to work for the British was that I wanted to see full finalised accounts for the event. I wanted to see that questions raised by David Welch had been answered to our satisfaction and not simply swept under the carpet. The worries concerned various taxation aspects of the event as well as concerns about an invoice issued by a member of the Board.

There have been a number of statements made by Mr De Mooi regarding his financial contibution to the event. I am unable to confirm these figures but if true some of our Grandmasters must have done very well out of this year's British. If this is the case then again there could be tax implications. Whilst unable to say anything further on the matter I can comment that the Darwin money went through the Championship account but I have yet to see how that money was allocated.


For clarity, I am not implying any tax irregularities by any individual.
The tax situation is covered as with entertainers and there is a £10000 threashhold after which tax should be deducted by the body making the payment. This figure is lower under certain circumstances. There are allowances as Roger says below but if the prize and the conditions came from the same source (and the sponsors money did go through the ECF) then the ECF could be liable. I do not know what the situation is even this long after the event.

[Roger de Coverly]

If some starts a new thread on that, I might have something to add there. It all depends what is meant by the above, as it is not totally clear. But that is best put in a new thread.

You might want to revive this old thread.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... ead#unread

I've been trying to get my head around the various ways of paying players for their participation in the British. I think they should be mostly tax neutral, since any payment to players can be offset by their expenses as it would count either as trivial income for a hobby (if amateurs) or allowed expenses (if professionals). As far as the ECF is concerned, if sponsorship or patronage amounts go through its books, then it has to pay VAT on receipts, but can offset the same against expenses. If the ECF President or other patron paid players directly or indirectly (via hotel bills) for participation in the British, that presumably isn't a direct concern of the ECF, but rather between the patron, the players and the tax authorities whether British or Greek.

I would presume that the ECF documents all payments to players that go through its own books. Beyond that, whether the payment is taxable, I would expect to be the responsibility of the players themselves.

Stewart Reuben claimed a few years ago that the Revenue was relaxed about amateur players earning prizes and in fact made it "difficult" to declare as a chess professional. Quite obviously if they sought to tax such prizes, almost all amateur players could throw their entire chess expenditure back at them and claim tax relief for all those 4NCL weekends and away club and county matches, not to mention the purchase of entire bookshelves of chess books and programs.

[Carl Hibbard]

I wanted to see that questions raised by David Welch had been answered to our satisfaction and not simply swept under the carpet.

Some of the points and allegations raised in the post go well beyond matters that perhaps this forum should get involved with

I have asked Alex to reconsider his post in light of this

[Roger de Coverly]

For clarity, I am not implying any tax irregularities by any individual.
The tax situation is covered as with entertainers and there is a £10000 threashhold after which tax should be deducted by the body making the payment. This figure is lower under certain circumstances. There are allowances as Roger says below but if the prize and the conditions came from the same source (and the sponsors money did go through the ECF) then the ECF could be liable. I do not know what the situation is even this long after the event.

I would have expected the £ 10,000 limit to apply to a prize or payments to an individual and not the event as a whole. Surely you wouldn't expect the numerous amateur prize winners to have tax deducted from their winnings and have to reclaim it in some manner from HMRC? Isn't this something that the ECF's Finance Director can and should clarify or at the very least make available the necessary advice to those running the event.

(edit) I think what Alex may be suggesting is that if prize + conditions exceeded £ 10,000 for any of the players from a single source, then the ECF should have withheld some of the prize money as tax. If the ECF didn't actually know what conditions were paid, this would be difficult. (/edit)

[Alex McFarlane]

Thank you for clarifying what I was attempting to say.

You will not be surprised to discover that I have been refused permission to have a reply posted on the ECF website.

Yet again Mr Farthing did not inform me of this decision. I have asked John Philpott what action I can take to have the obvious error corrected.

[David Pardoe]

Guys,
There has been a lot of public mud slinging of late, which might only serve to esculate the tensions.
Some `good advice` has been put forward by `friends`, which I`d like to see headed.
We have the prospect of another excellent British this year at the great unsung splender of our north east coast venue on Tyneside, and many of us would love to see this hailed as a great event.
I hope some `fence mending` can commence, in the interests of British chess...and that all the parties can get back to what they are good at, ie...delivering successful chess to our chess community.

[Alex McFarlane]

David,

Unless the ECF Board wants to change its decision and enter into mediation then the only way forward is to hold an EGM on the matter.

The Board could have either ignored my resignation as they did initially with David Welch and have still done with Geoff Jones (Manager of Arbiters) and Neville Belinfante (administrator of the Qualifiers list) or they could have published a short paragraph thanking me for my efforts as they did eventually with David Welch. Instead it chose to, and with greater haste than is normal for it, print a statement which is factually inaccurate in at least one area. I have been informed that I will not be given the right of reply. I fear that despite my efforts at bridge building, which were acknowledged by Stewart Reuben at Hastings, there is a reluctance from the Board to enter into meaningful negotiations. Indeed one Board member did thank me for my efforts and hoped that I would do well in the future. However, this message was received BEFORE the Board meeting which rejected mediation!!

Like you I fear for this year's British despite Lara's continued involvement. The Board's reaction does seem to put her in an even more awkward position by increasing the conflict she is going through. One has to wonder if this is deliberate. A statement of support for her in this very difficult time would not go amiss.

Incidently, an emotional appeal by Lara to individual Board members to reconsider mediation went, I believe, unanswered by all. My personal opinion is that they want her to go but know they cannot sack her without serious repercusions. Why else would there be no reply.