It would look like a sensible way forward would be for the Selection Board to be elected by Council, and that the ID chairs this, but has no vote. Further no captain should be elected from outwith Chess Scotland without the prior approval of council, as a minimum.
Ok, the captain should be acceptable to the teams, but I don't know of any other sport where the team actually chooses it's own captain.
If you want to change things now, the matter is in the hands of the members. As I posted earlier, the vehicle to do so is by a SGM. However I doubt that there is now sufficient time for this to be arranged now. A SGM needs time to be advertised, venue, and supporting members who prepared to prepare the motion and meet all the criteria as laid down in the constitution.
From the lack of recent posts on this subject, am I to take it that
a) no-one really cares enough? (as David Deary has stated)
b) the directors have decided not to make any joint statement on the matter? (despite such discussions in private)
c) noticeboard posters (CS members for the most part) should take their concerns to the AGM and just shut up in between times?
a) yes
b) not very private if you know about them
c) probably
I have yet to work out why you are so concerned about this, especially as you have made it clear that you personally are not affected, as you are some 150 ELO points short of selection.
Whose bullets are you firing?
Andy McCulloch Wrote:a) yes
b) not very private if you know about them
c) probably
I have yet to work out why you are so concerned about this, especially as you have made it clear that you personally are not affected, as you are some 150 ELO points short of selection.
Whose bullets are you firing?
Seeing as how I started this particular thread, and had reservations about the captaincy issue long before it became a privately (let alone publicly) contentious issue, you'll be dismayed to learn I'm not firing anyone else's bullets at all Andy.
Nice to know you're giving it some thought though, however wide of the mark you might be. A little more thought and you could even work out how and why I am privy to certain private discussions and why I should be so concerned when it doesn't 'directly' affect me.
I'll nip this in the bud, yes the Management board have been discussing this and yes there will be a statement shortly. As you seem to have knowledge of this, then you must know that this is about to happen!
Quote:I'll nip this in the bud
after how many days and after how many posts? LOL
)
Andy Howie Wrote:I'll nip this in the bud, yes the Management board have been discussing this and yes there will be a statement shortly. As you seem to have knowledge of this, then you must know that this is about to happen!
I know there have been discussions - whether there would actually be an official statement or not was beyond my knowledge until now. Why on earth couldn't this have been stated ages ago?
"The management board have been discussing this issue and will issue a statement in due course" or something similar.
Perhaps certain directors were too busy 'privately' slagging off noticeboard posters (CS members actually, but what does that matter to the high and mighty!) to think of this? They say that eavesdroppers never hear any good of themselves - how very true.
Just noticed the statement by the directors...
I think that the directors have been put in a difficult position but am also very disappointed with the statement. It looks like we will be spending a lot of money on sending a disgruntled team... and to be honest, I think more could have been done. I think it is clear that the selection was not fair or in the best interests of the team. As Andy B has said, Mr Muir has the right answer here...so do the right thing!
Also, as I've mentioned previously, looking at the selection process in at the AGM is virtually worthless (yes maybe it should be looked at but this situation won't happen again...). This is a one-off, and should be actioned.
Moderator note: the last post (which has now vanished) was deleted per the request of the poster.
Sorry for my last post (now deleted by Hugh at my request) - I had mistakenly posted something which was meant only as a draft, and which contained information which was not intended for public consumption - a basic and embarrassing journalistic error. Sincere apologies to all those concerned (excluding our ID).
Andy Burnett