Chess Scotland Noticeboard

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Morning,

I sent off the reports for the website last night. Until they appear on the front page, they can be downloaded from here (Link removed)

Reports are now on the front page

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

The reports are now on the web and up to date as I received another couple of reports.

I am removing the link above

Can I point out that we have still to find:-

International Junior Director
Junior Home Director
Marketing Director
Customer Services Director

We will take names from the floor of the AGM, although please let me know if you are interested.

I will keep this thread up to date, currently I have had an expression of interest in International Junior Director and also for Marketing Director

Andy

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Must say that I find Andy's motion badly worded:-

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

Mike, I know this will come as something of a bit of a blow, but I tend to agree with you. The motion seems very vague and doesn't seem to consider possible scenarios that might arise.

HughBrechin · Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:19 am Post subject:

I have to say that I thought Craig was probably right on the recent thread: this is all happening a bit quickly, and regardless of the fact that we're basically only dealing at the moment with one case which is turning out to be fairly uncontroversial, creating a whole new category of membership sounds like the kind of thing that can have unintended consequences down the line, and probably shouldn't be done after less than a month's consideration.

Even if we do iron out the wording issues (the particular one Mike spotted does look rather important, but can probably be solved by simply putting the word 'national' after 'Scottish'), this will remain a factor. I'd be in favour of taking a bit more time about things and putting a resolution before the 2012 AGM, because almost any change to the membership regulations will have effects aside from those intended. Apart from anything else, we should probably liaise with the ECF at least to some extent (possibly only to the extent of keeping them posted on what our new rule is going to look like, but it's nice to be nice and we don't want them to think we're trying to steal people), because whatever the resolution of this situation is, it may well set some kind of precedent, and we would presumably want any future transfers to be as amicable as possible (as this one, again, seems to be), given that England is the most likely source of future 'refugees'.

Angus McDonald · King Joined: 08 Apr 2009 Posts: 162

For me issues of nationality or national affiliation can't be decided on a case by case basis.

It needs clearly thought out rules which are the same for every potential applicant to change federation.

Nor should it be a reward for services rendered no matter how much we appreciate those services.

This is irrespective of how well intentioned, competent or indeed how Scottish the management board is or indeed thinks it is.

Accepting one and rejecting another could become a legal issue which wouldn't help the management board or Chess Scotland.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

rgds,
Angus

A Muir · King Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 489 Location: Dumbarton

if the motion is not passed then matthew will be left in limbo. I am sure that's not what people want

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

I can see the difficulties in this situation.

From what I can gather, most people seem to think there's no problem with Matthew Turner being able to cite Scotland as his country for FIDE purposes.

However, I think the concerns that have been raised are real ones.

Even leaving aside Matthew's circumstances and the precise wording of the motion, Is it wise to make significant alterations to an organisations rules/constitution, in such haste, and for a single issue?

A Muir · King Joined: 15 Feb 2007 Posts: 489 Location: Dumbarton

I am afraid I don't see the difficulties, allows players to play under Scottish flag if CS board want them - what's the harm ?

HughBrechin · Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject:

Would it be possible to pass some kind of holding motion designed to apply only in Matthew's case without making a general change to the rules? Means that we can be very careful about making a change to membership rules without, as you say, leaving him in limbo?

Craig Pritchett · Queen Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 114

Douglas Bryson very helpfully clarified the two key issues that persuade me that CS should not vote on this matter at the 2011 AGM except to commit to to discussing a mutually agreeable way forward within the GB member federation steering group (not just with the ECF). These are (see the other thread):

1. "FIDE's use of the term membership really means belonging to a federation ie a CS non-member born here is still a member of the Scottish federation".

2. "FIDE rating is compiled for all players whether they are CS members or not. FIDE fee for SCO registered non CS members is £2 but only £1 for members".

From these 2 points, it follows that:

3. If FIDE really means that all bona fide "nationals" (through birth, citizenship, parentage, due period of long-term residence or whatever) should have the cost of FIDE rating borne by the relevant "national" FIDE member federation, then it's hard to argue that the ECF shouldn't simply be paying for Matthew Turner whether or not he is an ECF member.

4. By insisting that Matthew be an ECF member for this sole service the ECF may not only be flying in the face of its apparent FIDE obligations but possibly also, albeit unwittingly and without intention, transferring what is really an ECF "problem" to other FIDE member federations (in this case CS).

5. If the additional cost to FIDE-rate non-member "nationals" really only amounts to £1 to the ECF, CS and other FIDE member countries, one would have thought that the problem might be solved amicably all round if such non-member "nationals" were simply asked to pay that additional cost (plus a reasonable admin premium) ... say, maybe no more than £5 .... to their "national" body.

6. Why not press for that as an agreed GB policy within the GB steering group and present FIDE with a "solution" that all of the various GB FIDE member federations will adhere to - FIDE might even find this useful guidance for all FIDE federations!

Gens una sumus!?

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

Andy