PDA

View Full Version : Sponsorship withdrawal and coverage sf. 2009 Aus Open



peter_parr
18-12-2008, 12:41 PM
In July 2008 I offered a free copy of Chess Informant book or a glass chess set with board for the first 100 early entries to be picked up by the early entrant at Chess Discount Sales (in the CBD bus hours) between 5th Jan and 20 Jan 2009. (copy to Gletsos etc)

My offer at the time was accepted. My offer was genuine – I did not seek naming rights – I did not of course want to be the sole sponsor I simply wanted to help the ACF, NSWCA and organizers in attracting early entries to our most important national championship.

Advertising by the ACF and NSWCA on their web sites would have assisted obtaining early entries.
A few days ago I was surprised to receive an email from ACF Deputy President and NSWCA President Bill Gletsos that my long standing offer of sponsorship (valued at over $5000) was not accepted by the ACF and not accepted by the NSWCA and the offer was formally rejected.
My understanding is that the decision to cancel the sponsorship was made by presidential decree and not by the council of the ACF and not by the council of the NSWCA.

It was also not discussed at the NSWCA AGM a few weeks ago which saw all office bearers re-elected. One NSWCA councillor expressed his written personal view that the sponsorship is not worth anything anyway but if I were to give $5000 cash as sponsorship then it might be different.
Note the wording – “might be” ($5000 cash may or may not be accepted).
Furthermore a $5000 cash donation would be a good promotion for my business. The fact is my business is well established in the CBD for over 35 years. A $5000 cash donation is not good for my business.
Comments from ACF vice-presidents Bonham and Jessop supporting Gletsos are also noted.

Yesterday by phone a well known International Master ringing from afar bellowed – “if a sponsor offers one Informant the administrators should take it and say thank you. If 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 are offered they should take it or glass chess sets etc and say thank you”.
Our IM has played in every major country, taught chess in the ghettos of Soweto etc and never has come across administrators who need sponsorship to reject goods valued at $5000.

I well remember years ago asking McDonalds and Pizza Hut for sponsorship. They sent vouchers for free Big Macs and free pizzas. Did I return the vouchers and say “give me cash”? No, I was very grateful for the vouchers, wrote letters of thanks for the sponsorship and distributed the vouchers.
Did the rejection of the $5000 worth of goods start with the words..
“Thank you for your offer of sponsorship” – No it was rudely rejected by presidential decree.

I suggest a questionnaire to participants in the Australian Open as follows.

In a future event would you accept from a sponsor…
a) A free copy of Chess Informant (value $50) or
b) A free glass chess set and board or
c) Neither but thanks for the offer.
Well the decision was made for you - not (a), (b), or (c) – not even thanks for the offer.
100 players will suffer – very sad.

I am extremely busy with Christmas fast approaching and handling many queries regarding the AUS open.
I would very much appreciate the telephone numbers of the ACF senior office bearers Gletsos, Jessop, Bonham if they would be kind enough to explain to entrants who are upset that the sponsorship is cancelled by ACF and NSWCA.

All ACF and NSW office bearers should consider the wishes of the members – the players – and act in accordance with their wishes.
Will these office-bearers make themselves available by telephone with the members they represent?
The ACF is an administrative body of over 15 executive and council members. The ACF performs an important function although no games of chess are actually supervised by the council.
The Australian Open is delegated. Lawyer Chris Dimock and Fred Schuetz were very keen to bring the Australian Open to their club at Manly-Warringah Leagues Club. Dimock arranged a fantastic venue in the luxurious air-conditioned very large auditorium at the club.
This alone took a lot of work and negotiation with the club at the highest level.
Thank you Chris.

The NSWCA agreed to loan their state of the art top of the range DGT-XL clocks as well as their quality sets and boards and the NSWCA agreed to accepted all entries and all finances relating to the tournament through the NSWCA treasurer Norm Greenwood and NSWCA bank account.
My original proposal of events and schedule of tournaments was reviewed by the ACF and Bill Gletsos made a number of alterations – no problem of course this is an ACF event run in a NSWCA affiliated club.
Gletsos as ACF Deputy President and NSWCA President was appointed as ACF liaison officer for the tournament. Dimock worked very hard in the period July – December seeking sponsorship etc but resigned after a disagreement with Bill Gletsos.

What was the communication between ACF and Dimock in the Jul-Dec period? Ask Chris Dimock. When Dimock resigned did the long standing NSWCA vice-president or ACF vice-presidents speak to Dimock. Ideally Lawyer Jessop (ACF) could have spoken to lawyer Dimock the prime mover in the open whose resignation could have a substantial effect on the event.
Shaun Press (long standing organizer) wrote an interesting and informative article on his blog 16th December…

See Chessexpress (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/)

Freedom of the Press is also well demonstrated by the popular Closet Grandmaster

See Closet Grandmaster (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/)

The Australian Open has everything to do with the ACF and NSWCA when it is in Sydney. The resignation of Dimock could and should have been avoided or reconciled by other office bearers of NSW and ACF. The popular club president was of course re-elected president of Manly-Warringah Leagues Club Chess Club at their AGM by the members ( 1 member 1 vote) in the full knowledge of his resignation from organizing the Australian Open.
The organizing committee is now Fred Schuetz, Norm Greenwood and Martin van Elmpt. Greenwood is a tower of strength as treasurer of ACF, NSWCA, Norths, Manly etc and is keeping track of all the finances for the events. Martin helps in artwork design, and is NSWCA webmaster – he is very busy in business, is a very nice chap, and helps when he can.

This leaves only Fred Schuetz. It is not helped if the 25+ ACF and NSWCA office bearers leave everything to Fred. Fred has worked hard from day one. He helped to design, print and distribute the excellent colour brochures. He has worked tirelessly promoting the event within the club, with clubs in all states, with overseas enquiries, with accommodation arrangements with local businesses, local councils, shopping centres, newspapers etc.

The final countdown has begun 18th Dec 2008. Round 1 starts in 2 weeks. I will help Fred, everyone should help Fred to make the events a success.
Entries as at 1pm 18th Dec 2008 are open 49 – Norths Chess Club Centenary Under 1600 – entries 37 championship (the Manly classic has been re-named after sponsorship from Norths CC). Everyone say thank you very much to Norths Chess Club. Your sponsorship is greatly appreciated.

Fred has arranged for future entries sent to Chris Dimock to be redirected to me Tel (02) 9211-2994 (B). Fred and I have agreed to extend the early entry deadline until 24th December 2008 (by cheque or credit card by phone or email etc). Entries will still be taken after that date. I am back in the shop at 9am 29th December 2008 when normal entry fees apply.
86 entries is a bit below par. The fantastic large venue can take 150 entries comfortably. For interstate and overseas players the club is centrally located near Sydney’s northern beaches – numerous accommodation options, restaurants etc.

If you live on the other side of Sydney you could stay near the venue for the early double rounds and travel to and from home for the rest.

When I was ten years old in 1956 I travelled by foot/bus/Tube train to central London every day 1.75 hours each way to play in the London Junior. As a teenager I often shared a caravan to reduce costs. In 1974 I rented the largest special suite in a 5 start hotel in Brisbane – cheap when divided by the number of occupants. Each player use your initiative. The 2008 NSW Lightning champion is staying in a tent.
Enter now and bring all your friends. It may be a long time before another national championship is held in such a high quality spacious venue in Sydney.

The balance sheet does not yet balance with 86 entries – each and every entry is important to us.
Financial donations to the event (large or small) will be gratefully received and passed on to the treasurer.

Fred and I would like as many entries as possible.

The updated entry list will appear as soon as possible.
Everyone give Fred a hand. Well done Fred.

Send your entry now to

Peter Parr
Chess Discount Sales
Basement level
72 Campbell St
Surry Hills NSW 2010

Finally an ACF executive editorial on the ACF web site and in the ACF Newsletter promoting the tournaments would be greatly appreciated as well as from.

Peter Parr

Watto
18-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Peter Parr’s offer of glass chess sets has always struck me as a stylish and generous addition to tournaments he’s sponsored (if I had entered this tournament, I’d be disappointed I wasn’t getting one.)

So I am curious as to why a decision to accept the offer was reversed, especially so late in the piece and after it had already been advertised on the NSW site… on the face of it, it does seem odd...

bergil
18-12-2008, 02:41 PM
Lead up the garden path Or Sold down the river

There once was a petulant chap who in 2005 cried when he couldn't be Vice President of the NSWCA saying "its not fair Bill" and then in 2007 standing for the position found out he was not nearly a popular as he believed and was handsomely outvoted for that position.

But those present at the AGM were filled with pity and then voted him in as Publicity officer (Being a newspaper columnist ,who better?) and thus all were glad again but when on NSWCA Council he only whined about ACF matters and his personal grips (chief amongst them was to have an Australian Open in Sydney) Unfortunately he never actively tried to publicize tournaments or events outside of his paid column, when asked to do so he replied "Its not my job. Why don't you do it?" or incredulously being the only IA in the room he was asked about rules in the grade matches but would only reply "I haven't got an opinion"

Sadly the only contribution made was to lengthen the meetings by seeking free venues for the Open and suckers to run it the way he wanted it run or complaining about Olympiad captaincy. The NSWCA stated from the outset that they wanted no part in organizing the Open as they will be doing the Championship the following year but did offer the use of their equipment and to put all the money through NSWCA books and any other help they could but were adamant they were not running nor financially responsible for the Open.

This farce carried on for about six months when out of the blue he gets the shirts when the NSWCA council stopped patronizing his petty agendas and voted one of them down. Well the voice became higher and the eyes moistened and suddenly its quitsville! Right in the middle of the meeting! He was asked to reconsider? He was asked if he still wanted the council to try and find a venue rent free. No & no was the answer and he departed.

Unfortunately for Fred Schuetz and those willing souls at Manly they were given grand tales about tradition, how an Open would attract 150 players, the ACF would give a guarantee against small loses of up to $2,000 and who knows maybe more? How last year Championship was able to make a small profit, help and support and perhaps even some sponsorship but alas for those naive folks once the Open wouldn't be awarded to the Highest placed Australian at the SIO and or Doeberl interest in the Open disappeared.

Adamski
18-12-2008, 02:49 PM
The resignation of Dimock could and should have been avoided or reconciled by other office bearers of NSW and ACF. The popular club president was of course re-elected president of Manly-Warringah Leagues Club Chess Club at their AGM by the members ( 1 member 1 vote) in the full knowledge of his resignation from organizing the Australian Open.
I can't speak for the accuracy of other statements Peter has made as I am not directly involved in any of the events discussed around the organisation of the Aus Open, but I can state that the above is not true. I was at the Manly AGM. Chris Dimock was re-elected President without anyone present outside the organising committtee for the Aus Open knowing that he had resigned from that committee. The only mention of the Aus Open at our AGM was initiated by me under General Business and was an encouragement to members to register to play (as Peter has done here).

I do second the comment that Fred Schuetz and the organising committee have been working very hard on this event from day one and deserve the outcome of a very successful tournament.

Bill Gletsos
18-12-2008, 03:08 PM
In July 2008 I offered a free copy of Chess Informant book or a glass chess set with board for the first 100 early entries to be picked up by the early entrant at Chess Discount Sales (in the CBD bus hours) between 5th Jan and 20 Jan 2009. (copy to Gletsos etc)This claim is misleading at best.

You sent an email on the 18th July 2008 to Fred Schuetz and copied Chris Dimock and myself.

That lengthy email consisted of a whole host of what you clearly stated were suggestions you were putting to Fred and Chris with regards their submitting a bid for the 2009 Australian Open. These suggestions covered topics including accommodation, entry fees, playing times & dates, time controls etc. In amongst the section on entry fees was you "sponsorship offer".

Also in this email was your suggestion that all entry fees be sent to you (Peter Parr) and that all credit card payments also go to you (Peter Parr) and that you (Peter Parr) would pay all those entries into the NSWCA Bank Account. All cheques were to go to the NSWCA.

Based on the bid submission to the ACF on 21st July 2008 from Fred and Chris it was clear they ignored many of your suggestions of your email of 18th July. No mention of your sponsorship was included in their submission to the ACF.

Clearly acceptance of your sponsorship was up to the organising committee of the 2009 Australian Open.

My offer at the time was accepted.I have seen no response from Fred or Chris to your email of 18th July 2008 to support this claim. I also have not been informed verbally by either Fred or Chris that they accepted your offer.

Advertising by the ACF and NSWCA on their web sites would have assisted obtaining early entries.The ACF and the NSWCA were not going to advertise something that had not been accepted by the organisers.

A few days ago I was surprised to receive an email from ACF Deputy President and NSWCA President Bill Gletsos that my long standing offer of sponsorship (valued at over $5000) was not accepted by the ACF and not accepted by the NSWCA and the offer was formally rejected.This whole paragraph is also misleading. The reason why you received an email from me a few days ago (16th December 2008) was in direct response to your email of the 15th December to the NSWCA Council and members of the organising committeefull of incorrect and misleading claims. My email response can be read here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=222607&postcount=67).

My understanding is that the decision to cancel the sponsorship was made by presidential decree and not by the council of the ACF and not by the council of the NSWCA.There was no decision taken to cancel your offer as there never was an acceptance of it by the ACF or the NSWCA in the first place. Any acceptance of your offer was up to the organising committee.

As I explained to you the organising committee had not advised the ACF or the NSWCA that they had accepted your offer.

Of course you carrying on about the NSWCA in all this is totally irrelevant.
Your offer of sponsorship had nothing to do with the NSWCA.

As you were well aware of the NSWCA had no involvement in the 2009 Australian Open bid, other than to offer a successful NSW based bidder the use of NSWCA equipment if required and the ability to put the tournament income and expenditure through the NSWCA accounts.

It was also not discussed at the NSWCA AGM a few weeks ago which saw all office bearers re-elected.Of course not as the NSWCA has absolutely no involvement in the event other than as described above. Acceptance or rejection of you offer was up to the organising committee, not the NSWCA.

Comments from ACF vice-presidents Bonham and Jessop supporting Gletsos are also noted.Well they have after all seen your email of the 18th July full of suggestions to Fred and Chris as well as your emails of the 15th and 16th December 2008.

Did the rejection of the $5000 worth of goods start with the words..
“Thank you for your offer of sponsorship” – No it was rudely rejected by presidential decree.This is totally false. It was simply pointed out to you that it was up to the organising committee to accept it and that neither the ACF nor the NSWCA had been advised of any such acceptance by the organising committee.

The NSWCA agreed to loan their state of the art top of the range DGT-XL clocks as well as their quality sets and boards and the NSWCA agreed to accepted all entries and all finances relating to the tournament through the NSWCA treasurer Norm Greenwood and NSWCA bank account.This is no different to the situation in 2007 when the NSWCA made the same offer to both yourself and Shane Burgess with regards your bids for the 2008 Australian Championship.

My original proposal of events and schedule of tournaments was reviewed by the ACF and Bill Gletsos made a number of alterations – no problem of course this is an ACF event run in a NSWCA affiliated club.The original submission by Fred and Chris to the ACF on the 21st July did not have any input from me. In fact I expected them to at least follow your suggestions regarding the dates, number of rounds etc.
Given there was contradictory information in this original submission regarding the playing schedule I queried this with Chris and he sent a revised playing schedule later that day.
I was extremely surprised when I saw that it was only for 10 rounds.
When I asked Chris Dimock why he had not followed a number of your suggestions, he bluntly told me "Peter Parr is not involved with this" or words to that effect.

Gletsos as ACF Deputy President and NSWCA President was appointed as ACF liaison officer for the tournament. Dimock worked very hard in the period July – December seeking sponsorship etc but resigned after a disagreement with Bill Gletsos.This is false. Chris sent me an email (cc'ed to the rest of the organising committee) on the 6th December 2008 asking me if the ACF would underwrite the event to the tune of $8,000 as it had two years previously.
In my email reply of 6th December I reminded Chris that I had previously informed him that 2007 Australian Open had only ended up costing the ACF a little over $4,700 not $8,000 and that since that time the ACF had decided to cap its underwriting of the Australian Championship and Open at $2,000.

I did however also inform him that if the ACF were to increase its underwriting the event in the amount of $2,000 that the ACF certainly would not do so before seeing figures of actual entry numbers, current income and expenditure etc.
With this in mind I suggested that the organising committee provide the ACF with entry numbers, current income and committed expenditure as at Wednesday 10th December with any request for an increase in underwriting the event to the tune of more than $2,000 and any other recommendations it wishes to make regarding the event. Note I discussed my above response to Chris with ACF Vice President Denis Jessop prior to my sending it to Chris.

Chris advised in an email of the 8th December to his fellow members on the organising committee (cc'ed me) that he was resigning from the organising committee citing his perception that the current economic climate was having a deleterious effect on raising sponsorship and entries to date (i.e 8th December) and the lack of support from the ACF.

What was the communication between ACF and Dimock in the Jul-Dec period?From the time I informed Chris that the ACF had accepted his bid on 2nd August 2008 I have received up to and including his email resignation on 8th December 2008 I received 6 emails from him of which only 4 were directed at me. I responded to all of his emails promptly (within 24 hours) either by email or by telephone. One on the 29th September concerned the possibility of the ACF underwriting it to the amount of $8,000. It was at this time that I first explained to him the amount was only a little over $4,700 and how that came about. The next was on 1st December asking me when the next ACF meeting was being held. The last two on 6th & 8th December are described above,

This leaves only Fred Schuetz. It is not helped if the 25+ ACF and NSWCA office bearers leave everything to Fred.I have received no emails from Fred Scheutz either before or after Chris Dimock's resignation.
As far as I am aware neither the ACF nor the NSWCA has received any
emails from Fred.

Bill Gletsos
18-12-2008, 03:09 PM
My email response to Peter parr's email of the 15th December 2008.


Dear Peter,

The NSWCA Council made it quite clear it had no involvement in the 2009 Australian Open bid, other than to offer a successful NSW based bidder the use of NSWCA equipment if required and the ability to put the tournament income and expenditure through the NSWCA accounts. As such your offer of sponsorship had nothing to do with the NSWCA.

Now the running of the 2009 Australian Open was awarded to Chris Dimock and Fred Shuetz (not Manly) by the ACF in late July 2008.
No mention of your offer was included in documents submitted to the ACF by Chris or Fred as part of their bid.

You claim that your offer was accepted by the ACF, the NSWCA and the organising committee in mid July 2008.
There is no correspondence I have seen from the ACF, the NSWCA or the organising committee to support this claim.

In fact in your email to Fred Shuetz dated the 10th September 2008 you clearly asked Fred

“Please list Chess Discount Sales as a sponsor of the event if the offer is accepted”

From this it is quite clear that as of the 10th September your offer of sponsorship had not been accepted.

At no stage since your email of the 10th September have I been informed either verbally or in writing by the organising committee that they have accepted your offer of sponsorship.

In fact the first I was aware of the fact they had apparently belatedly accepted it was when I saw it mentioned on the tournament website on 10th December along with the notice stating they were extending the early entry discount. This was 2 days after Chris Dimock advised he was withdrawing from the organising committee.

As such any issues you have regarding your sponsorship, its promotion and advertising, you need to take up directly with the organising committee.

The organisers are quite capable of advertising the event through various channels and can easily contact the ACF Newsletter editor Joe Tanti to have whatever information regarding the 2009 Australian Open placed in the ACF Newsletter.

Also who the organising committee wishes to appoint as their contact for the tournament is up to the organising committee and certainly not the NSWCA.

As for the arbiters fee my understanding is that the budgeted $2,000 fee is for a chief arbiter and an assistant arbiter. However what the organisers pay their arbiters is up to the organisers.

The tournament website is simply being hosted off the NSWCA website, but the NSWCA has no involvement in the contents of the tournament web site. As such what information appears on the website is the responsibility of the organising committee.

My role as ACF Liaison is not to carry out functions of the organising committee but to act just as the name suggests as a liaison between the organisers and the ACF.

You should note that the NSWCA at the request of Fred Shuetz advertised the event and your sponsorship in an email bulletin sent out by the NSWCA Communications Officer last Sunday evening.

Regards,
Bill

Desmond
18-12-2008, 03:28 PM
http://www.nswca.org.au/AO2009/index.shtml advertises the free Informants and glass sets, and names Chess Discount Sales. Surely the sponsorship has been accepted?

Bill Gletsos
18-12-2008, 03:41 PM
http://www.nswca.org.au/AO2009/index.shtml advertises the free Informants and glass sets, and names Chess Discount Sales. Surely the sponsorship has been accepted?Boris, that only appeared on the 9th or 10th December.
Parr in his email of the 15th December claimed it had been accepted back in mid July and was complaining why the ACF and the NSWCA were not advertising it.

I pointed out to him that his claim it was accepted back then was false and that it was clear from his own email to Fred Schuetz of 10th September 2008 that it had not been accepted even by then.

There has been no email from Fred or Chris advising that they accepted Peters offer.

It appears that the prior to Chris Dimocks resignation the offer had not been accepted.

I suspect that the offer may have been accepted on the 8th or 9th December by Fred.

Of course this does not explain Parr's claims in his email of 15th December that it was agreed to back in mid July 2008, a claim that his own email of 10th September proves is false.

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2008, 06:48 PM
So I am curious as to why a decision to accept the offer was reversed, especially so late in the piece and after it had already been advertised on the NSW site… on the face of it, it does seem odd...

It seems odd because it simply isn't true, as Bill points out.

Tzoglanis
18-12-2008, 07:10 PM
This is hurting the tournament. Interested parties should be trying the utmost to make this tournament a success. Bergil I am a little dissapointed with your comments because I am a witness to the individual you mentioned having praised and recommended you and your chess business to customers of his. Anyway, let's all grow up.

MichaelBaron
18-12-2008, 07:20 PM
Interesting discussion ..but may be it could be moved into a separate thread...

Re: Peter's sponsorship being rejected...It is quite transparent why it happened. As it is transparent, it could be anticipated. Would Peter offer $25,000 of sponsorship - I am pretty sure it would get rejected anyway :(.

Denis_Jessop
18-12-2008, 07:58 PM
Interesting discussion ..but may be it could be moved into a separate thread...

Re: Peter's sponsorship being rejected...It is quite transparent why it happened. As it is transparent, it could be anticipated. Would Peter offer $25,000 of sponsorship - I am pretty sure it would get rejected anyway :(.

Michael

The point is that Peter's sponsorship was not rejected. Quite clearly it had been accepted by the organisers when announced on the web site. Peter later said he was withdrawing it but this was after it had been advertised.

I agree that the discussion ccould harm the event, But the discussion was begun by Peter here and by Amiel Rosario and Shaun Press on their respective blogs. They must bear the blame for the unseemly and inaccurate nonsense that they have peddled. To refer to Rosario's effort as freedom of the press is just silly. What Rosario did was to repeat false information given him by Parr without checking its accuracy. Now he is trying to wriggle out of his transgression by abusing others - perhaps that is freedom of some kind of press, generally known as gutter journalism.

DJ

arosar
18-12-2008, 08:34 PM
Now he is trying to wriggle out of his transgression by abusing others - perhaps that is freedom of some kind of press, generally known as gutter journalism.
DJ

I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. Stop misleading people. Read my original post again. It's simply stating that Parr withdrew his sponsorship.

And if anyone is abusing anyone, it's you Denis. Point out exactly where I've abused anyone.

Your problem, amigo, is that you presume too much.

Oh, and btw, you've been really angry lately. You alright mate?

AR

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2008, 08:57 PM
I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. Stop misleading people. Read my original post again. It's simply stating that Parr withdrew his sponsorship.

It is, but then it gives Parr's reasons (which are unfactual) without giving a response from those he criticises. I appreciate that in blogging media it's generally most critical to get stuff out there fast rather than taking time to get all sides of a story (that is often what comments sections are for). All the same there must be a case for giving equal prominence now to Bill's debunking of Parr's comments.

The other thing I'll add is that in the context of discussion about how much the event is or isn't struggling, Peter Parr's withdrawal of his sponsorship offer is at most a colourful sideline. Does anyone seriously think the sponsorship offered by Parr would have attracted any significant number of entries who would not have played anyway? How many people really base their decision on whether or not to enter an event costing a three-figure sum to enter and running for several days on whether or not they could go into Peter Parr's shop and pick up a glass chess set or a non-current Informator? It's a nice touch to have such things if you can get them and it can add to people's enjoyment of the tournament but in terms of putting behinds on seats it's a very minor issue.

And those who have seen Peter Parr's sprays over the past five or so years know that there is really no shock factor in any of these kinds of actions anymore. On that note:


I would very much appreciate the telephone numbers of the ACF senior office bearers Gletsos, Jessop, Bonham if they would be kind enough to explain to entrants who are upset that the sponsorship is cancelled by ACF and NSWCA.

Peter, if any entrant is of this mind then I would be more than happy for them to ring me up so I can tell them that you have your facts wrong again, that you are being silly again, that we did not cancel anything and that they should not listen to you on any subject that concerns the present administration of the ACF or NSWCA, ever.

Interested? Please make sure they don't call me in the morning; I'm on holidays now!

arosar
18-12-2008, 09:13 PM
It is, but then it gives Parr's reasons (which are unfactual) without giving a response from those he criticises. I appreciate that in blogging media it's generally most critical to get stuff out there fast rather than taking time to get all sides of a story (that is often what comments sections are for). All the same there must be a case for giving equal prominence now to Bill's debunking of Parr's comments.

Right, exactly. Which is why this Denis bloke's behaviour took me aback. Instead of coming on strong, all he needed to do was respond and fill in the blanks. That's why the comments section is enabled.

And since we're all bloody sharing emails, this avro, Parr and I had a brief exchange of emails after I saw Bill's post above and I said, in part, to Parr: "To my mind, at least, I don't see why the NSWCA/ACF needs to accept the offer. They're not the organisers."

Now I can't help but think that some maybe thinking that there is some kind of coordinated attack. There isn't!

AR

Denis_Jessop
18-12-2008, 09:35 PM
Right, exactly. Which is why this Denis bloke's behaviour took me aback. Instead of coming on strong, all he needed to do was respond and fill in the blanks. That's why the comments section is enabled.

And since we're all bloody sharing emails, this avro, Parr and I had a brief exchange of emails after I saw Bill's post above and I said, in part, to Parr: "To my mind, at least, I don't see why the NSWCA/ACF needs to accept the offer. They're not the organisers."

Now I can't help but think that some maybe thinking that there is some kind of coordinated attack. There isn't!

AR

There is no suggestion of a coordinated attack. All I said was that you had reproduced Peter Parr's communication without properly checking whether it was accurate (which it wasn't).

This relevantly is what you said:


Then this afternoon came further shock! Peter Parr, proprietor of Chess Discount Sales, withdrew his sponsorship which was valued, according to him, at AUD$5000.

Mr Parr (in a later email to myself): "This morning I was advised by email from the NSWCA President and ACF Deputy President Bill Gletsos that the Australian Chess Federation and the New South Wales Chess Association have not accepted my long standing offer of sponsorship. I therefore had no alternative but to withdraw my offer this afternoon."

Had you stopped at the first para, your assertion that all you did was report Peter's withdrawal of his sponsorship would have beenn accurate. But the second paragraph is both inaccurate and misconceived and you should have checked its accuracy before posting it. That you did not do so was the gist of my comment to you which was thus fully justified.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2008, 10:02 PM
I get the impression that blogging has a different ethos in this regard to the one the print media is supposed to have (but too often doesn't).

An advantage that blogging has compared to a newspaper is that there is a comments section so if the blogger quotes one side of the story and that side is incorrect, then that side can be shot down as soon as the criticised party likes. This is different to a newspaper where it might take days for coverage of the other point of view to appear and, as Churchill is reputed to have said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on" - hence the pressure on the mainstream media to cover both sides of the story even if the report appears less rapidly as a result.

Nonetheless there is still the problem of how issues might be received by gullible readers with short attention spans who do not click on the comments and this is why I was suggesting that just giving one side of the story in the lead and leaving the debunking for the comments isn't really enough and there will hopefully now be a piece pointing out that Bill has refuted Parr's accusations.

Desmond
19-12-2008, 09:02 AM
OK, I'm confusled. Are people going to get a free glass set/Informant or aren't they?

Ian Rout
19-12-2008, 09:18 AM
OK, I'm confusled.
Is that a combination of confused and puzzled?

pappubahry
19-12-2008, 09:34 AM
Is that a combination of confused and puzzled?

I see it as a cool variant of confuzzled.

Garvinator
19-12-2008, 09:35 AM
For something to do with glass, the picture at the moment certainly is as clear as mud.

Adamski
19-12-2008, 09:40 AM
An email has been sent to Fred Schuetz to check this out: whether the free glass chess set / Informant offer from Peter Parr still applies. If it does not, then the web site will get updated accordingly ere long.

MichaelBaron
19-12-2008, 10:33 AM
One thing i do not understand...if someone offers to give something for free - why reject the offer? As far as I understood Peter's post - he is still happy to provide the Informants, why not accept his offer?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2008, 10:45 AM
One thing i do not understand...if someone offers to give something for free - why reject the offer?

The one thing you don't understand is that the offer was never rejected.


As far as I understood Peter's post - he is still happy to provide the Informants, why not accept his offer?

The current situation is that his offer has been withdrawn in an email he sent on Tuesday. Whether there is any chance of him reconsidering that given that the withdrawal of the offer was based on completely erroneous assumptions I cannot say.

Ian Rout
19-12-2008, 11:11 AM
Is the position that nobody rejected the sponsorship, nobody wanted to reject it, but everybody thought that somebody else had the authority to accept it?

Kevin Bonham
19-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Is the position that nobody rejected the sponsorship, nobody wanted to reject it, but everybody thought that somebody else had the authority to accept it?

I don't think so; from Bill's comments about what Chris Dimock said it seems more likely that the organisers simply wanted to run it their way and not Peter Parr's and therefore didn't initially run with a whole pile of his "suggestions".

Perhaps if he had put his sponsorship offer to them separately and done so after they were granted the bid, rather than as part of his big list of "suggestions" for how the tournament could be run (even though he didn't want to run it himself) it would have been accepted and publicised earlier.

Denis_Jessop
19-12-2008, 03:35 PM
I don't think so; from Bill's comments about what Chris Dimock said it seems more likely that the organisers simply wanted to run it their way and not Peter Parr's and therefore didn't initially run with a whole pile of his "suggestions".

Perhaps if he had put his sponsorship offer to them separately and done so after they were granted the bid, rather than as part of his big list of "suggestions" for how the tournament could be run (even though he didn't want to run it himself) it would have been accepted and publicised earlier.

Moreover, the fact that it was published on the web site some little while before Peter said that he withdrew it would seem to me to be clear evidence that, not only was it not rejected, but that it was accepted albeit at a late stage.

DJ

Spiny Norman
20-12-2008, 08:46 AM
Is that a combination of confused and puzzled?
I feel I should issue a warning here on the use of CONFUSLED, as copyright royalty fees may apply:
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=157071

brett
20-12-2008, 07:36 PM
Bergil I am a little dissapointed with your comments because I am a witness to the individual you mentioned having praised and recommended you and your chess business to customers of his. Anyway, let's all grow up.


Tzolglanis, are you getting Bergil mixed up with someone else?

Bergil= Shane Burgess

Tzoglanis
21-12-2008, 06:19 PM
You are quite right, a case of mistaken identity. My apologies to both parties. To Bergil and .......It is obvious this whole issue is confusing everyone. Best of luck to the participants of the tournament. I promise to keep my two cents out of other peoples affairs in the future.

Adamski
22-12-2008, 09:54 AM
An email has been sent to Fred Schuetz to check this out: whether the free glass chess set / Informant offer from Peter Parr still applies. If it does not, then the web site will get updated accordingly ere long.I have spoken to Fred Schuetz. He has confirmed that the offer has been withdrawn by Peter Parr and it has now been removed from the web site.

The good news is that entries are picking up. Now is a great time to enter if you have not yet done so!

peter_parr
22-12-2008, 01:07 PM
A lawyer friend asked me if any member of the council of the Australian Chess Federation or any member of the council of the NSW Chess Association or any member of the organizing committee had ever made a written response either by letter or by email to my written email offer of sponsorship valued at over $5,000.

My reply was "no". He further asked had any member of the council of the Australian Chess Federation or any member of the council of the NSW Chess Association or any member of the organizing committee ever thanked me for my offer in the dozens of pages on the sponsorship issue in "Chess Chat".

My reply was "no". He noted in particular recent comments made by three ACF officials and has advised me as a first step not to post any replies on "Chess Chat". He added that here the matter of my offer of sponsorship should end.

I have noted with alarm that when I am asked “where did you read that” the original message on Chess Chat has disappeared. Rather like cheating at chess except there is no proof.

Attacks on my offer of sponsorship to the ACF by office-bearers of the ACF and NSWCA are to say the least extremely annoying.

Come into the store and grab some old stock for free - ACF Vice-President.

Is the glass chess set an incentive or disincentive - ACF Grand Prix Supervisor.

I do not believe that the sponsorship is really worth anything anyway - NSWCA Councilor.

Not everyone is going to want a Myriad of games - etc NSWCA Councilor.
$5000 straight into the tournament might be different.

In order to save Council time discussing whether or not to accept a $5000 cash offer I repeat again that I am not making any cash offer.

In order to enlighten our ACF vice-president I confirm the value to be in excess of $5000.

When lawyer Chris Dimock walked into my shop he noticed prominently displayed the beautiful glass chess set and matching board. The product sells itself - its price is not the issue - when you see a quality item you must have it.

Chris will have many happy years ahead seeing the set and board - a thing of beauty is a joy forever. Critics of the set clearly have not seen it.

Have they compared the quality of my set in the CBD with the quality of other sets seen in stores? I have sold another few full cartons to Christmas shoppers.

Chess Discount Sales started in 1973 when I purchased a quantity of Chess Informants from Belgrade and sold the whole lot in one day.

In 1980 a schoolboy lost his game on board 3 in a school match in my 80 player CBD chess centre open 12 hours a day 7 days a week.

He came to me and asked me how he could become a strong player. The question was easy to answer - play through games from Chess Informant - numerous games all of the highest quality selected by a panel of the top grandmasters with top class notes in figurine algebraic notation.

In a short period the schoolboy's understanding of chess improved greatly winning the Australian Championship, then an IM title (the proper hard way),then travelled the chess world etc. IM Wohl has always been an avid reader of every issue.

Or ask Young IM George Xie, the top seed, about Chess Informant. Players of all strengths must improve if they play through top quality games.

The numerous boxes of brand new chess informants in unopened boxes from Belgrade are sitting in my shop.

Are they wanted for free by the ACF or should I sell them for $50 per book? This is not junk or old stock I cannot sell.

The books are excellent sellers in the upper price bracket -in car terms not as good as the Bugatti Veyron but equivalent to a late model brand new Jaguar.

It has been said repeatedly now that the sponsorship has nothing to do with the ACF Council or NSWCA Council and it is entirely up to the organizing committee.

Is this response to a sponsor offering $5000 worth of goods suitable?
It shows the ACF and NSWCA are simply not interested in the very substantial offer as it is such a minor matter in their opinion.

What does a sponsor think with such a response?

I will make it crystal clear that my sponsorship of goods valued at $5000 has everything to do with both the councils of ACF and NSWCA.

My sponsorship (which I may add is considerable in current difficult economic times) was offered in good faith at substantial cost to myself.

The events are held in an NSWCA affiliated club in Sydney on behalf of the ACF. All equipment being used is NSWCA equipment. Members of the NSWCA Council are on the organizing committee.

All entrants from NSW are required to be full members of NSWCA. The events are supported by NSWCA. The President of NSWCA and deputy ACF President who first sighted my written offer many months ago is the liaison officer of the event. If it is the current opinion of a number of NSWCA councilors (who represent the wishes of the players) that my sponsorship has little value to the tournament, or is a case for disagreement on the NSWCA Council then why not politely decline my offer after consulting the first 100 entrants who they represent. Even if NSWCA decided the event had nothing to do with them (very strange)surely an executive member could at least have had the courtesy to spend a few minutes thanking me for my offer.

It is however even harder to understand how the ACF executive conclude "any acceptance of your offer was up to the organizing committee". Not even - thank you for your offer. Do I really want to donate thousands of dollars worth of quality goods if this is the response?

The event has everything to with the ACF as outlined in great detail in the ACF constitution. All details of the event, title etc are controlled by the governing body the ACF.

If the members of the ACF Executive consider the offer unacceptable or of no value they should at least show the courtesy of acknowledging my offer and declining it with thanks(after seeking the opinion of the 100 entrants they represent).

Imagine if the managing director of another quality retailer in the Sydney CBD approached the ACF and NSWCA Executive after reading about the Australian Open in a quality newspaper.

I would like to offer 12 new television sets (model KBDJWG) for prizes in the Australian Open. Please advise your suggestion on how they would be awarded. Kind Regards Winston C.

Response (exactly as response to sponsor Peter Parr).

Any acceptance of your offer is up to the organizing committee. Our Vice-President advises you that he regards it as a common practice for shops to get rid of old stock in this way. He also noted that although the TV sets (model KBDJWG) are all brand new in their original boxes they are not the latest models and indeed this specific model of television KBDJWG had been around for some years. You should either consider offering us the latest models or better still donate cash which could be very considerably less than the value that you place on the free new TV's.

Contact details of the organizing committee are .....

They will decide whether or not to thank you for your offer and they will consider whether they should or should not accept the goods. Please ensure all future communication on this matter is made with the organizing committee and not with our executive - President, Deputy-President, and Vice-Presidents.

What can I tell a future potential sponsor like Winston C ?

My offer as originally worded in mid July 2008 and never amended by me states

"Peter Parr has offered a free copy of Chess Informant book or glass chess set with board for the first 100 early entries to be picked up by the early entrant at Chess Discount Sales(in the CBD bus hours) between 5 Jan and 20 Jan 2009. This is sponsorship from Chess Discount Sales - note the regular retail price of the latest Chess Informant book is $55."


This sponsorship is now only available in the spirit of Christmas provided it has the full support of the ACF Council, NSWCA Council and ACF Deputy President, and both ACF Vice Presidents - I am definitely not donating anything if it is not appreciated by all office-bearers.

This sponsorship offer valued at over $5000 is now available only on the following terms ;

(a) A guarantee on Chess Chat and by email to me that the NSWCA will on its letterhead send me a thank you letter for the sponsorship - with no adverse comment by 1 February 2009 - leaving time to ensure I have donated the goods.

(b) A guarantee on Chess Chat and by email to me that the ACF on its letterhead send me a thank you letter for the sponsorship - with no adverse comment by 1 February 2009 - leaving time to ensure I have donated the goods. Also a mention of thanks by the ACF in the next ACF newsletter.

(c) No letter is required from the organizing committee. I suggested the event at Manly in the first place and have been talking to Fred Schuetz the main organizer at least once and often more every single week for the last 5 months. There are still gentlemen whose word is bond.

(d) A message posted on Chess Chat and by email to me by each of the following (total 3 separate messages). Each message to contain in their own words that the offer of sponsorship of goods valued by Chess Discount Sales at over $5000 is greatly appreciated by them personally as well as by them in their official ACF capacity - with no adverse comment.

(1) Bill Gletsos ACF Deputy President (2)Kevin Bonham ACF Vice-President (3) Denis Jessop ACF Vice-President.

(e) A guarantee on chess chat that the NSWCA President has contacted his councilors to ensure no more adverse comments are made about the sponsorship.

I Peter Parr hereby guarantee that this is my final message on Chess Chat and blogs etc for the rest of 2008 and all of January 2009 regardless of the above. Contact on the above by email only.

The sponsorship applies only if all a-e above happens to my satisfaction. These are all very simple and take very little time. There will not be one single item donated if all a-e are not complied with.

The deadline for a-e is preferably as soon as possible but not later than midnight 28 December 2008. Office-bearers are reminded they are serving the interest of the members.

The 100 players can meet their councilors during the event to clarify their opinions.

Finally if my sponsorship is rejected you will not be punishing me (quite the opposite) but you will be punishing 100 players who are all innocent.

Our regular customer Bill Gletsos was in my shop again today in the CBD. The new July 2009 laws of chess were discussed and compliments of the season were exchanged.

May I take this opportunity to wish all chess players including all office-bearers the compliments of the season and good luck at Manly.

Chris Dimock is passing on all entries he receives to me at Chess Discount Sales and I am taking early entries until 24 December.

Entry fee at the full rate applies when I re-open on 29 December.

The total entry may fall short of the 150 target but we have 100 to date (H.Rachmadi No.100 Dec 22nd).

Peter Parr

MichaelBaron
22-12-2008, 02:05 PM
One thing that surprises me..while its up to organisers to accept the sponsorship or not (strange if its not accepted though), why is it so hard to simply say thank you to somone who is generous enough to offer assistance and support.:hmm:

Trent Parker
22-12-2008, 03:32 PM
I'm starting to think that the NSWCA Should not have endorsed the Manly bid to the ACF.

Denis_Jessop
22-12-2008, 03:34 PM
One thing that surprises me..while its up to organisers to accept the sponsorship or not (strange if its not accepted though), why is it so hard to simply say thank you to somone who is generous enough to offer assistance and support.:hmm:

Michael

The whole point of this matter is that the offer, if that is a proper characterisation of it, was made to the prospective bidders for the event along with a number of other suggestions about the event some of which were in the bid and some of which, including the sponsorship offer, were not. The offer was not made to the ACF . It seems from the run of events that it was accepted eventually by the event organisers as it was advertised on the web site but then Peter withdrew it. What then is there to be thankful for?

DJ

Denis_Jessop
22-12-2008, 03:40 PM
I'm starting to think that the NSWCA Should not have endorsed the Manly bid to the ACF.

1. Why not?

2. Do you really mean that the ACF should not have accepted the bid?

3. If "yes" to 1. or 2., or both, what alternative do you suggest was appropriate, with the benefit of hind sight? (I'm giving you that concession to make it easier :) )

DJ

Desmond
22-12-2008, 03:58 PM
OK, I'm confusled. Are people going to get a free glass set/Informant or aren't they?I am a little less confusled now.

1. Peter wants to make the donation.
2. The organisers want to receive it.
3. Does NSWCA/ACF want it to happen? I will wait and see.

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm starting to think that the NSWCA Should not have endorsed the Manly bid to the ACF.there is no issue here with the people at Manly.

The issue is the misleading statements made by Peter Parr in his email of the 15th December 2008 and posts in this thread.

Trent Parker
22-12-2008, 05:27 PM
1. Why not?

2. Do you really mean that the ACF should not have accepted the bid?

3. If "yes" to 1. or 2., or both, what alternative do you suggest was appropriate, with the benefit of hind sight? (I'm giving you that concession to make it easier :) )

DJ

btw i wasn't really serious but all this P.P. crapola is seriously giving me the shi'ites.

I have no problem with the organising committee at manly. so I think it was great that the ACF accepted the bid And I'm extremely sorry I cannot play. I would have entered much earlier if I could.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2008, 07:47 PM
I have noted with alarm that when I am asked “where did you read that” the original message on Chess Chat has disappeared. Rather like cheating at chess except there is no proof.

In my capacity as moderator of this forum I advise:

(i) That no posts have been removed, by either their author or any moderator, from either the 2009 Aus Open thread or this one, or so far as I am aware on any issue relevant to the Open or to suggested or proposed sponsorships thereof.

(ii) That chesschat has a responsibility for posts (http://chesschat.org/announcement.php?f=28&a=13) rule that states that posts made here are not made in an official capacity except where it is explicitly stated that they are.

Kevin Bonham
moderator, chesschat.org

chesstash
22-12-2008, 08:03 PM
it does?
cool

Bill Gletsos
22-12-2008, 09:26 PM
Lets look at the facts here.

1. On 18th July 2008 Peter Parr sent an email to Fred Schuetz copied to Chris Dimock and myself making a whole host of what he clearly stated were suggestions to Fred and Chris regarding their submitting a bid for the 2009 Australian Open.

2. To date I have seen no response to Peter's email of 18th July 2008 from Fred or Chris advising they accepted his offer.

3. On 21st July 2008 Chris Dimock and Fred submitted their bid to the ACF. Their bid made no mention of any sonsorship offer from Peter Parr.

4. On 10th September 2008 Peter Parr sent an email to Fred Schuetz, Chris Dimock, the NSWCA webmaster (a member of the organising committee) and myself reminding Fred of the wording of his sponsorship offer in his 18th July 2008 email and asking Fred to list Chess Discount Sales as a sponsor if the offer is accepted.

5. It is clear from Peters email of 10th September 2008 that the organisers had not previously accepted his offer.

6. To date I have seen no response to Peter's email of 10th Septembery 2008 from Fred or Chris advising they accepted his offer.

7. On 8th December 2008 Chris Dimock email the other members of the organising committee and copied to me that he was resigning from the organising committee.

8. After Chris Dimocks resignation Fred Schuetz apparently had a discussion with Peter Parr and accepted his sponsorship offer. This appears to have occurred on the 8th or 9th December

9. To date Fred has not advised me that he has accepted Peter's offer.

10. By the morning of 10th December 2008 the sponsorship offer appears on the tournament website.

11. Out of the blue on the 15th December Peter Parr sent an email to the whole NSWCA Council, Chris Dimock and Fred Schuetz. This email contained a number of claims:


a) That the ACF, NSWCA and organising committee had accepted his offer in mid July 2008.


b) In a later paragraph Peter states that he had received no written commmunication from the ACF, the NSWCA or Manly accepting his offer.


c) In the next immediate paragraph, he states that the offer having been accepted and then complains that it had not appeared in the ACF newsletters, nor on the NSWCA website in July, August, September, October or Novemebr and only after the December deadline for entries.


d) He questioned who the NSWCA had as a contact now that Chris Dimock had resigned.



e) He claimed the fee being paid to the arbiter was excessive.

12. My response to Peter's email of 15th December 2008 refuting his claims can be seen here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=222607&postcount=6). My response was to everyone in Peter's email and also included Gary Wastell, Denis Jessop, Kevin Bonham and Jey Hoole.

13. On the 16th December 2008 Peter advises that in response to my email of 15th December 2008 he was withdrawing his sponsorship offer.

14. A little while later on 16th December Parr follows this up with an email to Amiel Rosario (the Closet Grandmaster) informing him that he was withdrawing his sponsorship offer. Amiel makes a blog entry here (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2008/12/aussie-open-in-trouble.html). This leads to a number of followup comments on Amiel's blog.

15. On 16th December 2008 I responded to Peter' email of 16th December 2008 rejecting a number of his claims.

16. On 18th December 2008 Parr sends an email to the whole NSWCA, Council, Fred Schuetz, Chris Dimock and the ACF Executive and also posts it here on chesschat. It is post #1 in this thread.

17. On 18th December 2008 I responded to his post here on chesschat and then informed those on Peter's email list that they could see my response to his load of codswallop here. It is post #6 in this thread.

18. On 19th December 2008 Amiel makes another blog entry here (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2008/12/nswcaacf-responds-to-parr.html) highlighting my email response of the 15th December to Peter.

19. On 22nd December Peter Parr sends an email to the whole NSWCA, Council, Fred Schuetz, Chris Dimock and the ACF Executive and also posts it here on chesschat. It is post #32 in this thread.

Adamski
22-12-2008, 10:25 PM
I am not directly involved in any of the events discussed around the organisation of the Aus Open.This is not strictly true now as I have joined the organising committee.

Kevin Bonham
22-12-2008, 11:06 PM
I am a little less confusled now.

1. Peter wants to make the donation.

If his conditions are met.

As one of those some of the conditions apply to I am not entirely un-"confusled" about the exact meaning of most of those conditions. I am drafting a request for clarification that I may send tomorrow.

MichaelBaron
23-12-2008, 02:45 PM
This is not strictly true now as I have joined the organising committee.
Now we know where to direct all questions ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-12-2008, 10:15 PM
7. On 8th December 2008 Chris Dimock email the other members of the organising committee and copied to me that he was resigning from the organising committee.

8. After Chris Dimocks resignation Fred Schuetz apparently had a discussion with Peter Parr and accepted his sponsorship offer. This appears to have occurred on the 8th or 9th December

9. To date Fred has not advised me that he has accepted Peter's offer.Based on information I have received from Fred Schuetz earlier today I can now update the detail of the above 3 items and re-sequence them in the correct order.

7. On 6th December Fred Schuetz had a discussion with Peter Parr and advised Peter he wished to utilise his sponsorship offer. According to Fred, Peter was annoyed that his offer had not been acted upon earlier by the organisers. It was on this day that Fred accepted and verbally thanked Peter for his offer.

8. On 8th December 2008 Chris Dimock emailed the other members of the organising committee and copied me that he was resigning from the organising committee. On 9th December 2008 Fred Schuetz advised Peter Parr of Chris's resignation.

9. It was not until the 23rd December that Fred Schuetz advised me that he had accepted Parr's offer on 6th December.

Kevin Bonham
26-12-2008, 08:12 PM
The following is my response to Peter Parr's post 32. It is in a personal capacity only excepting any dot-points in which I specifically state another capacity.

1. Fred Schuetz and his committee are, from what I can determine, doing an excellent job organising the 2009 Australian Open under conditions that for many reasons have been unusually difficult. Nobody should allow their view of the committee's efforts or the quality of the event to be tarnished in any way by the sponsorship sideshow involving Peter Parr.

2. Peter Parr originally expressed a willingness to offer a gift sponsorship (consisting of a choice of a glass chess set or a copy of Informant) to the first 100 entrants of the Open. He did so in an email to the then-prospective organisers of the Open, who were subsequently awarded the bid.

3. I appreciate this attempt by Peter Parr and Chess Discount Sales to contribute to the event being a success. However I suspect this expression of willingness would have been more effective had it been sent to the organisers by itself as a formal offer of sponsorship after they were awarded the bid. As it was, it was included as one of a number of suggestions from a figure who was not intending to run the event himself but seemed to have no shortage of views on how other people should do so.

4. As noted already on this thread, the organisers elected to accept Peter Parr's offer of sponsorship on 6th Dec and there is no indication that the offer was not on the table from Parr's perspective at that time.

5. Subsequently Parr withdrew his sponsorship under the misapprehension that the sponsorship had been rejected by the ACF and NSWCA, which replaced his previous misapprehension that the sponsorship had been accepted by these bodies. In fact the NSWCA had always been clear that it had no part in the bid, and no expression of interest in sponsorship had been formally sent to the ACF at any time.

6. Peter Parr has now offered to reinstate the sponsorship subject to various guarantees from the NSWCA, the ACF, Bill Gletsos, Denis Jessop and me.

7. A primary basis of Parr's argument is that the way in which various parties responded to Parr's previous comments is not a fit way to respond to a prospective sponsor. But with a single exception (Brian Jones), at the time of these responses, Peter Parr was not a prospective sponsor of the event but a withdrawn sponsor whose withdrawal, apparently based on a replacement of one misapprehension with another, had been accompanied by unfactual public criticisms of various parties. As such his argument that a prospective sponsor would not be treated in this way is irrelevant.

8. A further basis of Parr's argument is that a sponsor mistakenly approached the ACF rather than the organisers with an offer of sponsorship for the event, then a certain mode of reaction from the ACF (which Parr characterises with a series of caricatured excerpts from the debate) would be inappropriate. But this is also irrelevant because (i) prior to the offer in post 32 above, Parr has not formally addressed any sponsorship offer re this event to the ACF at any stage (ii) virtually all the reactions caricatured appeared after Parr withdrew his sponsorship and made misleading public comments (iii) the comments referred to were not made in an official capacity anyway.

9. In fact, the first formal offer to do with the sponsorship to the ACF was lobbed under the Christmas tree by Peter Parr on 22 Dec 2008 with a deadline for compliance by many parties of 28 Dec 2008. I am no expert in the art of offering sponsorships but I suggest this is not how it is usually done.

10. The expectation that Jessop, Gletsos and I not only jump through various hoops at Parr's request but also make a public statement that (at least in my case) does not reflect our full view of the matter is out of order as the documented basis of Parr's offence at our comments is out of order for reasons noted in points 7 and 8.

11. On a personal level I would certainly very much appreciate Peter's offer to provide the stated sponsorship if it was returned without conditions and without further incorrect public attacks. That said, I do not personally appreciate his persistent unfactual public attacks surrounding this matter, the conditions of his new offer, the timing of his new offer, the withdrawal of his original sponsorship on the basis of a misapprehension or any suggestion of any relation to the "spirit of Christmas".

12. As ACF Vice-President, if Parr's offer is returned without conditions, accepted and subsequently delivered upon I will support the ACF sending Parr a letter of thanks after all these events have transpired.

13. Peter Parr takes umbrage at a comment by me which he cosmetically misquotes as "Come into the store and grab some old stock for free". For the record the full context of the quote on TCG was 'While almost any offer of sponsorship has some value (even one which is of the general nature "come into my store and grab some old stock for free, who knows, you might also buy something") I am sure the organisers would be (or have been) much more interested in a monetary sponsorship, even one that was a fraction of the claimed "$5,000".'

14. My comment concerning the rubbery nature of the estimate of $5,000 stands as I am certain the effective cost to Chess Discount Sales of providing this sponsorship would be nowhere near that. Once again, however, I would not make such a comment to a typical prospective sponsor, but an ex-sponsor casting aspersions at all and sundry (or a prospective returning sponsor setting unrealistic conditions based on a misconstrued view for that matter) is another thing entirely.

15. I accept that the "even one ... something" line of mine quoted in #13 was on the uncharitable and sarcastic side. (Its basis in fact was that the offer as expressed on the event website only indicated that previous Informants were on offer, not the current year's. It puzzles me therefore that Peter writes "The numerous boxes of brand new chess informants in unopened boxes from Belgrade are sitting in my shop." as I didn't think brand new Informants were part of the offer.) But if Peter wants to get annoyed when such cynical comments are made about his offerings after he has withdrawn them and accompanied his withdrawals with unfactual attacks, he should reconsider making such unfactual attacks in the first place.

16. My offer to receive phone calls from aggrieved entrants (if any) in #14 has not yet been accepted. I have resisted the temptation to withdraw my offer on the assumption that Peter Parr has rejected it.

17. On my forthcoming visit to Sydney I will be staying within blocks of Peter Parr's shop. I have resisted the temptation to publicly state that whether or not I go there is dependent on him making public comment greatly thanking me for considering doing so (with no adverse comment).

18. I have resisted an even greater temptation to offer all entrants the same as Parr was offering out of my own pocket but only if they collect it from Brian Jones. I have only done so because my own finances are not yet really sufficient for such flourishes but I do not guarantee this remaining the case in future. :D

19. I am a candidate for the position of one of the two ACF Vice-Presidents at the coming National Conference. Anyone displeased by my treatment of this or any other matter in an official or an unofficial capacity is welcome to encourage their State Association and others to endorse and support a candidate against me.

20. Lastly I see that Peter Parr is collecting entries for the event. I thank him for doing so as any concrete contribution of this kind, however small, still helps.

Brian_Jones
27-12-2008, 09:12 AM
For the record, the involvement of Brian Jones in the 2009 Australian Open at Manly has been limited:

1. I identified the venue back in 2007 and accompanied the Manly Chess Club Secretary Tom Accola to view the facilities and unsuccessfully attempt to make a booking. (Rejected by the Club at the time because of planned Building work).

2. I accepted a request from Chris Dimock to include a paid insert with the November/December issue of Australasian Chess magazine.

3. I recently included some limited free advertising of the event in Australasian Chess magazine.

4. As official ACF custodian, I acknowledged Norman Greenwood's request to loan the DGT Electronic Boards to the organisers.

5. I made an adverse comment on chesschat about the low value of Peter Parr's sponsorship offer, particularly the free glass chess sets!

But the organisers have not approached me for sponsorship of any kind.

I wonder why not? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Brian Jones
Australian Chess Enterprises (ACE)

MichaelBaron
27-12-2008, 09:41 AM
My thoughts on reading both KB's and Brian's posts:

1) Whatever the circumstances are, there appears to be some difficulty in working with sponsors. One thing that the Australian chess community has to understand and accept: if someone is willing to offer sponsorship it is UP TO US TO PLEASE HIM AND SATISFY HIS CONDITIONS/REQUESTS RATHER THAN OTHER WAY AROUND. In any case the person should be thanked many times for his willingness to contribute to chess.

2) As far as I understood from Brian's posting - he was not uproached by organisers to become a sponsor. I wonder of other chess-related enterprises (e.g. Chess Kids etc.) also did not recieve a request for sponsorship. I would think that chess-related businesses are the first ones that should be approached by organisers.

3) Regarding value of Peter's sponsorship: I have never saw the Glass chess set so i do not want to comment on its value ( based on the descriptions posted by PP it appears to be a rather attractive item though). But as far as Chess Informant is concerned, its value is undisputable! Chess players worldwide keep purchasing Chess Informants year after year.

4) Why not just say a big unconditional thank you to Peter, Brian, Bendigo Bank, Global1T, Gardiner Chess Center and others who are willing to sponsor chess?

I have no right to speak on behalf of the chess community so all I can offer - is a big personal thank you! As a chess-players I appreciate your efforts in contributing to chess :clap:

ER
27-12-2008, 03:26 PM
I have my personal reasons to shiver uncontrollably when I hear he word "sponsorship" but then again that's only me!
I have replaced it with the more flexible "donation", which can be applied at ease before, during and/or even after the event!
Cheers and good luck!

Adamski
27-12-2008, 03:40 PM
For the record, the involvement of Brian Jones in the 2009 Australian Open at Manly has been limited:

1. I identified the venue back in 2007 and accompanied the Manly Chess Club Secretary Tom Accola to view the facilities and unsuccessfully attempt to make a booking. (Rejected by the Club at the time because of planned Building work).

2. I accepted a request from Chris Dimock to include a paid insert with the November/December issue of Australasian Chess magazine.

3. I recently included some limited free advertising of the event in Australasian Chess magazine.

4. As official ACF custodian, I acknowledged Norman Greenwood's request to loan the DGT Electronic Boards to the organisers.

5. I made an adverse comment on chesschat about the low value of Peter Parr's sponsorship offer, particularly the free glass chess sets!

But the organisers have not approached me for sponsorship of any kind.

I wonder why not? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Brian Jones
Australian Chess Enterprises (ACE)Brian, I have sent an email to your business address as I was not able to PM you.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 08:06 PM
My thoughts on reading both KB's and Brian's posts:

1) Whatever the circumstances are, there appears to be some difficulty in working with sponsors.

I cannot comment on Brian's dealings with the organisers or lack thereof as I have no knowledge of them.

Concerning Parr though, the difficulty is Peter's because he has persistently misconstrued situations and has compounded that with conditions that are unreasonable and offered at an impractical time. Anyone drawing any generalised conclusion about the ACFs, the NSWCA's, the organisers' or anyone else's attitude to sponsors generally based on the specific case of Peter Parr is being very silly.


One thing that the Australian chess community has to understand and accept: if someone is willing to offer sponsorship it is UP TO US TO PLEASE HIM AND SATISFY HIS CONDITIONS/REQUESTS RATHER THAN OTHER WAY AROUND.

This is nonsense. There are an abundance of situations in the world of sports sponsorship where the administration of a sport should refuse an offer from a particular sponsor if that offer is in some way either deficient or unsuitable.

If a request is reasonable that's one thing and even if a sponsor's reasonable request creates a little extra work for us then that's no problem either. But that doesn't mean the ACF should be a servile and unprincipled bunch of pushovers who accept any ludicrous, misconstrued and embarrassing condition just to get a bit of sponsorship.

Parr's latest offer was made publicly as part of a rant riddled with atrocious arguments and personal criticism of those he was supposedly trying to interest in his offer. Not only that but it was made with an unreasonably short deadline given the number of bodies from whom he sought conditions, and it was unnecessary anyway, as his original sponsorship was withdrawn on the basis of a proven misapprehension and therefore he should simply reinstate it unconditionally.

Frankly I don't think it is even in Peter's interests for anyone to cave in to such garbage as his #32.


3) Regarding value of Peter's sponsorship: I have never saw the Glass chess set so i do not want to comment on its value ( based on the descriptions posted by PP it appears to be a rather attractive item though). But as far as Chess Informant is concerned, its value is undisputable! Chess players worldwide keep purchasing Chess Informants year after year.

Of course I agree that Chess Informant is an excellent product (even if it is not the current year's). That does not mean anywhere near every one of the first 100 entrants would actually take advantage of the offer which is one of the things I was getting at in my comment about the effective cost of the offer to CDS.


4) Why not just say a big unconditional thank you to Peter, Brian, Bendigo Bank, Global1T, Gardiner Chess Center and others who are willing to sponsor chess?

I hereby say a big unconditional thankyou to all who are genuinely willing to sponsor chess at any time. Happy now? Let me know how much difference you think it made and how much you think it would make if the ACF did the same. My prediction: very little. :D

Denis_Jessop
27-12-2008, 09:34 PM
This is nonsense. There are an abundance of situations in the world of sports sponsorship where the administration of a sport should refuse an offer from a particular sponsor if that offer is in some way either deficient or unsuitable.

For example, is offered with unacceptable or inappropriate conditions attached.

DJ

Basil
27-12-2008, 09:38 PM
Importantly, I believe on this board, 'confusled' is copyright Spiny (or whatever he is these days).

MichaelBaron
27-12-2008, 10:40 PM
I cannot comment on Brian's dealings with the organisers or lack thereof as I have no knowledge of them.

Concerning Parr though, the difficulty is Peter's because he has persistently misconstrued situations and has compounded that with conditions that are unreasonable and offered at an impractical time. Anyone drawing any generalised conclusion about the ACFs, the NSWCA's, the organisers' or anyone else's attitude to sponsors generally based on the specific case of Peter Parr is being very silly.



This is nonsense. There are an abundance of situations in the world of sports sponsorship where the administration of a sport should refuse an offer from a particular sponsor if that offer is in some way either deficient or unsuitable.


I hereby say a big unconditional thankyou to all who are genuinely willing to sponsor chess at any time. Happy now? Let me know how much difference you think it made and how much you think it would make if the ACF did the same. My prediction: very little. :D

Kevin, Chess is a 'special' sport" in Australia. We do not have choices...you can refuse an offer..but will you get another one from other sponsor? Nothing wrong with Peter's offer..and there were no other offers...So what is a logical thing to do?

What difference would a thank you make? Big difference! It would show someone willing to help chess some appreciation.

Kevin Bonham
27-12-2008, 11:37 PM
Kevin, Chess is a 'special' sport" in Australia. We do not have choices...

Of course we have choices.


you can refuse an offer..but will you get another one from other sponsor?

If the offer is unreasonable then this does not matter. An unreasonable offer should not be accepted in an unreasonable form even if no other offer is on the table.

Tournaments do not need sponsorship to function; it is something that is very nice to have if you can get it but that does not mean that all offers should be accepted. The alternative to accepting an unreasonable offer is to run the tournament without it if needs be while being willing to accept those parts of the offer that are reasonable and relevant.

This particular sponsorship offer isn't even cash or prizes, but rather a gift for entrants. Very nice if it is possible to arrange under reasonable and non-acrimonious conditions but not worth the ACF and NSWCA caving into nonsense for, and not at all likely to be central to the success or otherwise of the tournament.


Nothing wrong with Peter's offer..

I have explained at great length many things that were wrong with it and you have completely failed to debate those points. All very well for you to do that when you were neither organisationally or individually a target of Parr's ridiculous comments. How would you like it if, for instance, a sponsor was offering $1000 sponsorship for a tournament on the condition that all the tournament bulletins insult Michael Baron? ;)

(This is of course not intended as a close analogy for what is happening here.)


and there were no other offers...So what is a logical thing to do?

The logical thing to do is to not accept offers that are made in an unreasonable manner and contain unreasonable conditions.


What difference would a thank you make? Big difference! It would show someone willing to help chess some appreciation.

Are you implying this does not happen anyway, and if so on what comprehensive evidence is such a view based?

black
28-12-2008, 01:04 AM
We're a fascinating animal.

Spiny Norman
28-12-2008, 06:19 AM
Importantly, I believe on this board, 'confusled' is copyright Spiny (or whatever he is these days).
Thanks Gunner ... the acknowledgement is much appreciated ... pending legal action for non-payment of copyright royalties will now be withdrawn! ;)

For those wishing to use 'confuseled' in future, appending the following line will avoid unpleasantries:

'confuseled' is copyright (c) 1994-2009 Frosty / Spiny Norman / The Snail King. Used by permission.

MichaelBaron
28-12-2008, 10:36 AM
Of course we have choices.



If the offer is unreasonable then this does not matter. An unreasonable offer should not be accepted in an unreasonable form even if no other offer is on the table.

Tournaments do not need sponsorship to function; it is something that is very nice to have if you can get it but that does not mean that all offers should be accepted. The alternative to accepting an unreasonable offer is to run the tournament without it if needs be while being willing to accept those parts of the offer that are reasonable and relevant.

This particular sponsorship offer isn't even cash or prizes, but rather a gift for entrants. Very nice if it is possible to arrange under reasonable and non-acrimonious conditions but not worth the ACF and NSWCA caving into nonsense for, and not at all likely to be central to the success or otherwise of the tournament.



I have explained at great length many things that were wrong with it and you have completely failed to debate those points. All very well for you to do that when you were neither organisationally or individually a target of Parr's ridiculous comments. How would you like it if, for instance, a sponsor was offering $1000 sponsorship for a tournament on the condition that all the tournament bulletins insult Michael Baron? ;)

(This is of course not intended as a close analogy for what is happening here.)



The logical thing to do is to not accept offers that are made in an unreasonable manner and contain unreasonable conditions.



Are you implying this does not happen anyway, and if so on what comprehensive evidence is such a view based?

Tournaments do not need sponsorship to function? Thats news to me! The tournament may be able to survive without sponsorship but of course sponsorship makes a lot of difference. I noticed that in recent years, entry fees for major tournaments have gone up a bit and i can not recall a single case of entry fee going down. However, with prize money there have been a lot of variations. Is it good?

Regarding the particular offer from your explainations of "what is wrong" with it. I do not see anything wrong with the offer itself. The same days organisers are approached they should accept the offer and say thank you if their are no other conflicting offers. I do not see (and i did read your's and Bill's postings carefully) how accepting the offer would damage the tournament!

If a tournament can get $1000 in sponsorship money on the condition that all tournament bulletins insult Michael Baron...this would be wonderful. I would rather get insulted for $1000 going to chess rather than for free :). On a serious, note, your suggestion that "not worse for NSWA and ACF getting into nonsense for" makes me wonder...whether Parr's sponsorship was treated in this way because the offer was regarded as damaging for the tournament as opposed to constructive or whether it was treated in this way because the name next to the offer is Peter Parr?

Anyway, to me - what happened is a clear case of personal disagreements and/or misunderstandings standing on the way of a constructive sponsorship arrangement that could benefit chess players.

eclectic
28-12-2008, 01:20 PM
do ACA or TT intend to cover this or are they both on their summer break? :hand:

ER
28-12-2008, 01:23 PM
Due to my involvement, Olympic Airways sponsored a NSW Chess Tournament, I think it was the State Championships (?) about 25 years ago.
They were impressed by Peter's promoting their sponsorship in that wonderful magazine he was producing at the time. They certainly got their whatever money's worth.
When it comes to Chess promotion sorry guys but the rest of us need quite a few lessons to reach Peter's standards.
CAGLES and a very happy and prosperous New Year to all! :)

Ian Rout
28-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Kevin, Chess is a 'special' sport" in Australia. We do not have choices...
I can imagine a number of scenarios where sponsorship might reasonably be declined.

It might not be an appropriate sponsor, especially in the case of a junior tournament. The sponsorship might conflict with a more important sponsor. The sponsor may be controversial or one that the tournament would not wish to be publicly associated with. It could be a sponsor who has been unsatisfactory in the past. The sponsor may be making excessive demands relative to the value of the sponsorship.

No doubt there are other scenarios that people can think of. Obviously these are unusual circumstances and in the vast bulk of cases sponsorship should be accepted, but I certainly wouldn't agree with unquestioningly taking any sponsorship.

Has it actually been established in this case that sponsorship has been declined? I've lost track. It would seem though that the sponsor has in fact achieved quite a good return, in terms of publicity, for something that has ended up costing nothing.

Denis_Jessop
28-12-2008, 05:15 PM
Kevin, Chess is a 'special' sport" in Australia. We do not have choices...you can refuse an offer..but will you get another one from other sponsor? Nothing wrong with Peter's offer..and there were no other offers...So what is a logical thing to do?

What difference would a thank you make? Big difference! It would show someone willing to help chess some appreciation.

For Goodness' sake, Michael, I have already told you twice on this thread that Peter's sponsorahip WAS accepted by the organisers but that Peter later withdrew it. What the legal ramifications of that are is something that Peter is no doubt considering.

DJ

Denis_Jessop
28-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Due to my involvement, Olympic Airways sponsored a NSW Chess Tournament, I think it was the State Championships (?) about 25 years ago.
They were impressed by Peter's promoting their sponsorship in that wonderful magazine he was producing at the time. They certainly got their whatever money's worth.
When it comes to Chess promotion sorry guys but the rest of us need quite a few lessons to reach Peter's standards.
CAGLES and a very happy and prosperous New Year to all! :)

I have no quarrel with Peter's capacities to run events and his magazine 25 years ago and even longer. He was the Doeberl Cup Arbiter/Organiser on the day for 20 years or more in the 70s and 80s and did an excellent job. I and several other Canberra players (all ACTCA office bearers) worked with him on the event and we all got along very well. But that was then and now is now and, sadly, the two are not the same. :(

DJ

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2008, 06:25 PM
Tournaments do not need sponsorship to function? Thats news to me! The tournament may be able to survive without sponsorship but of course sponsorship makes a lot of difference.

That is pretty much what I meant by "do not need". I do question that this particular sponsorship would make a lot of difference, compared to, for example, a sponsorship that boosted the prizes, reduced the entry costs or otherwise assisted the event financially.


I noticed that in recent years, entry fees for major tournaments have gone up a bit and i can not recall a single case of entry fee going down. However, with prize money there have been a lot of variations. Is it good?

Well these things are all fairly irrelevant to the present case because Peter Parr was not offering any assistance with entry fees or any contribution to prizemoney. He was simply offering a gift to the first 100 entrants.


Regarding the particular offer from your explainations of "what is wrong" with it. I do not see anything wrong with the offer itself.

Are you referring now to Peter's original "offer" of mid-July or his Dec 22 one?

If you are referring to his original "offer" then I saw nothing wrong with it either, but by presenting it as just one of a long list of suggestions he may have reduced the chance of the organisers promptly accepting it.

The Dec 22 offer however comes with silly conditions based on misapprehensions, and was delivered with an unrealistic timetable and surrounded by nonsense.


The same days organisers are approached they should accept the offer and say thank you if their are no other conflicting offers. I do not see (and i did read your's and Bill's postings carefully) how accepting the offer would damage the tournament!

Again, are you referring to his original offer or his new one?


On a serious, note, your suggestion that "not worse for NSWA and ACF getting into nonsense for" makes me wonder...whether Parr's sponsorship was treated in this way because the offer was regarded as damaging for the tournament as opposed to constructive or whether it was treated in this way because the name next to the offer is Peter Parr?

The latter suggestion is unfounded; we have frequently been willing to work with Peter Parr. For example for last summer's Australian Championships the bid was initially awarded to Parr who had an excellent bid on the table (only for that bid to collapse when he could not secure the venue).


Anyway, to me - what happened is a clear case of personal disagreements and/or misunderstandings standing on the way of a constructive sponsorship arrangement that could benefit chess players.

Misunderstandings by Parr have been the major part of the problem.

I doubt whether any entrenched personality clashes had anything to do with Peter's original expression of interest not being accepted. But, while I do not know this for a fact, I speculate that Peter's actions in offering a long list of suggestions on how to run the event while not being willing to put his own hand up for the bulk of the work may have reduced the chances of his expression of interest being quickly accepted.

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2008, 06:30 PM
Has it actually been established in this case that sponsorship has been declined? I've lost track.

Peter's original expression of interest in sponsorship was never declined by the organisers but was only accepted by them on 6 Dec.

Shortly after that Peter withdrew the sponsorship.

Peter's Dec 22 offer included various conditions involving the ACF, the NSWCA, Denis Jessop, Bill Gletsos and me (the last three mentioned in various capacities). To the best of my knowledge none of these parties will accept Peter's offer with those conditions attached although if the silly conditions were removed it could be a different story (except for the NSWCA which still has nothing to do with it.)

To the best of my knowledge the organisers have not declined Parr's Dec 22 offer; indeed his offer indicates that acceptance of it by them is assumed.


It would seem though that the sponsor has in fact achieved quite a good return, in terms of publicity, for something that has ended up costing nothing.

That may well be so. Seems to me like a strange way to go about it, but what would I know?

MichaelBaron
28-12-2008, 06:34 PM
For Goodness' sake, Michael, I have already told you twice on this thread that Peter's sponsorahip WAS accepted by the organisers but that Peter later withdrew it. What the legal ramifications of that are is something that Peter is no doubt considering.

DJ

Would you say it was withdrawn for 'no reason"? or due to certain issues? As far as I understand it was accepted on December 6th while the offer was made much earlier ..and no earlier response was recieved by Peter.

MichaelBaron
28-12-2008, 06:37 PM
Due to my involvement, Olympic Airways sponsored a NSW Chess Tournament, I think it was the State Championships (?) about 25 years ago.
They were impressed by Peter's promoting their sponsorship in that wonderful magazine he was producing at the time. They certainly got their whatever money's worth.
When it comes to Chess promotion sorry guys but the rest of us need quite a few lessons to reach Peter's standards.
CAGLES and a very happy and prosperous New Year to all! :)

Very true!

MichaelBaron
28-12-2008, 06:42 PM
That is pretty much what I meant by "do not need". I do question that this particular sponsorship would make a lot of difference, compared to, for example, a sponsorship that boosted the prizes, reduced the entry costs or otherwise assisted the event financially.



Well these things are all fairly irrelevant to the present case because Peter Parr was not offering any assistance with entry fees or any contribution to prizemoney. He was simply offering a gift to the first 100 entrants.



Are you referring now to Peter's original "offer" of mid-July or his Dec 22 one?

If you are referring to his original "offer" then I saw nothing wrong with it either, but by presenting it as just one of a long list of suggestions he may have reduced the chance of the organisers promptly accepting it.

The Dec 22 offer however comes with silly conditions based on misapprehensions, and was delivered with an unrealistic timetable and surrounded by nonsense.



Again, are you referring to his original offer or his new one?



The latter suggestion is unfounded; we have frequently been willing to work with Peter Parr. For example for last summer's Australian Championships the bid was initially awarded to Parr who had an excellent bid on the table (only for that bid to collapse when he could not secure the venue).



Misunderstandings by Parr have been the major part of the problem.

I doubt whether any entrenched personality clashes had anything to do with Peter's original expression of interest not being accepted. But, while I do not know this for a fact, I speculate that Peter's actions in offering a long list of suggestions on how to run the event while not being willing to put his own hand up for the bulk of the work may have reduced the chances of his expression of interest being quickly accepted.

1) Peter's Original offer was the offer that should have been responded to quickly!
2) Peter's revised offer makes far more sense if considered in the light of how his initial offer was treated!
3) Would quick acceptance of Peter's offer boost the event financially? My answer is Yes. Offering non-cash benefits is an effective (and proven) marketing strategy. It would surely enable the organisers to attract a greater number of entries.

Kevin Bonham
28-12-2008, 07:05 PM
2) Peter's revised offer makes far more sense if considered in the light of how his initial offer was treated!

No it doesn't. His original "offer" was part of an email that he sent to the organisers. At no point did he send the NSWCA a formal communication asking to sponsor the event. At no point did he send the same to the ACF either.

That Peter's original suggestion of sponsorship was not accepted faster is between Peter and the organisers. As I said above, I think (although I don't know) that the way he presented it didn't help.

But even if the initial "offer" should have been accepted earlier by the organisers in your view, then why does the revised offer place conditions on a huge range of bodies and people but place no conditions on the organisers?


3) Would quick acceptance of Peter's offer boost the event financially? My answer is Yes. Offering non-cash benefits is an effective (and proven) marketing strategy. It would surely enable the organisers to attract a greater number of entries.

Quick acceptance of the original expression of interest may well have boosted the event or the organisers may have had their own reasons for not quickly accepting it.

Jim_Flood
28-12-2008, 08:08 PM
..........It might not be an appropriate sponsor, especially in the case of a junior tournament..............

Well, yes, ummm, humph, gasp, really.:angel: :angel: :angel: I bet that the EROS Foundation was over the moon that one of its members had a (very) short opportunity to provide, shall we say, educational material, for a junior tournament in Canberra.:cool:

We lead, not follow!!

Adamski
29-12-2008, 02:20 PM
On behalf of the organising committee I would like to thank Peter Parr for his support and sponsorship offer. It should be noted that the sponsorship offer has always been between him and the organising committee.
To summarise postings by Bill Gletsos and Kevin Bonham earlier, the offer was verbally accepted on the 6th of December.
If the wording on the website was not to Peter’s liking, he should have contacted us before now.
His withdrawal of the offer, for reasons out of the organising committee’s control or influence, put us in a very difficult position.
The organising committee has nothing to do with, and does not want to get involved in, any dispute between Peter Parr, the NSWCA and the ACF.

Jonathan Adams

Communications Officer,
Organising Committee
Australian Open Chess Championship 2009

antichrist
29-12-2008, 06:04 PM
Frankly speaking I think those glass chess sets are only worth a few bucks each. They can be difficult to tell white from black, as one is one etched or shaded and they chip and break pretty easy.

I am not deriding any other of Peter's efforts in chess

Desmond
29-12-2008, 07:05 PM
For Goodness' sake, Michael, I have already told you twice on this thread that Peter's sponsorahip WAS accepted by the organisers but that Peter later withdrew it. What the legal ramifications of that are is something that Peter is no doubt considering.

DJ
Speaking of later, what would you say is a reasonable time period for a sponsor to receive a return letter of thanks, acceptance, or at least acknowledgment?

Kevin Bonham
29-12-2008, 09:11 PM
An email sent by Peter Parr to at least 16 recipients including me, but not yet published here disputes some details of previous comments.

Significantly, relevant to my points in post 47:

1. Parr suggests that the sponsorship was verbally accepted more or less immediately when offered to Chris Dimock and Fred Schuetz.

2. Parr suggests that the version of the sponsorship deal advertised on the event website differed from his offer, specifically concerning the issues of Informant available and delivery arrangements for the items supplied.

Concerning 1 this appears to be another situation involving ambiguous and unverifiable claims about verbal agreements involving Peter Parr (cf his stoush with Bill Gletsos about the NSWCA Presidency some years ago). My own inclination in such cases is to only accept that there was a verbal agreement if both parties say that there was. That Parr thought there was a verbal agreement I do not dispute, but we have seen in this discussion that he sometimes misunderstands situations.

Also if Parr believes his sponsorship offer was immediately accepted then why was he still talking about the offer in an email to the organisers of 10 Sep, in a manner that indicated that it was still up in the air?

Concerning 2 I agree that there is a difference between what appeared on the event site re what issues of Informant were to be made available, and Peter's original "offer" of 18 July. I am not aware of the reason for this difference but on the basis of this comment by Peter I am happy to accept, unless there is written evidence that he changed his offer, that there was no restriction on which issues of Informant he was offering.

Parr's email actually goes quite a deal further than the above points but I see no reason to respond to the rest of it here although I disagree with many parts of it.

Finally I have sent Peter an email inviting him to email me directly if at any time he disagrees with a claim of fact that I make, and have advised him that I will always correct factual errors if convinced that they are indeed such.

Adamski
02-01-2009, 08:27 AM
Peter Parr has reinstated his sponsorship offer for the 2 tournments below which has been the subject of this thread. The tournament web site has been updated accordingly. See
http://www.nswca.org.au/AO2009/Sponsors.shtml

NB. The Australian Open 2009 and norths chess club Centerary Under 1600 tournment both start today! Registrations start at 11 am, entries close at 11.45 am, the opening ceremny is at 12 noon and Round 1 is at 1.30 PM.

ElevatorEscapee
02-01-2009, 06:09 PM
Peter Parr has reinstated his sponsorship offer for the 2 tournments below which has been the subject of this thread....

Now that's good news! :)

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2009, 07:49 PM
Now that's good news! :)

Indeed it is and I thank Peter for doing so.

ER
03-01-2009, 07:59 AM
Good move, that would keep me and Michael quiet (for a while)! :P
CAGLES

bergil
03-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Good move, that would keep me and Michael quiet (for a while)! :P
CAGLESI doubt it :uhoh:

ER
03-01-2009, 02:08 PM
I doubt it :uhoh:
G'day Thomas! :P
CAGLES

MichaelBaron
10-01-2009, 10:51 AM
Good move, that would keep me and Michael quiet (for a while)! :P
CAGLES

How long will the while last? :doh: :)

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2009, 03:48 PM
There is a thread about this whole issue in the other place. It was started by Phil Donnelly who, as usual, seems far more interested in using it as a pretext for bile against those he dislikes in Australian chess than in the facts.

Among Phil's errors and dubious interpretations:

1. He claims the July offer "appears to have been informally accepted in a verbal exchange." Prior to the acceptance of the offer in December, this is Parr's version of events which is not accepted by the organisers and for which there is no evidence beyond Parr's say-so.

2. Phil writes


Peter was hoping for some milk of human kindness, in terms of acknowledgment and thanks for his offer. However in seeking this from the likes of Bonham, Gletsos and Jessop he was of course certain to be dissappointed.

How does Phil Donnelly expect me to have acknowledged Parr's July offer and thanked him for it when it was never sent to me or to Denis in the first place? Apart from Parr's posts here in December, at what point was he even "seeking" this acknowledgement?

3. Phil writes:


Around Dec 6th the Chess Discount Sales sponsorship appeared suddenly on the official 2009 Open website. [..] Peter was aggrieved that his offer had been treated in such a xcavalier[sic] fashion and possibly also that there was not much interest in his advice on how the event should be run.
Consequently he withdrew his sponsorship offer.

This interpretation is completely at odds with Parr's stated reasons for originally withdrawing his sponsorship and is merely Phil's speculation with no basis in fact or even in published claim by others. This in a contribution from Phil claiming to be a "synopsis" of events. A synopsis should be a summary of facts, not a new (and groundless) reinterpretation of them.

4. Phil writes:



Jonathan Adams (Communications Officer, Organising Committee
Australian Open Chess Championship 2009) stepped into the breach and offered a public expression of gratitude to Parr for the sponsorship.

[..]

Peter Parr for his part was gracious enough to accept this gesture and the offer has been reinstated.

Phil has the causation the wrong way around. Peter had actually reinstated his offer (this time with the silly conditions dropped) by email sent to numerous parties at 3:08am on the 29th. Adamski's response that Phil referred to (#72 in this thread) came after the offer was again reinstated sans silly conditions (but I believe before it had been accepted in its reinstated form by the organisers).

Phil goes on to cast numerous aspersions at Bill, Denis and me. But the only stated basis for these aspersions in his post is us declining to "offer puiblic[sic] thanks and appreciation on the swamp[sic] and by personal email as a sign of good faith." He provides no reason why we should have had to jump through Parr's hoops or indeed why the history of the acceptance or otherwise of his offer by the organisers had anything to do with us. Basically just because our names are mentioned in relation to the issue Phil seems to think it is OK to use it as a springboard for another rant about us even if that rant is mostly hot air (and those factual claims it makes are quite confused.) Nothing new there. Not only that but he ignores the fact that while criticising aspects of Parr's public debate and conditions re the issue, I also did acknowledge and state my appreciation of Peter's willingness to provide the goods in question.

Phil also goes in for a bit of sycophancy in Michael Baron's direction. Michael believed we should accept whatever conditions Parr offered in order to try to gain the sponsorship. None of the conditions Parr offered on 22 Dec were accepted by anyone they were aimed at and yet Parr's offer was reinstated within hours of Parr's stated deadline for their acceptance expiring. Evidently Michael had no idea what he was talking about when he was thinking our failure to accept Parr's irrelevant 22 Dec conditions would scare off the sponsorship in question.

The remaining posts on the thread over there contain nothing of any great substance (correct or otherwise.)

Adamski
10-01-2009, 04:02 PM
There is a thread about this whole issue in the other place. It was started by Phil Donnelly who, as usual, seems far more interested in using it as a pretext for bile against those he dislikes in Australian chess than in the facts.

Among Phil's errors and dubious interpretations:

1. He claims the July offer "appears to have been informally accepted in a verbal exchange." Prior to the acceptance of the offer in December, this is Parr's version of events which is not accepted by the organisers and for which there is no evidence beyond Parr's say-so.

2. Phil writes



How does Phil Donnelly expect me to have acknowledged Parr's July offer and thanked him for it when it was never sent to me or to Denis in the first place? Apart from Parr's posts here in December, at what point was he even "seeking" this acknowledgement?

3. Phil writes:



This interpretation is completely at odds with Parr's stated reasons for originally withdrawing his sponsorship and is merely Phil's speculation with no basis in fact or even in published claim by others. This in a contribution from Phil claiming to be a "synopsis" of events. A synopsis should be a summary of facts, not a new (and groundless) reinterpretation of them.

4. Phil writes:



Phil has the causation the wrong way around. Peter had actually reinstated his offer (this time with the silly conditions dropped) by email sent to numerous parties at 3:08am on the 29th. Adamski's response that Phil referred to (#72 in this thread) came after the offer was again reinstated sans silly conditions (but I believe before it had been accepted in its reinstated form by the organisers).

Kevin is correct. At that stage we did not know that the offer would be re-instated, though we certainly hoped that it would be. Kevin is correct on everything else quoted here too.