Page 15 of 25 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 375
  1. #211
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by the chess nut
    Wellthank you Don Harrison. This comment shows me that you are not willing to support Australian chess in any case. Join a club, play in a tournament....
    You seem like a bright fellow. But maybe spending time with gray where the air is thin has sucked the grey matter out of you. That really is a stupid thing to say.

    And oh, your spin doctoring ain't workin'. Believe me, you're not very good at it.

    Now apologise to Mr Harrison.

    AR
    Last edited by arosar; 09-01-2005 at 08:28 AM.

  2. #212
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    59
    Heavens above, it is most amusing. Many things are said in the heat of the moment. I have done that and on reflection have regretted hitting the send button on the email. The same may well apply to the submit button on forums.

    From my observation, there seems to be a general concept that only if one is a 'competative' chess player can any contribution to chess be made. If I have read a number of posts correctly Libby and jenni are not a chess player yet it seems that they have given more to chess, especially juniors, than a number of so called 'competative' players.

    The following comments will draw fire but so be it. The organisational aspects behind the actual playing of the sport (yes, I do think it is a sport) is really no different from any other endeavour and that is the aspect which interests me and, apparently, others. It is the suggested dictitorial approach, ie you will stay in this location and pay this price on pain of $x penalty, which I find most offensive. In associations I have been involved with over the years, the idea of the committee and organisational structure is to encourage and foster participation in an all inclusive way. The big-stick approach normally has the opposite effect and for good reason; people hate, without having been asked, to be told to lump it or leave it.

    There are I admit, some oddies with chess. First the structure is, as far as I can see, voluntary. That generally leads to ordinary members of the organisation viewing issues on a mutual society basis. A nice friendly clubby atmosphere.

    Yet chess is also a professional sport for some participants. This requires a need to provide prize money and so it is understandable that anything to attract sponsorship and thus money is explored or adopted. Whenever money is involved in a generally amatuer sport, things can get grubby. Sad but true. It results in the very dichotomies which have been expressed in a number of posts. The hard part for chess in Australia will be achieving the Golden Mean. The ACF committee will have its work cut out resolving those issues and being prepared, if it should come to that, in advising the current sponsor of this wonderful event "Thanks but no thanks" .

    By the way, I play chess on a social basis because I enjoy the game and I find it interesting. I didn't know that it was obligatory or mandatory to be obsessive about it.

    Also just to say I have been to Mount Buller on a few occassions in both winter and summer. Simply a gorgeous place. However, in summer, relaxing as it may be, it is certainly cooler than the lower reaches, it is isolated and can be expensive (for me).

    Cheers all

  3. #213
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Don_Harrison
    Heavens above, it is most amusing. Many things are said in the heat of the moment. I have done that and on reflection have regretted hitting the send button on the email. The same may well apply to the submit button on forums.

    From my observation, there seems to be a general concept that only if one is a 'competative' chess player can any contribution to chess be made. If I have read a number of posts correctly Libby and jenni are not a chess player yet it seems that they have given more to chess, especially juniors, than a number of so called 'competative' players.

    The following comments will draw fire but so be it. The organisational aspects behind the actual playing of the sport (yes, I do think it is a sport) is really no different from any other endeavour and that is the aspect which interests me and, apparently, others. It is the suggested dictitorial approach, ie you will stay in this location and pay this price on pain of $x penalty, which I find most offensive. In associations I have been involved with over the years, the idea of the committee and organisational structure is to encourage and foster participation in an all inclusive way. The big-stick approach normally has the opposite effect and for good reason; people hate, without having been asked, to be told to lump it or leave it.

    There are I admit, some oddies with chess. First the structure is, as far as I can see, voluntary. That generally leads to ordinary members of the organisation viewing issues on a mutual society basis. A nice friendly clubby atmosphere.

    Yet chess is also a professional sport for some participants. This requires a need to provide prize money and so it is understandable that anything to attract sponsorship and thus money is explored or adopted. Whenever money is involved in a generally amatuer sport, things can get grubby. Sad but true. It results in the very dichotomies which have been expressed in a number of posts. The hard part for chess in Australia will be achieving the Golden Mean. The ACF committee will have its work cut out resolving those issues and being prepared, if it should come to that, in advising the current sponsor of this wonderful event "Thanks but no thanks" .

    By the way, I play chess on a social basis because I enjoy the game and I find it interesting. I didn't know that it was obligatory or mandatory to be obsessive about it.

    Also just to say I have been to Mount Buller on a few occassions in both winter and summer. Simply a gorgeous place. However, in summer, relaxing as it may be, it is certainly cooler than the lower reaches, it is isolated and can be expensive (for me).

    Cheers all

    Don I share your sentiments entirely and you have articulated the issues beautifully. The hopes that the ACF can come to its collective senses and beat out something purposeful with direction rests on Dennis being able to corral some of the more intransigent luddites on the committee into the 21st century, a task sadly that may be beyond him.

    However, you may be a little unware of some of the history surrounding this event which may alter you perspective a little. The initial Mt Buller bid was put together by David Cordover. As this was signalled clearly as a business venture, once the bid was approved by the ACF, he was basically (it would seem) left to his own devices to stitch up the deal with Accor.

    When he realised the venture was not commercially viable, he rescinded his bid (understandably so) and left the ACF with a number of unpallatable choices, including options where he continued his management in an altered set up. Now this episode occurred relatively late in the piece and essentially the ACF were left with 3 simple choices;
    1. Accept David Cordover's offer.
    2. Rebuild the event at another venue.
    3. Take over the Mt Buller venture and communicate directly with Accor.

    At this point George Howard stepped in, showed some real leadership and made the decision to manage the Mt Buller event directly himself, giving up his professional committments to do so. Now this was an excellent piece of brave decision making in my opinion, given his trust in Cordover had understandably been shaken, there was little time to secure and plan a new event - this would have been very risky given the little time available and besides the nuts and bolts of the Mt Buller event were already in place, planning was pretty advanced and he was probably recieving reassuring messages from the Accor management team.

    On top of that he had to quickly cobble together a team of fairly inexperienced volounteers (finding willing helpers would not have been easy) one of which in particular has been especially determined to sabotage every pr opportunity he gets. Really poor George has been on the back foot from the start and given the difficulties he was presented with, he's done pretty well - I reckon he should be forgiven his occasional outburst, by & large he's negiogated some dangerous channels remarkably well. I know he will eventually recognise that the manner his touting for Accor was one of his mistakes, but don't we all make mistakes? I think the manner of his leadership and his integrity has won him widespread admiration.

    What went wrong? The mistake was made at the beginning, when the ACF committee awarded the bid to David Cordover. It was not necessarily that this was wrong, but where they failed was in not properly recognising the potential for a conflict of interest and in not ensuring they were kept more closely in the loop during the Accor negotiations. They should also have put more definite deadlines in place to ensure the bid was on track, which would have allowed more time for an alternative arrangement when the thing tripped up.

    Now you could rightly say that George as president was partly responsible for the fiasco, but in the manner of his rescue attempts he has shown that he has accepted responsibility and acted courageously in the wider interest for Australian Chess.

    Make no mistake, when George took action the situation was a mess. What he has done has been remarkable. What it serves to show is the naivity of the ACF in the management of their affairs and this is something Dennis must address. He was a strong advocate for the ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess earlier this year but was beaten down by the State. He must now take a leaf out of George's book, demonstrate decisive leadership and put this issue back on the agenda. Without structure, as you rightly state, Australian Chess will continue to drift.
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  4. #214
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,589
    As usual things you say are incorrect. All you are stating is an opinion, not actual facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    However, you may be a little unware of some of the history surrounding this event which may alter you perspective a little. The initial Mt Buller bid was put together by David Cordover. As this was signalled clearly as a business venture, once the bid was approved by the ACF,
    The ACF awarded the bid to CV. It was CV that recommended that the ACF accept the bid.
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    he was basically (it would seem) left to his own devices to stitch up the deal with Accor.
    I suspect CV may hold a different view.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    When he realised the venture was not commercially viable, he rescinded his bid (understandably so)
    The bid was always awarded by the ACF to CV. It was CV that informed the ACF that it was planning on walking away from Mt Buller and changing the venue to around Melbourne.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    What went wrong? The mistake was made at the beginning, when the ACF committee awarded the bid to David Cordover.
    Incorrect.
    The ACF awarded the bid to CV.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    It was not necessarily that this was wrong, but where they failed was in not properly recognising the potential for a conflict of interest and in not ensuring they were kept more closely in the loop during the Accor negotiations.
    Perhaps it was CV that did not keep a tight enough reign on DC.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    They should also have put more definite deadlines in place to ensure the bid was on track, which would have allowed more time for an alternative arrangement when the thing tripped up.

    Now you could rightly say that George as president was partly responsible for the fiasco, but in the manner of his rescue attempts he has shown that he has accepted responsibility and acted courageously in the wider interest for Australian Chess.

    Make no mistake, when George took action the situation was a mess. What he has done has been remarkable. What it serves to show is the naivity of the ACF in the management of their affairs and this is something Dennis must address.
    I suspect many would suggest CV did not monitor DC sufficiently.
    No problems were highlighted at the April ACF Council meeting. The first indication of a problem was only when CV informed the ACf of their intention to switch venues.
    Prior to that all communications that I am aware of between CV by the ACF Council did not highlight a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    He was a strong advocate for the ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess earlier this year but was beaten down by the State.
    Since this certainly wasnt the failed ACF Commission plan then what ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess would it be.

  5. #215
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Don I share your sentiments entirely and you have articulated the issues beautifully. The hopes that the ACF can come to its collective senses and beat out something purposeful with direction rests on Dennis being able to corral some of the more intransigent luddites on the committee into the 21st century, a task sadly that may be beyond him.

    However, you may be a little unware of some of the history surrounding this event which may alter you perspective a little. The initial Mt Buller bid was put together by David Cordover. As this was signalled clearly as a business venture, once the bid was approved by the ACF, he was basically (it would seem) left to his own devices to stitch up the deal with Accor.

    When he realised the venture was not commercially viable, he rescinded his bid (understandably so) and left the ACF with a number of unpallatable choices, including options where he continued his management in an altered set up. Now this episode occurred relatively late in the piece and essentially the ACF were left with 3 simple choices;
    1. Accept David Cordover's offer.
    2. Rebuild the event at another venue.
    3. Take over the Mt Buller venture and communicate directly with Accor.

    At this point George Howard stepped in, showed some real leadership and made the decision to manage the Mt Buller event directly himself, giving up his professional committments to do so. Now this was an excellent piece of brave decision making in my opinion, given his trust in Cordover had understandably been shaken, there was little time to secure and plan a new event - this would have been very risky given the little time available and besides the nuts and bolts of the Mt Buller event were already in place, planning was pretty advanced and he was probably recieving reassuring messages from the Accor management team.

    On top of that he had to quickly cobble together a team of fairly inexperienced volounteers (finding willing helpers would not have been easy) one of which in particular has been especially determined to sabotage every pr opportunity he gets. Really poor George has been on the back foot from the start and given the difficulties he was presented with, he's done pretty well - I reckon he should be forgiven his occasional outburst, by & large he's negiogated some dangerous channels remarkably well. I know he will eventually recognise that the manner his touting for Accor was one of his mistakes, but don't we all make mistakes? I think the manner of his leadership and his integrity has won him widespread admiration.

    What went wrong? The mistake was made at the beginning, when the ACF committee awarded the bid to David Cordover. It was not necessarily that this was wrong, but where they failed was in not properly recognising the potential for a conflict of interest and in not ensuring they were kept more closely in the loop during the Accor negotiations. They should also have put more definite deadlines in place to ensure the bid was on track, which would have allowed more time for an alternative arrangement when the thing tripped up.

    Now you could rightly say that George as president was partly responsible for the fiasco, but in the manner of his rescue attempts he has shown that he has accepted responsibility and acted courageously in the wider interest for Australian Chess.

    Make no mistake, when George took action the situation was a mess. What he has done has been remarkable. What it serves to show is the naivity of the ACF in the management of their affairs and this is something Dennis must address. He was a strong advocate for the ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess earlier this year but was beaten down by the State. He must now take a leaf out of George's book, demonstrate decisive leadership and put this issue back on the agenda. Without structure, as you rightly state, Australian Chess will continue to drift.
    What a wonderful pair posts from DH and DR.
    The quality of posts seems to gone up in recent days with jenni and Libby having elbow room as well. Well done you four in particular.

    Now Doc, where you say, "What went wrong? The mistake was made at the beginning, when the ACF committee awarded the bid to David Cordover. It was not necessarily that this was wrong, but where they failed was in not properly recognising the potential for a conflict of interest and in not ensuring they were kept more closely in the loop during the Accor negotiations. They should also have put more definite deadlines in place to ensure the bid was on track, which would have allowed more time for an alternative arrangement when the thing tripped up.", you might be right on the button.
    Can I summarise to
    > conflict of interest
    >> poor tracking of progress?

    The conflict of interest is new, and is growing year by year. Essentially, the junior community is providing the funds, and the senior community is providing the infrastructure. The seniors main negotiating leverage comes from the titles they own.
    However, make no mistake that the dilemma arises not from a privateer/single-commercial-interest promoting the event. No! The dilemma was identified when Don said "It results in the very dichotomies which have been expressed in a number of posts. ". I took this to mean that
    • an ever increasing number of junior coaches will want the Austalian Junior to be the high-point of their financial year
    • The senior strong players will want high prize money
    • Some senior players will be junior coaches


    So we see the potential for a conflict-of-interest, was centralised when DC was the promoter, but will still be in existence when decentralised promotion (or other alternatives) is discussed. Thorny indeed.
    (Perhaps it is time for DOROPHIL's long-awaited stakeholder analysis).

    starter

  6. #216
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680

    Half an answer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    As usual things you say are incorrect. All you are stating is an opinion, not actual facts.


    .....
    Bill

    You analysed the good doctor's post which identified two root-causes
    (poor tracking of progress, and the downside of conflict of interest), but only commented on the first factor.
    Will you be commenting on the second?

    starter

  7. #217
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    As usual things you say are incorrect. All you are stating is an opinion, not actual facts.


    The ACF awarded the bid to CV. It was CV that recommended that the ACF accept the bid.

    I suspect CV may hold a different view.


    The bid was always awarded by the ACF to CV. It was CV that informed the ACF that it was planning on walking away from Mt Buller and changing the venue to around Melbourne.


    Incorrect.
    The ACF awarded the bid to CV.


    Perhaps it was CV that did not keep a tight enough reign on DC.

    At the end of the day, the responsibility ultimately rests with the ACF. It was David Cordover's bid, as you well know - even if by proxy through CV. Why else did the ACF take responsibilty for clearing up the mess?

    If CV, along with the ACF, failed to keep a tight enough rein (not reign, which is an unfortunate Freudian slip on your part), then perhaps it was because everyone was looking in different directions - the thing fell through the gaps, which I guess is inevitable with the cumbersome structure currently in place. It only serves to further illustrate the need for centralised co-ordination.

    I suspect many would suggest CV did not monitor DC sufficiently.
    No problems were highlighted at the April ACF Council meeting. The first indication of a problem was only when CV informed the ACf of their intention to switch venues.
    Prior to that all communications that I am aware of between CV by the ACF Council did not highlight a problem.
    What questions did the ACF ask? What deadlines did they put in place? How much did they know of the negiotations? If you don't ask the questions, you won't find the answers.

    Since this certainly wasnt the failed ACF Commission plan then what ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess would it be.
    Yes, that's right!
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  8. #218
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    What a wonderful pair posts from DH and DR.
    The quality of posts seems to gone up in recent days with jenni and Libby having elbow room as well. Well done you four in particular.

    Now Doc, where you say, "What went wrong? The mistake was made at the beginning, when the ACF committee awarded the bid to David Cordover. It was not necessarily that this was wrong, but where they failed was in not properly recognising the potential for a conflict of interest and in not ensuring they were kept more closely in the loop during the Accor negotiations. They should also have put more definite deadlines in place to ensure the bid was on track, which would have allowed more time for an alternative arrangement when the thing tripped up.", you might be right on the button.
    Can I summarise to
    > conflict of interest
    >> poor tracking of progress?

    The conflict of interest is new, and is growing year by year. Essentially, the junior community is providing the funds, and the senior community is providing the infrastructure. The seniors main negotiating leverage comes from the titles they own.
    However, make no mistake that the dilemma arises not from a privateer/single-commercial-interest promoting the event. No! The dilemma was identified when Don said "It results in the very dichotomies which have been expressed in a number of posts. ". I took this to mean that
    • an ever increasing number of junior coaches will want the Austalian Junior to be the high-point of their financial year
    • The senior strong players will want high prize money
    • Some senior players will be junior coaches


    So we see the potential for a conflict-of-interest, was centralised when DC was the promoter, but will still be in existence when decentralised promotion (or other alternatives) is discussed. Thorny indeed.
    (Perhaps it is time for DOROPHIL's long-awaited stakeholder analysis).

    starter
    If Chess is to grow in Australia it must welcome commercial enterprise. All sports benefit from commercial interest running alongside an independant governing body. Codes of practice and clear ethical guidelines are necessary to permit fair and equal opportunity.

    David Cordovers energies are an asset to Australian Chess, which I don't think we were quite ready for. But David's & Graeme's models are really the blueprints for growth. More consideration needs to be given to consider how these things can be harnessed and controlled for everyone's benefit.

    Cordover's current unpopularity has resulted from the simple fact the lines of communication that exist are poor and have broken down. The anger and hurt that was felt when David made his announcement was understandable, but the ACF can have no one to blame but themselves. They were apparently oblivious to the potential conflicts of interests that arose and the fact that David choose to make his accouncement on the Bulletin Board underlines the distance that existed between himself and the ACF - In his eyes, there must have been no other way to do it, no one to talk to, no liaison, zilch! And it came to them like a bolt from the blue!
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  9. #219
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards

    At this point George Howard stepped in, showed some real leadership and made the decision to manage the Mt Buller event directly himself, giving up his professional committments to do so. Now this was an excellent piece of brave decision making in my opinion, given his trust in Cordover had understandably been shaken, there was little time to secure and plan a new event - this would have been very risky given the little time available and besides the nuts and bolts of the Mt Buller event were already in place, planning was pretty advanced and he was probably recieving reassuring messages from the Accor management team.

    On top of that he had to quickly cobble together a team of fairly inexperienced volounteers (finding willing helpers would not have been easy) one of which in particular has been especially determined to sabotage every pr opportunity he gets. Really poor George has been on the back foot from the start and given the difficulties he was presented with, he's done pretty well - I reckon he should be forgiven his occasional outburst, by & large he's negiogated some dangerous channels remarkably well. I know he will eventually recognise that the manner his touting for Accor was one of his mistakes, but don't we all make mistakes? I think the manner of his leadership and his integrity has won him widespread admiration.
    Can I make one, I think significant, point in rebuttal.

    I accept the very great task that George took on. Well done. He is clearly passionate (and possibly correct) in his belief that this deal will be the best thing for Australian chess.

    But look at Trent's post and the (somewhat premature) announcement of George's way to settle the issue with chess players staying at the Mercure. Let's just take an unpopular deal and whack everyone who doesn't like it with a financial penalty. That will bring all those recalcitrant players and administrators into line. That definitely demonstrates that George has learnt how to temper the manner in which he touted on behalf of the sponsor - not!

    It's all a learning curve and I'm not suggesting I have the perfect model or the capacity to do better. What has disappointed me is that I have made many phone calls into Mt Buller and found very few people there who even knew we were coming. I see the Porsche Sprint advertised on the front page of the website but no chess. I can't find results. I can't see pictures. I can't get the gossip on the event.

    You want this to be the best thing since sliced bread next time? Well the PR starts this time! People need to be jealous of the good time being had down there. Show them shots of the New Year's Eve Party, the scenery and frolicing chess players. Show them pictures of the international players with a bit of an "60 seconds with Garvin" type snapshot interview.

    This isn't just another state-run Championship which everyone hopes will go well. This is a step into professionalism with big $$$s and the sense that it wants to go somewhere. So take it there.

  10. #220
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Libby
    Can I make one, I think significant, point in rebuttal.

    I accept the very great task that George took on. Well done. He is clearly passionate (and possibly correct) in his belief that this deal will be the best thing for Australian chess.

    But look at Trent's post and the (somewhat premature) announcement of George's way to settle the issue with chess players staying at the Mercure. Let's just take an unpopular deal and whack everyone who doesn't like it with a financial penalty. That will bring all those recalcitrant players and administrators into line. That definitely demonstrates that George has learnt how to temper the manner in which he touted on behalf of the sponsor - not!

    It's all a learning curve and I'm not suggesting I have the perfect model or the capacity to do better. What has disappointed me is that I have made many phone calls into Mt Buller and found very few people there who even knew we were coming. I see the Porsche Sprint advertised on the front page of the website but no chess. I can't find results. I can't see pictures. I can't get the gossip on the event.
    Sadly Libby, the way George has dealt with your comments has definitely been the low point. I suspect he has been hampered by not having a great communicator on his team, and his responses to you have sounded rushed, terse and plain wrong. Better liaison between Accor and the punter was necessary and so far it hasn't been forthcoming.

    As for the web-site, I think it hasn't been too bad. We expect high levels of electronic communication these days, 5 years ago I reckon we would have thought it fantastic. Also I reckon 1 or 2 people just need to go out & have a walk, they're spending too much time plugged in! So if the results don't appear too quickly, it ain't the end of the world.

    You want this to be the best thing since sliced bread next time? Well the PR starts this time! People need to be jealous of the good time being had down there. Show them shots of the New Year's Eve Party, the scenery and frolicing chess players. Show them pictures of the international players with a bit of an "60 seconds with Garvin" type snapshot interview.

    This isn't just another state-run Championship which everyone hopes will go well. This is a step into professionalism with big $$$s and the sense that it wants to go somewhere. So take it there.
    Because of all the problems, I reckon there's been a surprising upswell in interest in these Championships - all publicity is good publicity! As such a tremendous PR opportunity has been missed, not just once but repeatedly. But a proper PR machine can only be put together if planning comes together under 1 body - namely the ACF. It's time to recognise independant and sometimes antagonisitic state structures are hampering the development of chess. Good PR doesn't happen by accident, it needs strategic planning. But I like your saying, it should become the ACF soundbite.


    SO TAKE IT THERE!
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  11. #221
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards

    Because of all the problems, I reckon there's been a surprising upswell in interest in these Championships - all publicity is good publicity! As such a tremendous PR opportunity has been missed, not just once but repeatedly. But a proper PR machine can only be put together if planning comes together under 1 body - namely the ACF. It's time to recognise independant and sometimes antagonisitic state structures are hampering the development of chess. Good PR doesn't happen by accident, it needs strategic planning. But I like your saying, it should become the ACF soundbite.


    SO TAKE IT THERE!
    Hmmm - I think a good - not perfect, but good - PR machine takes one person with sufficient professionalism & effort.

    Don't underestimate what can be achieved with an extra 30mins effort by someone each day. Even better, an hour each morning putting together a couple of photos from the previous day, copying the DOPs write-up from the Bulletin (assuming there is one) and zipping it off on the email or just posting it here. All publicity is (perhaps) good publicity but really good publicity is just that - really good.

    And before I get slapped down for telling people how to do stuff, and then sitting back on my hands, I did offer to do quite a bit of stuff. In the end I got so frustrated and (OK, pathetic girly statement) hurt , I didn't even accompany my daughter's school team - who I have worked with for 4 years - to Mt Buller for the Aus Schools. That's about how good the PR has been.

    Strictly from my perspective, of course. I'm sure others may view things differently.

  12. #222
    CC International Master Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    in long grass
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Libby
    Hmmm - I think a good - not perfect, but good - PR machine takes one person with sufficient professionalism & effort.

    Don't underestimate what can be achieved with an extra 30mins effort by someone each day. Even better, an hour each morning putting together a couple of photos from the previous day, copying the DOPs write-up from the Bulletin (assuming there is one) and zipping it off on the email or just posting it here. All publicity is (perhaps) good publicity but really good publicity is just that - really good.

    And before I get slapped down for telling people how to do stuff, and then sitting back on my hands, I did offer to do quite a bit of stuff. In the end I got so frustrated and (OK, pathetic girly statement) hurt , I didn't even accompany my daughter's school team - who I have worked with for 4 years - to Mt Buller for the Aus Schools. That's about how good the PR has been.

    Strictly from my perspective, of course. I'm sure others may view things differently.
    I should differentiate between publicity and PR (public relations). There have been plenty of publicity opportunities, which good PR could have exploited. I agree with you these opportunities have been missed. As for 30mins, 30mins can do a lot of damage as well, and that's whats been happening. The 30mins is there alright, just not always the best.
    Power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  13. #223
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,589
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    At the end of the day, the responsibility ultimately rests with the ACF.
    True but as in the past the ACF liases with the State Associations and not directly with any individuals. I am unaware of any previous circumstances that are similar to this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    It was David Cordover's bid, as you well know - even if by proxy through CV.
    In the recent past all Australian Open or Championship bids have come via the State Associations even if the bid was run by individuals. This was true for the last Open in Sydney run by Brian Jones. It was also true with the Mingara bid as well as the last event run in Melbourne.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Why else did the ACF take responsibilty for clearing up the mess?
    THis has been explained previously at the time. One of many reasons was because the ACF wanted to salvage the sponsorship deal with Mevcure.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    If CV, along with the ACF, failed to keep a tight enough rein (not reign, which is an unfortunate Freudian slip on your part), then perhaps it was because everyone was looking in different directions - the thing fell through the gaps,
    Maybe nothing fell thru the gaps.
    You can really only go by what information you are being told.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    which I guess is inevitable with the cumbersome structure currently in place. It only serves to further illustrate the need for centralised co-ordination.
    It serves to illustrate no such thing.
    Some may suggest it illustrates a problem where an individual organiser has a financial interest in the event.
    Brian Jones in concert with the NSWCA showed that such things are not necessarily a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    What questions did the ACF ask? What deadlines did they put in place? How much did they know of the negiotations? If you don't ask the questions, you won't find the answers.
    The ACF believed the information coming to it from CV.
    That would be no different to you organising an event on behalf of the Gold Coast club who are organising it on behalf of CAQ. Why would CAQ have reason to doubt assurances from the Gold Coast club.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Yes, that's right!
    You can try an play smart with lines like this but you fail.
    In reference to Denis you said "He was a strong advocate for the ACF plan to centralise control of the direction of Australian Chess earlier this year but was beaten down by the State."
    Please back up this statement by showing a reference to said plan.

  14. #224
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,589
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    Bill

    You analysed the good doctor's post which identified two root-causes
    (poor tracking of progress, and the downside of conflict of interest), but only commented on the first factor.
    Will you be commenting on the second?
    Only to the following extent.
    Obviously the ACF recognised the potential conflict of interest but since CV had put a committee in place to handle the Mt Buller events, we believed CV would handle any conflict of interest that may have arisen..

  15. #225
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,589
    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    Cordover's current unpopularity has resulted from the simple fact the lines of communication that exist are poor and have broken down.
    If you believe that then you are simply deluding yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    The anger and hurt that was felt when David made his announcement was understandable, but the ACF can have no one to blame but themselves. They were apparently oblivious to the potential conflicts of interests that arose
    Now you are just being silly.
    The ACF were aware of potential conflicts of interest.
    We expected however that CV would manage that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David_Richards
    and the fact that David choose to make his accouncement on the Bulletin Board underlines the distance that existed between himself and the ACF - In his eyes, there must have been no other way to do it, no one to talk to, no liaison, zilch! And it came to them like a bolt from the blue!
    Again this demosntrates that you have no clue what you are talking about.
    A number of those on the ACF Council were aware a couple of days prior to David's announcement on this board that CV was planning on walking away from Mt Buller.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •