Forums

Surely those two things are not mutually exclusive!

Keith Ruxton Wrote:Surely those two things are not mutually exclusive!

:p

i'm ready to vote

Patrick McGovern Wrote:i'm ready to vote

Me too. Where do I click?

Me too, as long as there's a 'none of the above' option!

amuir Wrote:CS council also discussed the captaincy at their meeting on 16 march and the consensus was in my favour, so I do have quite a bit of backing.

[/quote]

So it seems that this was not the case...

Jim Webster Wrote:I was also at the council meeting, there was certainly not a vote of confidence or otherwise taken on any subject. If so it would have been recorded and minuted.(

Not really sure the best way to resolve this situation, there has been discussions of one-off panels but who would create the panel and who would be in it? I think perhaps the only man that could decide this would be our president. He has the power, maybe its time to call on him?

The President (and other senior CS officials) HAVE been called on, weeks ago actually. They were contacted by several of the disgruntled players, but as yet none of them have seen fit to reply in any way- either publicly or privately.

I discussed this issue with some of the interested parties at the weekend in Edinburgh - those who were unhappy about the situation are still unhappy, although one new voice (not a player) has asked me to let the matter drop lest we find ourselves in the same position junior chess has found itself in Scotland, riven by schisms and discontent at every turn.

Although I appreciate his point, I find this very difficult to do, particularly when our International Director makes public claims such as the one David quotes above re: council backing of his stance, the veracity of which is questionable to say the least.

There are a few solutions to this:-

-Firstly, our International Director could simply step down from the captaincy, admitting that his decisions were not and are not in the best interests of the teams. This would be the easiest course of action, and the 'honourable' and decent thing to do. Given the opacity of his arguments/decisions/comments so far I have my doubts that this will happen of its own accord, but it should be a serious option - one which those closest to him should think about pushing for.

-Secondly, the 'high heid yins' within CS could (and should) deal with this matter by contacting all parties concerned and trying to find an amicable solution. It doesn't need to be an official enquiry of any sort in the first instance, but burying their collective heads in the sand and hoping the problems will disappear (or not rear up again during the Olympiad with negative effects) is surely not the behaviour the majority of members would like to see from their elected representatives with regard to any issue?

-Thirdly, the players could release a joint public statement, either accepting the decisions and asking others to respect these in the interests of the team, or conversely asking for executive involvement in reviewing the ID's decisions (which is what I believe they have done privately with no response as I mentioned at the top).

I would again ask people to please put a stop to all this. It is very unpleasant.
Although there was not a formal discussion at the CS council meeting about the captaincy, an email from someone there to me implied verbal discussions were in my favour.
I intend playing next year for Scotland in Reykjavik if selected and don't want this to impact the friendships I have with other players there.
I am not a negative or dishonest person and any thoughts otherwise is a myth.
If this carries on adult chess will be as divisive as junior chess over the next 10 years.
There is a good argument for giving no money to the 2016 Olympiad and putting all money into Senior chess. These guys drew with England today and always act with honour.
Please trust me that there will be no problems at all at the Olympiad and everyone will have a great time.
I am the best person for the job having been elected ID for the last 5 years.

There is no respectable argument whatsoever for giving no funding to the 2016 Olympiad and putting it all into senior chess instead.
The Seniors are doing fantastically well and are a credit to our country's chess scene. The Olympiad is the pinnacle of international team chess and is where Scotland shows the best chess it has to offer on the world stage. It would be incomprehensible in almost all other countries to actively penalise your strongest national representative team. This is an astonishing statement from a man apparently desiring to be the Scotland Open Olympiad captain.
The 2016 Olympiad team would have a very different look without funding I imagine.

amuir Wrote:implied verbal discussions were in my favour.

How can you say you have ‘quite a bit of backing’ from an ‘implied verbal discussion’. What even is an implied verbal discussion? This discussion happened or it did not. If it did, it would have been remembered and minuted.

I meant to add, there has been some chat about the selection process needing changed. This is probably the case, but that can wait for the AGM in August. Something needs to be done THIS year. Perhaps the reason we haven’t had an issue with the selection process previously is because I don’t think many directors would: Not advertise a position that should be because they want to select themselves, then select themselves (and still want to go!) despite clear and consistent objections from the team. Yes the selection process needs changed, but I think an issue like this is unlikely to happen again. This is a one-off and needs to be addressed…