I just feel that some information that has "officially" been published is misleading. The women's team was announced on the 8th of January and the first couple of pages on this thread were basically discussing Keti's participation. I assumed (wrongly) that was a done deal.
I believed Jonathan Grant had been selected as women's team captain and that was all sorted also. I now see that he is not listed in the squad on the homepage.
I don't recall reading about the issue of Andy's captaincy in the council meeting minutes.
To quote from Dougie, We elect Directors to Direct and make decisions. In the past we have used the Womans team captain for the FIDE delegate to save costs. FIDE got wind of this and started paying for the accommodation for the delegates so we no longer have to do that!
Surely it is down to the ID to make the decision on who should be captain? Similarly it is down to the IJD as to who to send as the Head of Delegation to an event. If it is them that wants to go, it is their prerogative. That is what we elect them to do. Ultimately they are judged by the teams performance.
Mig Greengard (Kasparovs Aide-de-camp) tweeted something interesting last night "I've long said there should be more shaming of top players not representing their countries at the chess Olympiad. It's every two years. I know they aren't all millionaires like top footballers (who'd never skip World Cup). But a few weeks at premier event won't break them. It's lame for top players to pull the prima donna crap over the Olympiad, a fantastic chess tradition. Kvetching about money, rating points.
Playing for your country every two years is an honor and if there's no money in it for you, work to change that."
I have to say, I find myself agreeing with that. Surely the Olympiad should be all about the best players from each federation playing.
Patrick McGovern Wrote:by commenting Hugh cannot moderate this thread should there be a need to do so
Of course he can if it gets out of hand. No danger of that to be honest. We are having a good honest discussion here.
Moderators are allowed an opinion!
I was at the SNCL and Lightning yesterday. As our team got a default in the SNCL I stepped down from playing and was available for discussions. There were few people that approached me even though they had plenty of opportunity.
Keen players Matthew Turner and Clement Sreeves were playing for their teams on board one.
Rowson, Motwani, Dearing regularly turn down places.
Matthew and Clement are quality people and deserve to play for Scotland at least once.
Maybe Matthew shouldn't play every year as he might take Clement's place each time but why not 2016 for him as a wildcard ?
I really want a break from the noticeboard now till May.
Andy,
I said this to you yesterday, I would love to see a place offered to one of our up and coming juniors to bring them on.
I have not read this whole thread since posting a week ago so apologies if I am duplicating.
We have established that if you are Director then you're empowered to do what you like such as book a trip to a top international event. I am surprised but fair enough. Definitely this was not clear to me and seems not clear to most members. A communication learn for the committee I think. Also makes the International Director post much more attractive now - I may stand myself next time and will be booking flights early to the next Olympiad :ymparty:
Besides this governance question, I see the question of cost is also in here. We have no government grant now and this event must be one of the biggest costs we are collectively sponsoring. Does make me wonder just how many non-playing party members we can afford to send (that's supporting both teams). I would think the case for just 1 is strong although not ideal.
Also on cost I was thinking maybe CS should not necessarily sponsor places for all players but only for players meeting certain criteria e.g. in top 10 for rating or top 1 of Junior or Scottish Champion in past 3 years. I'd also like a rule says you got to play some chess in Scotland in previous 12 months and of course if the International Director fancies a place his or herself then of course this is fine too :p . Cut off date for qualifiers to note interest is 6 months in advance. If this doesn't fill 5 (or 6?) places then remaining places can be be opened to players willing to fund their own way as happens for international events?
...and so the random justifications, smoke-screens and half-truths go on.
Andy Muir pencilled himself in last May for the role, to the extent of discussing room-mates.
He then further proposed himself in December when Jonathan Grant expressed his interest in the role.
He then booked his flights during discussions about his (un)suitability for the role with potential squad members, some CS directors and several of his own team-mates and ex-teammates whom Andy M saw fit to include in his 'committee'.
As Andy Howie via Dougie Bryson states, 'We elect directors to direct and make decisions', but what we do not do (and Andy H doesn't even acknowledge) is elect directors to do these things for their own personal benefit.
Andy has clearly decided from long ago that he wanted to go to Norway and refuses to accept that his presence will have a serious negative effect on team morale and quite possibly results.
("I haven't been to an Olympiad for 14 years and want the team to do well for a change"-Andy Muir; only part of this has any place in decision making, guess which part?) also "David, yes, I did not see the point of advertising the vacancy as I was happy with the combination of myself and Jonathan Grant" Of course he was happy with this! Never mind that the Scotland team aren't!
I would be interested, like Robin and others, to know what was discussed about this at the CS meeting on March 16th. I also see nothing in the minutes regarding this (apart from an apology for absence from Andy Muir). Who discussed this matter, why is it not in the minutes and why have the other CS directors not been included in any of these talks/correspondences/what have you?
P.S. The main reason I didn't talk to Andy Muir yesterday at the SNCL was simple - - I was playing GM Matthew Turner, (who I believe turned out for the first time this season for Greenwood in an effort to avoid their relegation). Why this suddenly merits 'a place' or 'wildcard' in the Scottish team I have no idea. Nice chap though, and a good player as he beat me!
Andy (B). Maybe I am being naive here but what is the personal benefit? Taking 2 weeks off work to go abroad for nothing, likely to be out of pocket (I always am when I have to go abroad for a meeting), loads of admin to do, sorting out the team for each day, making sure they are all there to avoid the zero default time etc etc...
I think I am over for 5 days, and I am in wall to wall meetings for 4 of them, the 5th day is travelling back. I don't get what the personal benefit is?
Andy Howie Wrote:Andy (B). Maybe I am being naive here but what is the personal benefit? Taking 2 weeks off work to go abroad for nothing, likely to be out of pocket (I always am when I have to go abroad for a meeting), loads of admin to do, sorting out the team for each day, making sure they are all there to avoid the zero default time etc etc...
I think I am over for 5 days, and I am in wall to wall meetings for 4 of them, the 5th day is travelling back. I don't get what the personal benefit is?
Andy - that really is quite a ridiculous statement - sorry. There is a large number of very keen chess players in Scotland who would absolutely love the chance to attend and be a part of a Chess Olympiad in whatever capacity. Honestly if you do not see that then you really are completely missing the point.
George, it is a perfectly fair question. It has been suggested that Andy M is doing this for personal benefit. Hard work and a lot of hassle are not personal benefit. Unless you have been a Captain, a Head of Delegation or ever acted as the FIDE / ECU delegate, you don't really grasp the work involved.
The one thing that is clear is we need to look at how the Captains and Heads of Delegation are selected. In the past it has been the ID and the IJD. Going by the depth of feeling on this thread this looks like something we may have to look at at the AGM.
I know that Andy M has put forward some ideas for that.