PDA

View Full Version : Chess Victoria unpaid debt to Australian Chess Federation [sf Aus Champ 2012 qns]



Carl Gorka
29-07-2010, 03:10 PM
The constitution doesnt as the items you quoted are from By-laws not from the ACF constitution. ;)

You are quite correct.:) Perhaps you can answer this one....

Is the rumour true that you proposed a motion seeking to ban Victorian Juniors from rated events around Australia?

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2010, 03:53 PM
You are quite correct.:) Perhaps you can answer this one....

Is the rumour true that you proposed a motion seeking to ban Victorian Juniors from rated events around Australia?That is rubbish.
Which clueless idiot told you that.

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2010, 12:42 AM
I thought it might be Chinese whispers...gossip blows things all out of proportion, just like when you were asking about rumours about the MCC last year.

So, what exactly did you suggest regarding Victorian Juniors?CV currently has an outstanding debt of $4956 to the ACF for school team levy fees going back to 2008 that they seem reluctant to pay. It is hoped CV will arrange to pay this outstanding debt at their next scheduled committee meeting on 5th August 2010.

If this does not occur then the ACF Executive will consider the possibility of imposing sanctions on CV similar to those that have been raised in previous, similar cases, i.e.
No CV teams permitted to play in any Australian Schools Teams Championship event including the 2010 event.
No CV junior eligible for selection for overseas events or endorsed for overseas events and no grants paid (current selections not affected.).
No CV junior accepted into future Johns-Putra Elite Training Squads.
No CV Junior eligible to win any ACF Junior title.

Carl Gorka
31-07-2010, 10:22 PM
CV currently has an outstanding debt of $4956 to the ACF for school team levy fees going back to 2008 that they seem reluctant to pay. It is hoped CV will arrange to pay this outstanding debt at their next scheduled committee meeting on 5th August 2010.

If this does not occur then the ACF Executive will consider the possibility of imposing sanctions on CV similar to those that have been raised in previous, similar cases, i.e.
No CV teams permitted to play in any Australian Schools Teams Championship event including the 2010 event.
No CV junior eligible for selection for overseas events or endorsed for overseas events and no grants paid (current selections not affected.).
No CV junior accepted into future Johns-Putra Elite Training Squads.
No CV Junior eligible to win any ACF Junior title.

Could this be imposed for the upcoming event which is to be held in Victoria?

MichaelBaron
01-08-2010, 12:21 AM
Could this be imposed for the upcoming event which is to be held in Victoria?

LOL. I would love to see that :). Held in Victoria but without Victorians...would love to see an idiot who makes such a decision :). It would be just like a World Cup without South African team

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 12:24 AM
Could this be imposed for the upcoming event which is to be held in Victoria?Yes.

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 12:27 AM
LOL. I would love to see that :). Held in Victoria but without Victorians...would love to see an idiot who makes such a decision :). It would be just like a World Cup without South African teamThe only idiot here is you as you clearly cannot read.
It does not say Victorians are not permitted to play, just they could not win any titles.

Ian_Rogers
01-08-2010, 12:27 AM
CV currently has an outstanding debt of $4956 to the ACF for school team levy fees going back to 2008 that they seem reluctant to pay. It is hoped CV will arrange to pay this outstanding debt at their next scheduled committee meeting on 5th August 2010.

If this does not occur then the ACF Executive will consider the possibility of imposing sanctions on CV similar to those that have been raised in previous, similar cases, i.e.
No CV teams permitted to play in any Australian Schools Teams Championship event including the 2010 event.
No CV junior eligible for selection for overseas events or endorsed for overseas events and no grants paid (current selections not affected.).
No CV junior accepted into future Johns-Putra Elite Training Squads.
No CV Junior eligible to win any ACF Junior title.

Don't make stupid threats, Bill.

This is just as bad as the 1980s when Gary Wastell tried to get me banned from playing internationally because my State, NSW, was arguing over a debt with the ACF.

The ACF should be supporting Victoria's talented juniors such as Bobby Cheng, not using them as collateral for an unpaid debt and banning them from representing Australia.

Your argument is not with individual juniors, who have miniscule influence on VCA policy, so pull your head in and please assure all Victorian juniors that they will never be made scapegoats for the ACF and VCA's political failings.

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 12:38 AM
Don't make stupid threats, Bill.Actually the ACF passed similar motions in 2008 when the ACTJCL and CV were in arrears. The fees were promptly paid.

The ACF should be supporting Victoria's talented juniors such as Bobby Cheng, not using them as collateral for an unpaid debt and banning them from representing Australia.

Your argument is not with individual juniors, who have miniscule influence on VCA policy, so pull your head in and please assure all Victorian juniors that they will never be made scapegoats for the ACF and VCA's political failings.I am not saying it will happen, just that it could given such sanctions have been used in similar situations previously.

As for political failing the only one failing here is with CV.

Virtually all of the School Teams Levy has been given to the AusJCL in the past couple of years.

CV by not paying any of those fees have contributed nothing to the funding of the AusJCL.

In your opinion what action should the ACF take against CV to ensure the fees are promptly paid.

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 01:01 AM
The only idiot here is you as you clearly cannot read.
It does not say Victorians are not permitted to play, just they could not win any titles.

This could very well ruin the tournament. Have you made the Aus Junior organisers aware of the fact that these sanctions may be imposed?

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 01:21 AM
This could very well ruin the tournament. Have you made the Aus Junior organisers aware of the fact that these sanctions may be imposed?Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
CV could agree to pay the debt at their upcoming meeting and the ACF has taken no decision as to what actions if any it will take against CV if the debt is not paid.
Also although the sanctions listed are those used in similar circumstances in the past, I would prefer that the ACF decide to use a different set of sanctions against CV that would not impact Victorian juniors.

MichaelBaron
01-08-2010, 10:55 AM
I am curious how to explain to 8 yo kids that they can not win a national title because ''aunty from CV'' has not given some money to ''uncle from ACF'' Do they really care?

Basil
01-08-2010, 11:02 AM
Is the debt disputed? If so, is resolution occurring?

If not disputed, has reason for non-payment been forthcoming? Has an apology/ payment plan been offered? Is CV just pissing about and trying the ACF's patience? What time-frame (overdue) are we talking about?

If CV is merely pushing buttons and obfuscating, what would Ian, Carl and Mike suggest the appropriate course to be? Do Ian, Carl and Mike feel they are being objective, given their Vic POV? If yes Objectivity), why then are they not making public statements requesting CV to explain their default (questioning both the cause, not just the effect)?

I wonder if parents of Vic juniors will ask why their state body isn't paying its bill.

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 11:43 AM
Is the debt disputed? If so, is resolution occurring?The amount isnt disputed. The new CV Treasurer is questioning the ACF's right to be able to levy CV in the first place.
He makes the following false claims/assumptions:

1) CV isnt a member of the ACF and as such is not under any contractual obligation to the ACF.
2) That decisions of the ACF are only morally binding on CV not legally binding.
3) CV delegates(s) to the ACF even if they supported decisions of the ACF at the time, do not have the power to bind future CV Executives.
4) That CV should be able to dictate how the ACF spends the levy money.

Unfortunately it is clear he does not know what he is talking about.

CV as an affiliated State Association is clearly a member of the ACF and represented on the ACF Council by CV's appointed delegate and at the ACF National Conferences by CV appointed delegates.

As a member of the ACF, CV is legally obliged to pay any ACF fees or levies.

The ACF can spend/allocate the levy money how it chooses.
In the past few years virtually all of the levy money has gone to the AusJCL.

In fact if as CV claims CV is not a member of the ACF then Victorian players would have no rights be they adults or juniors to any ACF titles etc.


If not disputed, has reason for non-payment been forthcoming? Has an apology/ payment plan been offered? Is CV just pissing about and trying the ACF's patience? What time-frame (overdue) are we talking about?The debt consists of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 school levies.
Note these levies are calculated on the same basis as the 2007 levy which CV has previously paid.

MichaelBaron
01-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Is the debt disputed? If so, is resolution occurring?

If not disputed, has reason for non-payment been forthcoming? Has an apology/ payment plan been offered? Is CV just pissing about and trying the ACF's patience? What time-frame (overdue) are we talking about?

If CV is merely pushing buttons and obfuscating, what would Ian, Carl and Mike suggest the appropriate course to be? Do Ian, Carl and Mike feel they are being objective, given their Vic POV? If yes Objectivity), why then are they not making public statements requesting CV to explain their default (questioning both the cause, not just the effect)?

I wonder if parents of Vic juniors will ask why their state body isn't paying its bill.

CU, I am not disputing the debt. Furthermore, I am not concerned about the nature of the argument. What i am concerned about is that kids may end up suffering from the consequences of a dispute between the adults.

Btw, I have been having doubts what is the use of ACF membership to Vic chess players (if only we could get our tournaments rated directly by Fide etc). But this is a separate issue alltogether.

Basil
01-08-2010, 12:17 PM
The amount isnt disputed. The new CV Treasurer is questioning the ACF's right to be able to levy CV in the first place.
When did CV put the ACF on notice that it disputed the obligation.

Has CV (its previous office bearers) previously indicated that it acknowledged the '08 and '09 debts?

Basil
01-08-2010, 12:19 PM
CU, I am not disputing the debt. Furthermore, I am not concerned about the nature of the argument. What i am concerned about is that kids may end up suffering from the consequences of a dispute between the adults.
I think we're all concerned. What do you think should be done about the resolution of outstanding debt?

MichaelBaron
01-08-2010, 12:25 PM
I think that's a legitimate concern. What do you think should be done about the resolution of outstanding debt?

I think first of all the option of ''kids coping the sanctions'' should be taken out of the negotiation process all together.

As for the debt, I think both sides need to get together and discuss whether services that ACF provides to CV are adequate for the money payable. And if not should extra services be provided...or amount of the levy reduced. Disputes of this kind occur in business all the time...and are usually (not always obviously) resolved by both parties agreeing on what is going to be a good value for money.

Spiny Norman
01-08-2010, 12:37 PM
Q. who is the Treasurer?
Q. is s/he acting with the approval of the CV committee?
Q. how long until the next CV AGM?

Basil
01-08-2010, 12:37 PM
I think first of all the option of ''kids coping the sanctions'' should be taken out of the negotiation process all together.
Why? Because sanctions on junior events should never imposed and are out of bounds, or is your suggestion of 'out of bounds' specific to the terms of this dispute?


As for the debt, I think both sides need to get together and discuss whether services that ACF provides to CV are adequate for the money payable.
I would suggest that this is a nonsense idea and a course that CV might want to invoke for future debt, not retrospective debt.


Disputes of this kind occur in business all the time...and are usually (not always obviously) resolved by both parties agreeing on what is going to be a good value for money.
Not for retrospective debt they don't. The only exception would be on specific non-performance, and that doesn't appear to be an issue here. The claimed issue appears to be jurisdiction.

So far, between your answers and Bill's version of CV's answers, the whole lot appears to a brinksmanship fudge on CV's part, par excellence. You yourself have conceded the debt isn't in dispute. The only people fiddling with the prospects of Juniors appears to be CV.

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Is the debt disputed? If so, is resolution occurring?

If not disputed, has reason for non-payment been forthcoming? Has an apology/ payment plan been offered? Is CV just pissing about and trying the ACF's patience? What time-frame (overdue) are we talking about?

If CV is merely pushing buttons and obfuscating, what would Ian, Carl and Mike suggest the appropriate course to be? Do Ian, Carl and Mike feel they are being objective, given their Vic POV? If yes Objectivity), why then are they not making public statements requesting CV to explain their default (questioning both the cause, not just the effect)?

I wonder if parents of Vic juniors will ask why their state body isn't paying its bill.

As it happens, I was unaware of cause and effect and just made my initial comment because Bill had wound me up with his constitution/by-law comment. I had heard some rumours though didn't know what was going on, and Bill has been good enough to shed light on this.

So, I am concerned that CV owes money and I would like that resolved ASAP. I've seen Bill's post after yours, and it appears that CV doesn't have a leg to stand on, and as a committee member of a CV affiliated club, I'll be asking questions of the CV exec. I'm not sure there's much more I can do, but I am concerned that junior members of my club may suffer from all this.

As for the effect, I think its overly harsh and will adversely affect the next junior championships which is to held in Victoria. I would prefer other sanctions to be taken, such as loss of voting rights at ACF level, or even the threat of not rating events. This directly affects the administrative body, rather than the individuals who the current threatened sanctions would affect.

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.
CV could agree to pay the debt at their upcoming meeting and the ACF has taken no decision as to what actions if any it will take against CV if the debt is not paid.
Also although the sanctions listed are those used in similar circumstances in the past, I would prefer that the ACF decide to use a different set of sanctions against CV that would not impact Victorian juniors.

Personally, i think that the organisers have a right to know that there are issues that may have huge consequences towards their event, so I have undertaken to let them know.

I am sure that the organisers will do whatever they can to ensure that their event is a success, which may include lobbying their state organisation to pay the debt.

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 12:50 PM
Q. who is the Treasurer?
Q. is s/he acting with the approval of the CV committee?
Q. how long until the next CV AGM?

A. David Greness of Frankston CC
A. No idea.
A. November

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2010, 12:52 PM
Q. who is the Treasurer?David Grenness

Q. is s/he acting with the approval of the CV committee?It would appear so.

Q. how long until the next CV AGM?I believe it should be in November.

Garvinator
01-08-2010, 12:52 PM
I would prefer other sanctions to be taken, such as loss of voting rights at ACF level, or even the threat of not rating events. This directly affects the administrative body, rather than the individuals who the current threatened sanctions would affect.If sanctions were to be applied for not rating events from CV, then this affects all of CV's players, not just juniors. So that sanction would be far more wide spread that what has been suggested here.

Garvinator
01-08-2010, 12:54 PM
Q. who is the Treasurer?
Q. is s/he acting with the approval of the CV committee?
Q. how long until the next CV AGM?
You do not need to wait till the CV AGM. An SGM could always be called under the CV constitution.

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 12:56 PM
If sanctions were to be applied for not rating events from CV, then this affects all of CV's players, not just juniors. So that sanction would be far more wide spread that what has been suggested here.

It wouldn't have to be all club events, just the rating of CV run events such as the current CV Champs and Reserves and the Vic open etc.

This wouldn't result in people not winning titles but would have an impact as most players don't want to play unrated games and CV's events would suffer.

Brian_Jones
01-08-2010, 01:06 PM
One of the issues here is ACF poor communications. The ACF needs to educate its member states, and their office bearers, about it financial procedures. There are many states, clubs and organisers around Australia who are not aware of current and past ACF financial procedures. The ACF has been late issueing invoices and there are many disputed and unpaid accounts. This year I have talked to many unhappy people all over Australia about ACF late invoices.

This can all be fixed by open communications and less secretiveness so why not publish all the ACF charges and debtors? Then peer pressure can be used rather than threaten juniors!

Carl Gorka
01-08-2010, 01:11 PM
Why? Because sanctions on junior events should never imposed and are out of bounds, or is your suggestion of 'out of bounds' specific to the terms of this dispute?


I am concerned that in this specific case, an Australian Junior Championship that is to be held in Victoria will have no Victorian Juniors playing.

So, either the organisers will pull the plug on the tournament or the tournament will be a sham with significantly lower numbers than should be the case.

I can't see either of these scenario's being in the interest of Australian chess so I personally would prefer other sanctions to be examined.

Basil
01-08-2010, 01:13 PM
One of the issues here is ACF poor communications.
Really? Given that you know more about ACF's communication with CV than I do, when did ACF notify CV of its 2008 debt and when do you say that the ACF should have notified CV? Payment (and communication) doesn't appear to have been an issue between CV and the ACF previously (2007).

And, while you're raising the issue of communications, when did CV notify its objection to the debt and when should it have notified the ACF of its objection?

Please note that communication aside, none of this absolves CV of the debt and it appears above all else that CV is simply pissing about and, as a consequence, dragging in all manner of people with latent grudges against the ACF to take up/ fudge the issue in a half-arsed manner.

Brian_Jones
01-08-2010, 01:56 PM
......and, as a consequence, dragging in all manner of people with latent grudges against the ACF to take up/ fudge the issue in a half-arsed manner.

Another completely unwarranted reference to someone who cares about the ACF and is attempting to make a constructive comment.

I have no personal grudge against the ACF. I am both a customer and a supplier, I provide services and pay its bills as and when presented and want to help it succeed.

Maybe the recipiant of the invoices doesn't understand what they are about and cannot understand why he (the new CV Treasurer) is receiving invoices which should have been issued or dealt with in the years prior to 2010?

Howard Duggan, maybe you had your underpants over your eyes when you wrote your last comment.

Basil
01-08-2010, 03:36 PM
attempting to make a constructive comment. ... Maybe the recipiant of the invoices doesn't understand what they are about and cannot understand why he (the new CV Treasurer) is receiving invoices which should have been issued or dealt with in the years prior to 2010?
Brian, you haven't made a constructive comment on this board in five years. I doubt you could even construct one for money - you're simply not built that way.

As far as your maybe-fest goes, do you have any germane reason to suspect that CV is having difficulty understanding what is being asked of it, or are you just plucking wildly hoping to cobble together some semblance of a defence (obfuscation) for its not paying three years worth of bills? I take it your supposition also includes a proposition that the ACF and previous CV office-bearers refuse to explain to present office-bearers :rolleyes: Of course this is all twaddle as CV has apparently contested the bills by being too clever by half and apparently missing wildly.

Can you contemplate that the present CV treasurer is simply pissing about? Does that possibility exist in your biased, disgruntled, insular little mind?

Brian_Jones
01-08-2010, 03:56 PM
Brian, you haven't made a constructive comment on this board in five years......do you have any germane reason to suspect that CV is having difficulty understanding what is being asked of them?

Cobblers and yes!

Denis_Jessop
01-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Cobblers and yes!

Brian

On this occasion CV well understands what is being asked of it. Its Treasurer has some technical objection to payment resting on some fundamental misconceptions about the ACF that nobody else, who needs to know, has. It was not until recently that the ACF was informed of the reasons for the objection so that non-communication in this case was by CV. Even now formal communication from them is less than it should be and I am not sure that their objections have been fully put to us yet. Nevertheless, certain discussions that have taken place lead the ACF, or some of us, to be optimistic of a satisfactory outcome soon.

DJ

MichaelBaron
02-08-2010, 11:15 AM
One of the issues here is ACF poor communications. The ACF needs to educate its member states, and their office bearers, about it financial procedures. There are many states, clubs and organisers around Australia who are not aware of current and past ACF financial procedures. The ACF has been late issueing invoices and there are many disputed and unpaid accounts. This year I have talked to many unhappy people all over Australia about ACF late invoices.

This can all be fixed by open communications and less secretiveness so why not publish all the ACF charges and debtors? Then peer pressure can be used rather than threaten juniors!

This is one of those instances where I am in full agreement with FM Jones.

Also I agree with Fireeater - ACF should be looking at sanctions other than sanctioning the juniors.

And an off-the-topic (but I guess the whole thread is off the topic of 2012 championship anyway and should be used into a separate thread) question: if not for rating events....would states benefit from having ACF? Or even further..would Clubs benefit from having CV?

With CV some at least some benefits (we can argue how significant they are but that's another story) are evident: e.g. interclub competition is back etc.
with the ACF i dunno....

As a member of MCC I can see what the club does for me and what i can do for the club...and what the club does for chess in Australia! But with CV and particularly with ACF ...i seem to be losing a bigger picture :).

Desmond
02-08-2010, 11:23 AM
Also I agree with Fireeater - ACF should be looking at sanctions other than sanctioning the juniors.
Such as?

MichaelBaron
02-08-2010, 04:27 PM
Such as?

This is up to ACF to decide. For instance if ACF is providing some valuable service to CV..they can remove this service. Of course should they provide no valuable services of now - it could be a problem.

My main point is - kids should not be punished for issues unresolved by the adults

Basil
02-08-2010, 04:34 PM
Of course should they provide no valuable services of now - it could be a problem.
Only a problem for your circular argument. The debt is incurred. There is no future or other fudgy wibblings. The debt is owed. Would you like that in caps?

Now, given that, you have said that the ACF can decide. Well der. Now, if you were on the ACF, what would you decide? An example, Michael. Something of substance. You know - for the debt.that.is.owed. Let's go. Chop chop.

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 04:56 PM
No CV teams permitted to play in any Australian Schools Teams Championship event including the 2010 event.
No CV junior eligible for selection for overseas events or endorsed for overseas events and no grants paid (current selections not affected.).
No CV junior accepted into future Johns-Putra Elite Training Squads.
No CV Junior eligible to win any ACF Junior title.

Madness. I played representative tennis for a long time when I was younger and I really can't imagine a similar idea. The idea of punishing the kids for an administrative squabble would be laughed off the stage. It's the ACF's job to deal with stuff like this and they have to come up with better ideas than those.

Basil
02-08-2010, 05:05 PM
It's the ACF's job to deal with stuff like this
LMFAO. Absolutely amazing how some people think - proving there'll always be a solid supply of lefties to fill this world. Someone doesn't pay their JUNIORS bill and it's the payee's fault that their considering withholding services for JUNIORS. Now I've seen it all.

MichaelBaron
02-08-2010, 05:08 PM
Only a problem for your circular argument. The debt is incurred. There is no future or other fudgy wibblings. The debt is owed. Would you like that in caps?

Now, given that, you have said that the ACF can decide. Well der. Now, if you were on the ACF, what would you decide? An example, Michael. Something of substance. You know - for the debt.that.is.owed. Let's go. Chop chop.

Can even take court action if you like...just take it against CV not against the kids!

Basil
02-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Can even take court action if you like...just take it against CV not against the kids!
Are you suggesting court action? No. IN fact you and others (who have an aversion to chess management decisions) simply won't suggest a plausible alternative. If you post 'I suggest court action', then that would satisfy me (although I don't think it's a very good idea because of the time and cost involved to all parties).

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 05:18 PM
LMFAO. Absolutely amazing how some people think - proving there'll always be a solid supply of lefties to fill this world. Someone doesn't pay their JUNIORS bill and it's the payee's fault that their considering withholding services for JUNIORS. Now I've seen it all.

Pretty random personal comment there... did I say it was the ACF's fault the VCF didn't pay their bills? I said it was the ACF's responsibility to deal with problems and provide solutions that don't hurt the people they're appointed to serve. I await your apology in the mail...

Basil
02-08-2010, 05:30 PM
Pretty random personal comment there... did I say it was the ACF's fault the VCF didn't pay their bills?

By extension.


I said it was the ACF's responsibility to deal with problems and provide solutions

And they are. And one of those possible solutions has you wets running around at night with your pants down crying foul.


... that don't hurt the people they're appointed to serve.
They've already 'served', genius. It's CV that jeopardising things. How about you stop pissing about, dribbling rubbish and do something worthwhile like making a call to CV? While you're on the bus, look up backbone, cause, effect, flake and raft of other words you have clearly never heard of.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2010, 05:32 PM
As I understand the bill goes back to 2008.
Few question in regards to the first bill:

1. When CV was first invoiced for the 2008 School fees?
2. When was the invoice due?
3. Did CV explained not paying the invoice by the due date?
4. Which steps did ACF take to collect the fee?

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 05:32 PM
See a shrink Mr. Underpants! And don't misrepresent what I said- which was, once again: it's the ACF's responsibility to find reasonable solutions to these problems. Those given are not.

Basil
02-08-2010, 05:34 PM
See a shrink Mr. Underpants!
Sure. But do you have any suggestion at all? Any clue? Any advice as to the best course? Anything remotely approaching a management solution? Are you capable of making a public statement against CV? Is there anything, remotely adult happening up there in your head?


And don't misrepresent what I said- which was, once again: it's the ACF's responsibility to find reasonable solutions to these problems. Those given are not.
Why not? Is there a 'squeal factor' against the JUNIORS? What you are suggesting is that services continue to JUNIOR events uniterrupted after three years of non payment of JUNIOR bills. Is there any part of you that holds CV responsible for this mess?

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Sure. But do you have any suggestion at all? Any clue? Any advice as to the best course? Anything remotely approaching a management solution? Are you capable of making a public statement against CV? Is there anything, remotely adult happening up there in your head?


Why not? Is there a 'squeal factor' against the JUNIORS? What you are suggesting is that services continue to JUNIOR events uniterrupted after three years of non payment of bills.

With stuff like this it's fairly obvious why people don't get into discussions about chess management. Personally, I am 'adult' enough to have a conversation without it resulting in a rapid-fire of from-nowhere insults directed at somebody I do not know.

Once again, and for the last time- I have only said that it is the ACF's job to provide reasonable solutions to problems, and I've added my voice to those that have said that those suggested are far from reasonable. The rest of the stuff you've frankly put in my mouth.

All in all- calm down, treat people with respect.

Basil
02-08-2010, 05:49 PM
With stuff like this it's fairly obvious why people don't get into discussions about chess management. Personally, I am 'adult' enough to have a conversation without it resulting in a rapid-fire of from-nowhere insults directed at somebody I do not know.
OK, I'm typing slowly now. My name is Howard. I live in Queensland. I have been involved in chess administration for 10 years and in business for 20 years.


Once again, and for the last time- I have only said that it is the ACF's job to provide reasonable solutions to problems
There's no need to repeat it. I debunked it first time. The ACF does have reasonabe solutions. You say they're unreasonable but you can't tell me why. I'm trying to find out why. Is it a squeal factor? Should the ACF withhold services to other events instead? Should the ACF suspend CV's membership and punish the whole state? Should the ACF write another letter? Should the ACF be lax and punish the complying states, by extension?


, and I've added my voice to those that have said that those suggested are far from reasonable.
You gain nothing by adding your voice to that lot. They too are impersonating clueless, squealing wets who can neither construct a reason why the ACF suggestion is unreasonable, nor suggest a better alternative.

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 06:03 PM
There's no need to repeat it. I debunked it first time. The ACF does have reasonabe solutions. You don't like them. I'm trying to find out why. Is it a squeal factor?

Yougain no comfort from that. They too a clueless clowns who can neither construct a reason why the ACF suggestion is unreasonable, not suggest a better alternative.

Obviously there was a need to repeat it, as from "the ACF is responsible for solving certain chess related problems", you've accused me of

claiming CV has no responsibility or that it's the ACF's responsibility that they've made mistakes.

having no backbone

calling me stupid

suggesting that the ACF do nothing and that CV be allowed to not pay their bills

and 4 or 5 other things I haven't said and can't be bothered going back over.

People aren't required to offer solutions to the ACF to express their opinion, and sometimes "I don't like this particular solution" just means exactly that and no more.

What sort of climate can you have if people are subjected to random abuse and aggression for simply expressing an opinion?

Basil
02-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Obviously there was a need to repeat it, as from "the ACF is responsible for solving certain chess related problems", you've accused me of

claiming CV has no responsibility or that it's the ACF's responsibility that they've made mistakes.

having no backbone

calling me stupid

suggesting that the ACF do nothing and that CV be allowed to not pay their bills


Yes I accused you of all of those things and repeating your position only solidified the accusations.


People aren't required to offer solutions to the ACF to express their opinion, and sometimes "I don't like this particular solution" just means exactly that and no more.
No argument there. However, the 'I-just-don't-like-it brigade' is entitled to be scrutinised (and in most adult circles, the I-don't-like-it's generally say why, else it's just kids not liking stuff); and in return the 'I-don't-like-it' is entitled not to answer the scrutiny. In which case, I'll just insult them for being vacuous planks.


What sort of climate can you have if people are subjected to random abuse and aggression for simply expressing an opinion?
OK, fair enough. I apologise for the random abuse. I simply say that your contribution is ill-conceived and useless, along with all of the nice people who offered no solution and no reason why they didn't like the one on the table. I also respect you collectively standing mute against the people who haven't paid the bills.

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 06:28 PM
This is the last i'll post on this as i'm sure it's annoying for others distracted from the real issue.

I gave an opinion, you launched into a tirade and accused me of saying about 270 things none of which I actually said (including a random suggestion of my political alliances?), I corrected you for doing so, this confirmed your suspicions that I am a spineless, thoughtless etc etc.

Nothing can be achieved with a tone like that and I don't see what you can possibly hope to accomplish by responding to people in an uncivil manner. You should change your tone for the future if what you want is an actual debate. Calling people clowns from the outset is for politicians and kids and most people would simply walk away from the conversation after being greeted with stuff like that.

If we could now move on to Mr. Goldenberg's questions that'd be great:


Igor_Goldenberg
As I understand the bill goes back to 2008.
Few question in regards to the first bill:

1. When CV was first invoiced for the 2008 School fees?
2. When was the invoice due?
3. Did CV explained not paying the invoice by the due date?
4. Which steps did ACF take to collect the fee?

Garvinator
02-08-2010, 06:38 PM
Once again, and for the last time- I have only said that it is the ACF's job to provide reasonable solutions to problems, and I've added my voice to those that have said that those suggested are far from reasonable. The rest of the stuff you've frankly put in my mouth.What Gunner is saying, in a not too subtle manner, is that while you are saying that the ACF should find reasonable solutions to the problems, he is asking for you to offer some reasonable solutions that are better than some of the ones that you are protesting about.

So far, you have not offered any solutions, reasonable or otherwise.

Paul Cavezza
02-08-2010, 06:40 PM
And what I am saying is: I don't have to offer any solutions to avoid being subject to abuse. When we're all more informed about the issue, I might do.

Basil
02-08-2010, 06:43 PM
And what I am saying is: I don't have to offer any solutions to avoid being subject to abuse. When we're all more informed about the issue, I might do.
No, we've cleared up the abuse part (you're correct, there shouldn't abuse) - stop wittering about that. Now you're just saying you don't have to offer solutions and you don't have to say why you don't like what's on the table. And what I'm saying is that such a contribution doesn't deserve bandwidth - it belongs in the schoolyard.

Carl Gorka
02-08-2010, 07:14 PM
Only a problem for your circular argument. The debt is incurred. There is no future or other fudgy wibblings. The debt is owed. Would you like that in caps?

Now, given that, you have said that the ACF can decide. Well der. Now, if you were on the ACF, what would you decide? An example, Michael. Something of substance. You know - for the debt.that.is.owed. Let's go. Chop chop.

If I was on the ACF, the last thing I would be looking at as a sanction against CV would be preventing Victorian Juniors from winning titles at the Aus Juniors or representing Australia.

This is not because it is a weak livered, lefty view sheltering juniors from the wide world. It is because it is not in the best interests of Australian chess.

First, the Australian Junior Championships is to be held in Victoria and as it is an indisputed fact that the home state usually accounts for a large proportion of the kids at the championships, then any action which discourages Victorian juniors from playing will harm this event. This will be bad for Australian chass.

Secondly, seeing Victoria has Australia's only World Junior Champion at the moment, to not allow him to represent Australia is again harming Australian chess as a whole.

I've already given some sanctions that I think would be more appropriate taking into account the situation that I hope I've explained clearly above.

I find it bizarre that the money owed by CV (and I have no doubt that they owe the money and should just cough up) is earmarked for the AusJCL, and the sanctions that are being examined will adversely affect that very body rather than CV.

Carl Gorka
02-08-2010, 07:20 PM
As I understand the bill goes back to 2008.
Few question in regards to the first bill:

1. When CV was first invoiced for the 2008 School fees?
2. When was the invoice due?
3. Did CV explained not paying the invoice by the due date?
4. Which steps did ACF take to collect the fee?


AFAIK

1. CV was billed late 2009/early 2010.
2. Don't know, but surely by the end of the next financial year at the latest eg mid 2010.
3. No idea.
4. I think that's what is being discussed as asking for he money hasn't worked:D

Basil
02-08-2010, 07:29 PM
First, the Australian Junior Championships is to be held in Victoria and as it is an indisputed fact that the home state usually accounts for a large proportion of the kids at the championships, then any action which discourages Victorian juniors from playing will harm this event. This will be bad for Australian chass.

Secondly, seeing Victoria has Australia's only World Junior Champion at the moment, to not allow him to represent Australia is again harming Australian chess as a whole.

I've already given some sanctions that I think would be more appropriate taking into account the situation that I hope I've explained clearly above.

I find it bizarre that the money owed by CV (and I have no doubt that they owe the money and should just cough up) is earmarked for the AusJCL, and the sanctions that are being examined will adversely affect that very body rather than CV.
Hi Carl

Bravo. Yes I agreed with your earlier posting (referred to in your answer). I agree entirely with the quoted component above. I am confident the ACF will share your POV. This line has got nothing to do with cringing over the concept of daddy punishing helpless children - it's simply a well reasoned assessment for Australian chess.

H

Desmond
02-08-2010, 07:29 PM
Can even take court action if you like...just take it against CV not against the kids!
Do you really think that litigation, or say selling the debt to a debt collection agency, is the lesser evil here? Especially in the context of you opinion that the ACF provide nothing of value when one of those "nothings" are the very titles in question.

Spiny Norman
02-08-2010, 07:33 PM
As treasurer of a club affiliated with CV (and, incidentally, we pay our bills VERY promptly indeed, to the extent that we occasionally contact CV to encourage them to bill us for what we believe we owe) ... I'm flabbergasted at this situation.

I can think of no good reason why CV should withold payment.

For my part, I intend to raise the matter at the next AGM and there had better be a bloody good reason given by the CV committee (or better yet, they can advise that they've had a change of heart and have paid the bill).

In the meantime, I will be writing to the CV committee and asking for an explanation. (EDIT: now done, via email).

Basil
02-08-2010, 10:38 PM
In the meantime, I will be writing to the CV committee and asking for an explanation. (EDIT: now done, via email).
Spiny in da haus.


I find it bizarre that the money owed by CV (and I have no doubt that they owe the money and should just cough up) ...
fireeater in da haus.

Promote these men!

Denis_Jessop
02-08-2010, 10:59 PM
AFAIK

1. CV was billed late 2009/early 2010.
2. Don't know, but surely by the end of the next financial year at the latest eg mid 2010.
3. No idea.
4. I think that's what is being discussed as asking for he money hasn't worked:D

The problem with Igor's questions is that none of them is relevant to the objections made by the CV Treasurer as I understand them. Those objections are, as I said earlier, based on certain technical constitutional grounds that are without foundation.

DJ

Spiny Norman
03-08-2010, 07:02 AM
For what its worth, may I respectfully suggest to both parties, CV and ACF, that any matters such as fees which are in dispute be treated:

(a) such that historical matters (dating back to 2008 or similar) be treated on the basis of historical precedent; and if either party is trying to change the basis on which fees are levied without giving the other party decent notice, then that ought to be wound back until such notice is given (of course, if notice was given, fair enough); and

(b) such that future matters (for future fee levies) be set with proper notice being given in writing, so that there is time to respond if there is aa dispute

Negotiations in good faith gentlemen! As long as both parties are doing that, I'm content for now. Negotiate based on good principles, not on pre-established positions, and I'm sure you'll all work it out.

I will butt out now and leave it to be sorted out ... :hmm:

george
03-08-2010, 07:05 AM
Hi all,

I think the last 3-4 pages of this thread have been off topic but raise very interesting subjects -:
1. ACF State relations
2. Working of ACF council
3. Financials of ACF/CV

At one stage SA owed a couple of years of general state fees not specifically junior fees as it objected to the amount it needed to pay however SA paid and had some input into the changes in funding model that were made - in other words SA decided to be constructive - I am sure CV will also wish to be constructive but as has been said "the past debt needs to be paid" and if CV wishes to change the funding model there are correct channels by which this may be achieved.



It might be useful of mods to split some posts to another thread although what that thread specifically should be I dont know.

During ACF Council meetings (from my time on Council anyway) many things are said by many different people and there is at times robust discussion and the passed motions are made public in that they are minuted. Exactly who said what and when is kept within Council - it facilitates open and honest discussion - if states wish to know specifics of what was said by whom they need to ask their ACF Council delegate but general disciussion about topics in Council generally stays in Council.

Anyway just my opinion.

Regards to All.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 09:21 AM
The problem with Igor's questions is that none of them is relevant to the objections made by the CV Treasurer as I understand them. Those objections are, as I said earlier, based on certain technical constitutional grounds that are without foundation.
DJ
I am not part of CV and don't know what objections were made by CV treasurer, so I don't understand why my questions should relate to that.

If CV was first invoiced in late 2009/early 2010, it's a bad handling of financial matters by ACF. If I was in a treasurer shoes (especially a new one), I wouldn't be impressed by the bill relating to something that happened one or two years ago. Why couldn't ACF issue an invoice in 2008?

Bill Gletsos
03-08-2010, 10:22 AM
For what its worth, may I respectfully suggest to both parties, CV and ACF, that any matters such as fees which are in dispute be treated:

(a) such that historical matters (dating back to 2008 or similar) be treated on the basis of historical precedent; and if either party is trying to change the basis on which fees are levied without giving the other party decent notice, then that ought to be wound back until such notice is given (of course, if notice was given, fair enough); and

(b) such that future matters (for future fee levies) be set with proper notice being given in writing, so that there is time to respond if there is aa disputeI dont know what CV has told you but they are being treated the same based on historical precedent.
CV were fully aware of the method of calculation of the outstanding levy's and there has been no change between the method of calculation of the 2008-2010 levy and the 2007 levy which was paid by CV.

The 2008 Levy was $1652, the 2009 Levy $1650 and the 2010 Levy $1654.

By comparison the 2007 Levy was $1650.

MichaelBaron
03-08-2010, 12:53 PM
Do you really think that litigation, or say selling the debt to a debt collection agency, is the lesser evil here? Especially in the context of you opinion that the ACF provide nothing of value when one of those "nothings" are the very titles in question.

Please read carefully..I said may be.
My main point is (and I am repeating myself for the 4th time or so cause you do not seem to read my postings carefully enough to understand them)

THERE SHOULD BE NO SANCTIONS AGAINST THE KIDS!



As for value offered by ACF, you are right - I do not see much :). When I join MCC - I know what I am paying for. But what do i get from ACF? I can play chess with or without ACF...As for the titles in question...does the ACF organise/run the junior champs directly? they just award the bids, therefore so should do everything in their power to support the even organisers rather than to make their life difficult.

Denis_Jessop
03-08-2010, 09:39 PM
I am not part of CV and don't know what objections were made by CV treasurer, so I don't understand why my questions should relate to that.

If CV was first invoiced in late 2009/early 2010, it's a bad handling of financial matters by ACF. If I was in a treasurer shoes (especially a new one), I wouldn't be impressed by the bill relating to something that happened one or two years ago. Why couldn't ACF issue an invoice in 2008?

The point of my post was that any dispute existing at present between CV and the ACF rests on the matters I mentioned and has nothing to do with the matters that Igor mentioned; that is, Igor's matters are not an issue between the two bodies and so have nothing to do with anything other than irrelevant idle speculaton which also makes up the rest of the post quoted above.

DJ

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2010, 10:43 PM
The point of my post was that any dispute existing at present between CV and the ACF rests on the matters I mentioned and has nothing to do with the matters that Igor mentioned; that is, Igor's matters are not an issue between the two bodies and so have nothing to do with anything other than irrelevant idle speculaton which also makes up the rest of the post quoted above.

DJ
Do I understand correctly that you view as normal the practice of issuing invoice two years after the event?

David Grenness
03-08-2010, 11:15 PM
The amount isnt disputed. The new CV Treasurer is questioning the ACF's right to be able to levy CV in the first place.
He makes the following false claims/assumptions:

1) CV isnt a member of the ACF and as such is not under any contractual obligation to the ACF.
2) That decisions of the ACF are only morally binding on CV not legally binding.
3) CV delegates(s) to the ACF even if they supported decisions of the ACF at the time, do not have the power to bind future CV Executives.
4) That CV should be able to dictate how the ACF spends the levy money.

Unfortunately it is clear he does not know what he is talking about.

CV as an affiliated State Association is clearly a member of the ACF and represented on the ACF Council by CV's appointed delegate and at the ACF National Conferences by CV appointed delegates.

As a member of the ACF, CV is legally obliged to pay any ACF fees or levies.


Bill, you have publicly misquoted and misunderstood my 1600+ word letter to the ACF treasurer dated 14 July 2010, to which I have as yet received no response. I copied that letter to all ACF and CV executive members. :hmm:

I put a lot of work into explaining my position and requirements to the ACF in that letter, and took some effort to explain to the ACF what it needs to do to get its relationship with CV onto a functional business-like basis. That business-like basis must respect the constitutions of both the ACF and CV. When this has been accomplished, I see no problem with signing a cheque to the ACF for $4,956. :D

I also drafted within my letter a proposed 'contract' between the ACF and CV in respect to the ASTL. If you don't like my draft, make a counter-offer! :idea:

Your public response quoted above indicates you didn't get my message. The way you are publicly handling this ASTL matter gives the impression that the ACF thinks it has the power over CV of a sovereign government or feudal lord. CV is an independent body corporate answerable to its members and bound by common law to act in their best interests. Furthermore, CV is clearly not a member of the ACF. Haven't you read the ACF constitution? :wall:

Your misquotation of my letter above: "2) That decisions of the ACF are only morally binding on CV not legally binding." is telling. What I wrote was: "No decisions of the ACF, not even those passed by special resolution or appearing in the ACF’s constitution, are of themselves anything more than morally binding upon the ACF in its dealings with CV." The point is that I want to see the ACF commit itself to something when it takes big licks of CV's money. CV as a body corporate cannot simply rely upon the internal machinations of the ACF as justification for its decisions. :snooty:

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I will sign a cheque for 15% of CV's net assets until the ACF communicates and commits with CV properly as the independent body which we are. :naughty:

So please put your energies into replying to my letter of 14 July. I appreciate that this will necessarily take some time for a voluntary organisation. Otherwise this thing could stay bogged until at least the CV AGM in November. :whistle:

David Grenness
Treasurer
Chess Victoria

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2010, 12:28 AM
Bill, you have publicly misquoted and misunderstood my 1600+ word letter to the ACF treasurer dated 14 July 2010, to which I have as yet received no response.I have not mis-quoted you at all.

I copied that letter to all ACF and CV executive members. :hmm:The ACF Executive was advised that the ACF President had spoken to you since receiving that email. Based on feedback on that meeting the ACF Executive was hopeful that CV would authorise the payment of the debt at its meeting on the 5th August. From your comments here this seems unlikely.
That would be unfortunate decision on CV's part.

I put a lot of work into explaining my position and requirements to the ACF in that letter, and took some effort to explain to the ACF what it needs to do to get its relationship with CV onto a functional business-like basis.You may well have put a lot of effort into it, unfortunately however most of what you say in it is simply incorrect.

That business-like basis must respect the constitutions of both the ACF and CV. When this has been accomplished, I see no problem with signing a cheque to the ACF for $4,956. :DOnce again you are simply wrong.
CV is an affiliated state association of the ACF and as such CV is bound by the decisions of the ACF Council and ACF National Conferences and is liable for any fees and levies they may choose to impose even if CV voted against those fees & levies.

I also drafted within my letter a proposed 'contract' between the ACF and CV in respect to the ASTL. If you don't like my draft, make a counter-offer! :idea:There is no need for a contract.
Since CV is an affiliated state association of the ACF it is required to pay any fees and levies the ACF charges affiliated state associations.

Your public response quoted above indicates you didn't get my message.I and the rest of the ACF Executive got your message. It is unfortunately you that simply does not know what you are talking about.

The way you are publicly handling this ASTL matter gives the impression that the ACF thinks it has the power over CV of a sovereign government or feudal lord. CV is an independent body corporate answerable to its members and bound by common law to act in their best interests. Furthermore, CV is clearly not a member of the ACF. Haven't you read the ACF constitution? :wall:CV as an affiliated state association is a member of the ACF.
CV as an affiliated state association of the ACF is bound by the decisions of the ACF Council and ACF National Conferences and is liable for any fees and levies they may choose to impose.

However, if your flawed claim that CV is not a member of the ACF was in fact true then no Victorian be they adult or junior would be eligible for any ACF title, etc.


Your misquotation of my letter above: "2) That decisions of the ACF are only morally binding on CV not legally binding." is telling. What I wrote was: "No decisions of the ACF, not even those passed by special resolution or appearing in the ACF’s constitution, are of themselves anything more than morally binding upon the ACF in its dealings with CV."This is simply wrong.
As an associated state association of the ACF, CV is required to pay any fees and levies the ACF charges.

The point is that I want to see the ACF commit itself to something when it takes big licks of CV's money. CV as a body corporate cannot simply rely upon the internal machinations of the ACF as justification for its decisions. :snooty:This is simply incorrect.
As an associated state association of the ACF, CV is required to pay any fees and levies the ACF charges.

There is not a snowball's chance in hell that I will sign a cheque for 15% of CV's net assets until the ACF communicates and commits with CV properly as the independent body which we are. :naughty:Of course the CV Executive can authorise and sign the cheque without your agreement.

So please put your energies into replying to my letter of 14 July. I appreciate that this will necessarily take some time for a voluntary organisation. Otherwise this thing could stay bogged until at least the CV AGM in November. :whistle:Oh you can be certain you and CV will be hearing from the ACF if the debt is not authorised for payment at your meeting on 5th August.

P.S. I assume that CV would find itself suffering from a significant impact on their income stream if CV was unable to charge Victorian players for having their games ACF rated.

Spiny Norman
04-08-2010, 06:15 AM
I dont know what CV has told you but they are being treated the same based on historical precedent.
CV were fully aware of the method of calculation of the outstanding levy's and there has been no change between the method of calculation of the 2008-2010 levy and the 2007 levy which was paid by CV.
The 2008 Levy was $1652, the 2009 Levy $1650 and the 2010 Levy $1654.
By comparison the 2007 Levy was $1650.
Hi Bill,

CV (via David Grenness) have provided me with answers to some questions that I asked of them (via email), which is greatly appreciated. Its my intention to raise this matter with the committee at Croydon, so that we can consider whether we need to make a formal approach to CV on behalf of our members. I'm unhappy with the current state of affairs and feel that the matter has been mishandled (by both sides thus far).

My suggestions above about "precedent" (historical and future) were made without reference to any information provided to me by CV. They were simple suggestions based purely on principle. I'm very pleased to hear that the goalposts were not shifted from the ACF end of things. It seems to me that this makes the matter more clear-cut.

If the situation is that "we" (that is, CV) are arguing fine points of legalities, then it would seem that the relationship is in need of repair. I'm not assigning blame to either party on that account, as I have no idea what has led CV to this view that arguing legalities was necessary. But someone needs to put some serious effort into building it up again and brinkmanship (from either side) is counter-productive.

I always had a rule of thumb in business that you first built a relationship, then signed a contract, and then you put the contract away in the bottom drawer and hoped you never needed to refer to it again; from that point on (the signing) the relationship was the important thing and you worked on handshakes and built good will.

Cheers,

Stephen Frost
Treasurer
Croydon Chess Club

Spiny Norman
04-08-2010, 06:47 AM
BTW, a thread split would seem to be appropriate ...

Caissa Patzers
04-08-2010, 02:38 PM
Hello,

Please let me try to understand the situation.
A team of Victorians led by Scott Humphreys bid for the 2011 Australian Juniors and the bid was given the green light in early April 2010.
There was not restriction attached regarding Victorian Juniors cannot win title during the championship.
After spending considerable time and effort by the bid committee, now in August, in a public forum, we have ACF official threatening to place this restriction about Victorian Juniors cannot win any title during the championship.
Is my understanding correct?

I hope my understanding is incorrect because I do not think anyone would do business like that, regardless of whether it is juniors or seniors, chess or tennis, sports or business.

Spiny Norman
04-08-2010, 05:00 PM
Is my understanding correct?
Only partially. There would seem to be large slabs of facts missing from your summary. If you have genuine concerns about the matter, especially if you live in VIC, then I would encourage you to speak to your club about it and ask them to make enquiries directly with CV.

Garvinator
04-08-2010, 05:28 PM
I hope my understanding is incorrect because I do not think anyone would do business like that, regardless of whether it is juniors or seniors, chess or tennis, sports or business.Very few businesses continue to do business with organisations that do not pay their debts.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Bill, you have publicly misquoted and misunderstood my 1600+ word letter to the ACF treasurer dated 14 July 2010, to which I have as yet received no response.

I feel your pain, given that CV has yet to respond to or even acknowledge correspondence I sent over two months ago, on a matter which I consider way past urgent. I realise that correspondence is probably not anywhere near as high on your priorities as the fees issue but still a simple yes-we-still-exist accompanied by a rough timeline for future progress would have been nice.


Furthermore, CV is clearly not a member of the ACF. Haven't you read the ACF constitution? :wall:

I have - carefully. If you think it is not feel free to explain why not; since you maintain that to be clear it shouldn't take too long!

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2010, 06:50 PM
.. the ACF thinks it has the power over CV of a sovereign government or feudal lord.CV is an affiliated state association of the ACF.

Do you dispute this statement?

If so why?

If not then:

CV as an affiliated state association of the ACF is required to pay any fees and levies the ACF charges affiliated state associations as determined by the ACF Council or a National Conference.

Do you dispute this statement?

If so why?

If not then pay the outstanding levy.

Libby2
04-08-2010, 07:40 PM
Although there are a range of issues under discussion, and obvious points of difference, maybe the indignant Victorians could have bothered to get in a lather when these sanctions were threatened previously on ACT juniors http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8538

And BTW - if you want to get anywhere with the ACF, writing an official letter and expecting them to give you an answer (within 2 years) is completely the wrong way to go. Nor is regular & detailed invoicing to be anticipated.

My advice is to stick with local business - you can actually get something done :hand:

Denis_Jessop
04-08-2010, 08:28 PM
Do I understand correctly that you view as normal the practice of issuing invoice two years after the event?

No you don't. What I am saying for the umpteenth time is that that is irrelevant to the matter under consideration.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
04-08-2010, 08:52 PM
David

Regarding your post #70 above, one of the problems with your letter to the ACF is that it is based on some fundamental misconceptions of the structure of the ACF that should be removed by a careful reading of the ACF Constitution.

One of those misconceptions is the nature of the relationship between the ACF and its affiliates of which CV is one. Whether CV is, or is not, a member of the ACF is wholly irrelevant. There is no doubt that CV is an ACF affiliate (see Despasquale v ACF per Gray J (Supreme Court of the ACT, 20 October 2000).

The ACF Constitution makes clear the relationship between the ACF, itself an incorporated association, and its affiliates. The operation of those provisions has no dependence on membership nor does their operation require any kind of contract.

I had thought that discussions between you and the ACF President that have taken place since your letter would have clarified that matter.

The simple fact is that the ACF has imposed a levy on Affiliated Associations in accordance with its constitutional powers and CV is obliged to pay its levied amount.

DJ
BA LlB (Melb)
ACF Vice President
Convenor, ACF Constitutional Subcommittee

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2010, 09:25 AM
No you don't. What I am saying for the umpteenth time is that that is irrelevant to the matter under consideration.
DJ
Is it also irrelevant to the general conduct of ACF?

Denis_Jessop
05-08-2010, 12:39 PM
Is it also irrelevant to the general conduct of ACF?

Please stop being childish, Igor. I know you're not really dumb so please stop playing dumb :)

DJ

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2010, 01:13 PM
When the ACF threatened the sanctions described in post #3 against the ACTJCL back in 2008 the CV delegate voted in favour of the motion.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2010, 04:08 PM
Please stop being childish, Igor. I know you're not really dumb so please stop playing dumb :)

DJ
I am not the one playing dumb. I asked why ACF issues invoices two years after the event? Is it normal practice?
If you want to answer those questions, go ahead. Saying they are irrelevant to another matter is not exactly answering.

Spiny Norman
05-08-2010, 04:59 PM
I am not the one playing dumb. I asked why ACF issues invoices two years after the event? Is it normal practice?
Must be an unfortunate oversight on the part of the ACF. However this cannot be at the core of the dispute; if it were, then CV would be complaining about cashflow issues, not disputing the very nature of the invoices as they seem to be doing.

I find it interesting that CV's concern is that they are not a member of the ACF and that, therefore, some kind of contract is required between the ACF and CV in order for the ACF to be charging CV levies.

If this is correct then maybe our club ought to be raising the self-same objection with CV? We are not members of CV; we are an affiliated association in relation to CV, just as CV is an affiliated association in relation to the ACF. CV seems to have no problem imposing affiliation fees and ratings fees on our club without having a contract in place.

Pot, kettle, black anyone?

This sounds more and more like a beat up issue. What I can't understand is WHY?

Denis_Jessop
05-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Must be an unfortunate oversight on the part of the ACF. However this cannot be at the core of the dispute; if it were, then CV would be complaining about cashflow issues, not disputing the very nature of the invoices as they seem to be doing.

I find it interesting that CV's concern is that they are not a member of the ACF and that, therefore, some kind of contract is required between the ACF and CV in order for the ACF to be charging CV levies.

If this is correct then maybe our club ought to be raising the self-same objection with CV? We are not members of CV; we are an affiliated association in relation to CV, just as CV is an affiliated association in relation to the ACF. CV seems to have no problem imposing affiliation fees and ratings fees on our club without having a contract in place.

Pot, kettle, black anyone?

This sounds more and more like a beat up issue. What I can't understand is WHY?

As I pointed out in my post #81, membership is not the issue here. CV is affiliated with the ACF and, as an affiliate, has rights and obligations prescribed in the ACF's Constitution. The rights include those to be represented in ACF Council proceedings and at the ACF National Conferences. The obligations include payment of levies imposed by the ACF. Thus the idea that a contract is necessary in respect of the ASTC levy is a misconception. Indeed, CV has already paid the 2007 levy without objection. Moreover, if contract were an issue, CV's affiliation with the ACF gives rise to an implied contract between it and the ACF the terms of which are to be found in the ACF's Constitution. There is no need for the contract to be a formal written one.

So I also ask the question you posed at the end to which the ACF has not had a meaningful reply.

DJ

Garvinator
05-08-2010, 06:59 PM
CV's council meeting is tonight so lets just wait and see what comes out of that meeting.

ER
05-08-2010, 08:17 PM
CV's council meeting is tonight so lets just wait and see what comes out of that meeting.

I think tonight the President of CV has a game for the Vic Championship. Is he allowed to play while participating in the meeting as well?

Bill Gletsos
05-08-2010, 08:25 PM
CV's council meeting is tonight so lets just wait and see what comes out of that meeting.Well it is supposedly scheduled for tonight and their meetings are normally held at Chess Ideas starting at 7pm yet I see in the Vic Champs thread that the CV President is supposedly playing a postponed game at BHCC at 7.15pm.

ER
05-08-2010, 08:44 PM
Well, my posting at 8.17 is confirmed and our President Mr Sandler has a solid, if not slightly better position vs Mr Levi!
So it's a case of
1) The meeting has already taken place and the decision has been made
2) They are going to have the meeting after the game is completed
3) The president told the V/P "take over and let me know when the vote is up" and went to play Chess!
4) They said "oh who cares! let's postpone for another night"!
5) They forgot all about it!
6) The decision had been taken without a meeting!
Other suggestions welcome!

Garvinator
05-08-2010, 09:15 PM
Well, my posting at 8.17 is confirmed and our President Mr Sandler has a solid, if not slightly better position vs Mr Levi!
So it's a case of
1) The meeting has already taken place and the decision has been made
2) They are going to have the meeting after the game is completed
3) The president told the V/P "take over and let me know when the vote is up" and went to play Chess!
4) They said "oh who cares! let's postpone for another night"!
5) They forgot all about it!
Other suggestions welcome!
Do we get to vote in preferential order over which of these is the most to least likely? I can see a poll coming on ;)

ER
05-08-2010, 09:54 PM
You sure you don't wanna look at the position first?

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nc6 3. c4 Bg4 4. Nc3 e6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bf4 Nf6 7. e3
Bd6 8. Bg5 Bb4 9. Qb3 O-O 10. Be2 Re8 11. O-O Be6 12. Bb5 Be7 13. Qa4 Nd7 14.Bxc6 Nb6 15. Qc2 bxc6 16. Bxe7 Qxe7 17. Ne2 Bg4 18. Ng3 Bxf3 19. gxf3 Qh4 20.Kh1 Re6 21. Rg1 Kh8 22. Rg2 g6

IM and President of CV Mr Leonid Sandler is playing White... He missed a golden opportunity earlier! (move 15 I think)!
Really have we got a chessologist here? It would be interesting to guess a person's mood, feelings, thoughts etc as reflected in the way they perform OTB! :)

ER
05-08-2010, 11:00 PM
A very impressive victory in the end for Leonid. Will he make the announcement now? Maybe yes, maybe no! Whatever the case might be, I am off for an early one so we can go spend a peaceful weekend in the beautiful Grampians :) !

ER
09-08-2010, 06:10 PM
My (unreliable this time) sources are telling me that the matter has been amicably (take "amicably" with a bit of salt) resolved with a mutual agreement to keep the whole thing quiet! So I (as Bill suggested in the SB) am sending no letter! :P

Spiny Norman
09-08-2010, 06:16 PM
Amicably or otherwise, the main thing is that its been settled I guess.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2010, 06:17 PM
Amicably or otherwise, the main thing is that its been settled I guess.If it is settled then that is news to me as I am unaware of the debt being paid.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2010, 06:51 PM
I have also not heard that the debt has been paid and the ACF has certainly not entered into any agreement in return for payment.

By the way, the whole thing about invoices being sent irregularly is in some respects a beat-up (quite aside from being irrelevant to whether the debt is due), because states are regularly informed how much they owe through Treasurers Reports sent to all ACF councillors including all State Delegates prior to each Council meeting. State Delegates are in a position to keep their State Treasurers up to date on what they owe the ACF.

ER
09-08-2010, 07:30 PM
There is also the possiblity of an agreement having been or about to to be made amongst CV committee members from opposing sides on the matter. In this case my (I repeat unreliable) sourse was talking in terms of a CV internal agreement rather than an agreement b/n ACF and CV.

Garvinator
09-08-2010, 07:53 PM
There is also the possiblity of an agreement having been or about to to be made amongst CV committee members from opposing sides on the matter. In this case my (I repeat unreliable) sourse was talking in terms of a CV internal agreement rather than an agreement b/n ACF and CV.
On matters like this I think it is a good idea to pick and choose your words very carefully. :)

ER
09-08-2010, 09:28 PM
On matters like this I think it is a good idea to pick and choose your words very carefully. :)

lol i did:
My (unreliable this time) sources are telling me ... http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Angels_and_Demons/evil-or-good-choice-0086.gif

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2010, 11:09 PM
I note a response above to my comments by MOZ (ex-CV Treasurer Trevor Stanning) elsewhere, stating that during his time on the CV Exec:


At not one Executive meeting have the internal ACF papers been tabled for view by the CV Executive. So, if the ACF have been relying on their internal papers to be the formal billing mechanism to States then it would certainly fail as a mechanism for obvious reasons. There is no beat-up involved on this issue. There is clearly (now seen) a failure of process, and it may yet prove to be that CV is culpable.

It is not necessary for "the internal ACF papers" to be tabled for view in full. The option is there for the CV (or other association) delegate to simply inform their state association about how much money is owing at any time.

This is not to say that Treasurer's Reports are a billing mechanism, nor that anyone could sanely consider that I had said they were one.

What I am saying is that there is no excuse for states to be ignorant of how much money they owe the ACF for this levy. They can ensure the amount is always known simply by making sure they appoint a State Delegate who reports back on this aspect whenever needed, and making sure they ask that state delegate to do so.

There is therefore no reason for CV to have been surprised to be billed for this amount and I am furthermore aware that they can pay it very easily.

As for the whole thing with the new treasurer and so on, seems like there has been a monumental failure by CV in terms of successfully inducting their new officebearer about the nature of the ACF and its relation to CV.

Oh, I also note some scrappy stuff by Libby in the other place where she assumes that because someone has incorrectly insulted her own administration abilities this gives her the right to incorrectly insult ours. Care factor = approximately zero. :lol:

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2010, 11:42 PM
There is therefore no reason for CV to have been surprised to be billed for this amount and I am furthermore aware that they can pay it very easily.Actually the Ex CV Treasurer Trevor Stanning had been the CV Treasurer on numerous occasions and was aware that the ACF charged CV the annual Australian School Teams Levy.

Now given that emails are not immune from getting lost in a spam folder, blocked by a spam filter or even just disappearing into the ether, one has to wonder why Trevor did not follow up with the ACF Treasurer as to where the invoices for 2008 and 2009 levies were when he was finalising the accounts in september 2009 for the upcoming CV AGM.

Given Trevor was aware that the Australian School Teams Levy was an annual levy, then at the very least he could have included a note in the Treasurers report to the CV AGM noting there was expected outgoings of around $3,300 to the ACF.

Brian_Jones
10-08-2010, 10:50 AM
By the way, the whole thing about invoices being sent irregularly is in some respects a beat-up (quite aside from being irrelevant to whether the debt is due), because states are regularly informed how much they owe through Treasurers Reports sent to all ACF councillors including all State Delegates prior to each Council meeting. State Delegates are in a position to keep their State Treasurers up to date on what they owe the ACF.

What about private organisers?

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2010, 10:55 AM
What about private organisers?

Private organisers do not pay the levy in question and their admin fees (per-game payments) are normally handled through their State Association. What did you have in mind?

Kevin Bonham
10-08-2010, 06:46 PM
MOZ responds to my comments above:


It is good that you have dropped the allegation of a 'beat-up' from your later responses.

Just because I didn't repeat it doesn't mean I've dropped it. So I shall repeat it to erase any doubt: The whole thing about invoices being sent irregularly is in some respects a beat-up.


If you are at all interested in working towards finding reason and cause for this broken process, then perjorative trolling like 'beat-up' is unhelpful and even uncivil.

There is no pejorative trolling on my part and given the constant and ludicrous misuse of the concept of civility in the Toolbox, its presence in MOZ's sentence renders the entire sentence a complete joke (not to mention "pejorative trolling".)

What is "pejorative" here is the beat-up itself: the false conclusion from the relative scarcity of invoices that the ACF is treating the states unfairly or adversely concerning money they are owing. If anything, the state associations most likely benefit from not being habitually invoiced every three months.

As for finding reason and cause, I don't really care in exactly how many different ways CV's response to the situation can be found to be deficient. That's their problem; they can fix it if they are inclined to do so. My concern is that they pay up.


I thought I posted rather clearly "There is clearly (now seen) a failure of process, and it may yet prove to be that CV is culpable.". There is no hint of seeking excuses in that statement.

I did not say you were the one making the excuses.

Kevin Bonham
12-08-2010, 12:40 PM
Alex (aka Just2Good, a person previously banned by his state association and with no current involvement in OTB chess) has ramped up the strawmanning in the other place with this rubbish:


To suggest that no invoicing or documentation is required, and that it is sufficient for a state chess association delegate to tell his fellow state council members, 'I attended an ACF meeting and they said our association owes X dollars, so let's cut a cheque for that amount' is just utterly foolish and illogical.

To suggest that I am suggesting this is just utterly foolish and illogical.

Furthermore the ACF Treasurer's Reports are "documentation" so even if I was suggesting it the above would still be garbage.

What I am saying is that there is no reason for state associations to be ignorant of what they owe. Whether state associations choose to pay only when invoiced, or pay once they are aware of owing money as detailed in the Treasurer's Report, is up to them. There is no excuse for state associations to be unable to pay promptly once they are invoiced.

Alex goes on to attempt to troll me with "It makes one wonder whether Kevin has the business sense to run a lemonade stand, let alone the ACF."

Given that Alex does not have the business sense to run a successful chess forum it is clear that he does not have the business sense to run a lemonade stand and has no credibility to make the above comment. But in any case I would not presume to have the "business sense" to run the ACF singlehanded (I am one of six Executive members, and not the Treasurer) and so the above is moot anyway.

Furthermore, the ACF is a voluntary non-profit organisation, not a profit-making business.

Alex continues repeating himself:


If any state chess association treasurer would have paid money to the ACF in the complete absence of any paperwork, simply relying on what a state delegate says after attending an ACF meeting, that treasurer would be negligent and irresponsible to say the least.

This is a furphy since (i) the ACF Treasurer's Report is "paperwork" (albeit in electronic form) and (ii) I am not necessarily suggesting states should have paid money based on the Treasurer's Reports alone, just that it puts them in a position to be aware of what they owe.

Furthermore if you know the rates at which the two main levies are issued you can quite accurately work out for yourself what the bill will be. The ACF Admin Fee (the per-game fee for events submitted for ratings) is particularly easy in this regard though depending on the treatement of forfeits and so on it is possible to be a few dollars out.

Brian_Jones
12-08-2010, 02:23 PM
Private organisers do not pay the levy in question and their admin fees (per-game payments) are normally handled through their State Association. What did you have in mind?

I have in mind any invoices issued by the ACF on behalf of themselves or any other organisation eg FIDE or FIDE admin charge or whatever.

In commerce, some organisations also issue statements! ;)

Spiny Norman
12-08-2010, 05:55 PM
Treasurers who are paying attention to their job will have a fair idea whether or not their current cash position is a fair representation of the actual P+L position.

For example, tonight I will be presenting up-to-date financial reports to the Croydon committee. Included with those financials will be a warning that we have a number of expenses coming up which we have not yet been invoiced for ... e.g.

-- insurance premium (which comes up every year)
-- CV affiliation fees (which come up every year)
-- CV rating fees (which come up every rated tournament)
-- anticipated expenditure for our Presentation Night and trophies (which come up every year)

As a result, the committee will have a better appreciation of the true position of the club's finances.

I will also observe that on more than one occasion in recent years, I have been aware that our affiliation fees were due and I have proactively contacted CV to give them a gentle nudge.

This is the normal function of a treasurer. If invoices are being sent late, or if invoices should have been expected but weren't, then someone somewhere (possibly more than one person) must not be paying attention.

ER
12-08-2010, 08:20 PM
... then someone somewhere (possibly more than one person) must not be paying attention.

or paying too much attention to the wrong people??? :uhoh: :eek: :hmm:

ER
29-08-2010, 11:24 AM
Since I believe that the following is of interest not only to Victorians but chess players and administrators on a national scale, I copy the following published yesterday at 11:35 PM in the other Forum by Sobriquet:



Chess Victoria Inc.
Minutes for Executive meeting #5 of 2009/2010 Executive.
Thursday 26 August; Chess Ideas premises.
1. Open meeting 7.10pm
2. Apologies All attending
3. Outwards correspondence
a. President’s e-mails. A number of President reports issued since the previous meeting and the next is due straight after the Vic Championships.
b. E-mails received from TCA; response to be drafted by DG as per discussion at meeting. Carry over
c. Letter to ACF Treasurer; Norm Greenwood re ASTC levy. DG to draft. Sent; but no formal response received.
4. To note events and decisions by other organisations:
a. Australian Championship 2012 bids on offer by 30 June 2010. CV decided to pursue their option to bid. Action: LS. ACF advised that CV Bid is not accepted.
b. Victorian OPEN 2010. LS and DG to follow-through with share of profit arrangements. Additional information to be sought from the host Club on entry details (flyer vis-a-vis web-page); trophy costs.
c. Victorian player of the month. For July...Guy West selected.
d. Others, to be advised by any Executive member at the meeting.
i. ACF delegate (LS). Table recent ACF minutes and resolutions. Executive requested that the delegate table all relevant documentation received from the ACF.
ii. Olympic Appeal. Approved for $500; 2 non-voting due to personal interest.
iii. President attended an event at Billanook College.
iv. President attended the Best in the West tournament as a visitor.

5. Report by Treasurer
a. ACF School Teams levy : CV Treasurer to seek accounting report for ACF use of the tied levy. 1)Treasurer reported that the ACF have not formally responded to his request. CV Executive voted in the affirmative to sign the cheque and release to the ACF upon receipt of answers to the questions to be redrafted for signature of the CV President. 2) Treasurer foreshadowed that he would be moving that the 2011 levy payment would be contingent on ACF replying to his full list of concerns in the original letter.
b. Invoicing commercial coaching organisations for Zonals and Finals entries. In hand.
c. Record in the minutes all decisions regarding licensing of commercial coaches.
i. Sighting of i) WWC certificates, ii) Insurance covers. LS reported only one certificate remains outstanding to be presented.
d. Accounts status.
i. Treasurer report on collection of affiliation amounts in preparation for the November AGM. Requests for declarations have been sent; awaiting response and invoicing. DCC contact details to be presented to the Treasurer.
ii. FIDE sponsorship not yet received. Remains hostage with the ACF.

6. Each member of the Executive has accepted the need to occupy an operational position on the attached Organisation chart. The Secretary to bring the chart up-to-date. This task remains open as a replacement Secretary is yet to be found.
i. LS reported on negotiations with a potential candidate.

iii. Report on arrangements for Schools Finals trophies.
iv. Discuss arrangements for trophies for Teams Tournament.
v. CV chess clocks are heavily used and the pool needs to be reviewed to judge how many are sufficient to meet all casual demands.
1. Review clocks on loans.
7. Inwards Correspondence
a. Other. MCC requested support for the Cup Week-ender. CV Executive to request a copy of the proposed MCC budget for this event.


9. Event-hostings; status review:
a. The Victorian Championship. Final round Saturday 28/8/10.
b. The Victorian Blitz. LS to request President of MCC issue flyers details date and prize-money. MCC President has promised a flyer to be produced.
c. The Victorian Interschool Finals. Dates and venues now set; listed on the CV web-site. On target. DH to expedite trophy purchase.
d. The Teams Championship. On target.
e. The Australasian Masters (Incorp. The Victorian Masters). It remains an objective of the CV Executive to continue with this long-standing event. However, it remains necessary to achieve substantial external sponsorship to keep the finances of the event viable. Tournament Organiser Leonid Sandler to organize. CV Executive voted to continue support at the level of last year by rolling the Victorian Masters into this composite event.
10. Accepted Minutes for June Executive meeting
11. Set next meeting date and location. 21 October 2010 .
12. Close meeting. 9.40pm

Garvinator
29-08-2010, 01:07 PM
Who is Sobriquet?

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2010, 01:22 PM
Rather odd minutes and inaccurate.

The position re item 4.a. is quite wrong. The true position was explained to the CV delegate (and President) at the last ACF Council meeting well before the CV meeting. It is that the exercise of the CV option for the 2012 Championships needed,in essence, to be in the form of a bid but was no more than an expression of interest lacking any real details. That was conceded by the CV delegate at the ACF meeting.

As a result, the ACF has called for bids for the event. There is no reason why CV should not put together a bid in proper form and submit it in response to that invitation. Its failure properly to exercise its option earlier would not in any way prejudice consideration of a subsequent CV bid.

I'm not sure who Sobriquet is but it is someone with close inside contacts with the CV Executive as previous posts from the same person have indicated.

DJ

Oepty
29-08-2010, 05:24 PM
Is the ACF still considering imposing some or all of the sanctions outlined in this thread?
Scott

ER
29-08-2010, 06:22 PM
Who is Sobriquet?
I think it's MOZ but I am not sure!

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2010, 08:42 PM
Is the ACF still considering imposing some or all of the sanctions outlined in this thread?
Scott

The ACF is awaiting a clear statement of CV's position. The sanctions referred to are a last resort option in my view. The minutes suggest that the CV Treasurer is to send some kind of communication to the ACF which is awaited with interest.

DJ

Oepty
29-08-2010, 10:00 PM
The ACF is awaiting a clear statement of CV's position. The sanctions referred to are a last resort option in my view. The minutes suggest that the CV Treasurer is to send some kind of communication to the ACF which is awaited with interest.

DJ

Thank you Denis

ER
10-09-2010, 06:13 PM
If it is settled then that is news to me as I am unaware of the debt being paid.
Is it still the case Bill? :) :whistle: ;)

Bill Gletsos
10-09-2010, 07:54 PM
Is it still the case Bill? :) :whistle: ;)My understanding is that the cheque is currently in the mail.

ER
10-09-2010, 08:03 PM
My understanding is that the cheque is currently in the mail.

Thanks Bill, good to have a happy end!


Amicably or otherwise, the main thing is that its been settled I guess.

Well with a bit of a delay it finally was! :)

ER
17-07-2011, 10:49 AM
[moved from Vic Junior thread - mod]


[re CV stalling on debt- mod] I am saying it was a complete waste of everybody's time.

What would you know? Most of the time you play COI anyway! :P

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2011, 04:42 PM
What would you know? Most of the time you play COI anyway! :P

Not true; I would declare COI on <10% of matters handled by ACF. This wasn't one of them.

Bill's post 14 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=285292&postcount=14) on the relevant thread explains the false assumptions that motivated the CV Treasurer of the time to take that stand and spend a large amount of time explaining it for no result, thus forcing the ACF to spend a fair amount of time contemplating appropriate sanctions if CV did not cough up. In the end he moved on and the bill was paid.

ER
17-07-2011, 06:08 PM
Not true; I would declare COI on <10% of matters handled by ACF. This wasn't one of them.

LOL In almost all matters involving Cordover you play http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-innocent-smileys-1012.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)


Bill's post 14 (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=285292&postcount=14) on the relevant thread explains the false assumptions that motivated the CV Treasurer of the time ...

Irrelevant! I didnt say he was right, I said he was defiant! :P


for the Aus Junior 2010 in Hobart we had about 120 entries and took $13300 in entry fees. We paid out about $8000 in prizes and another $3000 on trophies. We ended up very nearly breaking even on the tournament proper and thanks to associated fundraising we ended up banking thousands of dollars for the future development of Tasmanian junior chess.

LOL is that the reason you kept on displaying this ...

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/Hobart%20Open%202011/100_4067-Copy.jpg

almost a year and half after? (Tasmanian Open)?

It's clearly a case of what the sign said and what we think it meant to say! :P


for the Aus Junior 2010 in Hobart we had about 120 entries

And this is an Aus Junior you are talking about! The thread is about a state (Vic) event!

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2011, 07:02 PM
LOL In almost all matters involving Cordover you play http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-innocent-smileys-1012.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)

So? This was not a matter involving Cordover. Most matters don't.


Irrelevant! I didnt say he was right, I said he was defiant! :P

And I said that he was wasting his time. You questioned what I would know about it and I told you. So you recycling your previous comment is what is truly irrelevant.


LOL is that the reason you kept on displaying this ...

[..]

almost a year and half after? (Tasmanian Open)?

I personally had nothing to do with that sign being up. Nonetheless given its large size it retains some utility for telling people "Here be chess". I doubt anything more was implied by its unfurling than that.


And this is an Aus Junior you are talking about! The thread is about a state (Vic) event!

I was replying to a comment from another poster who used an Aus Junior as a comparison point in commenting on the prize distribution.

antichrist
17-07-2011, 10:12 PM
so was the cheque signed? sent? received? presented? cleared?

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2011, 10:33 PM
so was the cheque signed? sent? received? presented? cleared?All of the above in September last year.