PDA

View Full Version : Mt Buller - a non-organiser's perspective



Libby
30-01-2005, 03:03 PM
I have been pretty concerned about the post Mt Buller posting. It tells you a lot about Australian chess.

The knives are out for George. There have been many times over the past six months when I was happily wielding one. I don't disagree with much of the unflattering posting with regard to George's management style however I want to know what checks and balances the ACF has within the system to ensure events like this are run in accordance with the original bid (as a minimum) or better. Why should anyone be able to promise the moon, deliver about half of it, and get a pat on the back for at least "having a go?"

That isn't right. In fact, it only encourages a ludicrous level of "marketing puff" in bid documents because the important aspect is to win the bid, not deliver the service.

People were paid to work at this event. That's a double-edged sword. I'm not suggesting it was a "living wage" or a hugely profitable exercise on a personal level for anyone. What I am saying is that people who are contracted to do a job, and paid to do a job, are expected to do that job. Volunteers get cut very little slack themselves so when an event is awarded that budgets to pay people to work on it, perhaps it raised the public's expectations of professionalism.

I have spent a number of hours trawling some old threads on this topic. Going right back to David's original "Aus Open in Mt Buller" thread. I have to say Garvin, you were keen on attending but you were not interested in David's Mercure packages (#109) -


I would resent having to pay top dollarfor a place when there are acceptable and cheaper places nearby.

Way back then (24/6 #128), Jenni made a number of points about the Mercure deals for the Juniors and talked about the ACT accommodation deals. Garvin himself asked us for info. So back then, people must have been aware of the idea that Junior players & families were not going to stampede into a 4.5 star hotel at anything like those prices.

In the "ACF Announcement" thread George posted (6/7 #47) with regard to a new Mt Buller deal -


Mt Buller option has NO component of filling rooms as a pre condition for it to work. People could stay wherever but obviously Mt Buller would need to make their accommodation as attractive as possible if they want people staying on the mountain.

GM Rogers, who had discussions with Roman at the Mercure over the whole idea of a new bid posted (9/7 #99) -


Mt Buller has already put in writing that there are no minimum rooms to be filled by the ACF.

George (#326 13/7 crucially AFTER the new bid was accepted) -


$10000 room vouchers and four rooms negotiated away. In exchange the ACF/organiser does not have to guarantee filling any rooms.

(The reference to the $10000 room vouchers & four free rooms refers to the details of the offer to be found in Roman's letter of 1/7 which can be found in the "Chess World letter to the ACF" thread #20)

There was considerable flogging of David in that thread (Chess World letter) over his failure to have everything in writing. Particularly as he contended that the sponsors may have shifted the goalposts. One would assume that any new deal, as a consequence, would be sensitive to having everything in writing. Why then was there a dispute over the sponsorship of the bulletin printing? Surely it was agreed, or not. And if the agreement was not in writing - why not?

And if there was no component of filling rooms as a pre condition for the deal to work, why were we bludgeoned over our failure to stay at the sponsor's hotel? Why was our failure to support the sponsor an excuse to withdraw or modify services on offer? Why has George recently expressed to me that he only found out about sponsor's lodge accommodation very recently, and that this will be a big plus "next time" at Mt Buller? Why, when Roman's letter of 1/7 - sent to George Howard as ACF President - (Chess World letter thread #20) says -


3. Other lodge accommodation at $25 per night per bed

In Garvin's assessment of the Mt Buller shortcomings, he states that the whole committee feels AR cost them at least 15 entries. Maybe he did, would like to know which 15 they were, and what evidence (even anecdotal), they had. However, I think it probably pales in comparison to the potential entries the organisers cost themselves. For example - after receiving news of the lodges "next time" from George, I replied it was a shame they were not publicised this time as both the sponsor and the organisers wrestled with the thorny issue of people staying at the Mercure. Surely they would rather have had us in a sponsor's lodge if we weren't going to be at the Chalet. In return, NSWJCL's Richard G-H emailed me -


Exactly! That was my reaction too when I received George's revelation about Mercure's five lodges why didn't they tell us about them before? More NSW players would probably be there now if this option had been offered. By the time some of our players got around to thinking about going we had been led to believe that all the lodge accommodation had been snapped up by others (Qld and ACT).

Does that explain why some people didn't come? Put the whole thing into context another way. The Open attracted smaller than expected numbers but the Juniors (in my understanding) exceeded the budgeted numbers by about 10 entries. Why is it so? Perhaps because a high proportion of juniors (not all) travelled with coordinated coach or JCL organised groups. One or two people from each group taking the responsibility I did for the ACT, to encourage them to attend, assist with transport, accommodation and the flow of information. So no hangover from Cordover, no nasty trolling from AR :eek: affected the juniors actually entering the event and - courtesy of my presence on this BB and my efforts on the internet elsewhere - I actually had encouraging information to give them.

Because where was the information otherwise? Blame AR for his trolling (amongst others) but as I said on another thread, it's pretty easy to quash that kind of trolling with good quality rebuttal. Instead, the organising team - other than Garvin - opted out of the BB altogether. That's OK, if you're providing the information elsewhere, in a much more suitable location. It was also valuable (going back over the posting now) to see what people were raising as concerns. People like AR and peanbrain might be stirrers but the underlying questions were valid, and not limited to them. Many of them remained unaddressed, right to the event itself. But the information, when provided, on the website and in the booklets was not what the BB "trolls" were asking for. And if you weren't a BB "troll" you had no updates, no sense of the accommodation options, no sense of the social activities planned, the facilities in Mt Buller. In short, I don't think the pre event communication off this board did much at all to get players to the event.

And there is a responsibility to provide this information because you are not taking people to Sydney or Perth or even Ballarat. You are taking people to a small, closed resort with many facilities closed or restricted in summer. Where many providers required minimum booking or deposits to open their doors and where nobody had friends or family to scrounge a bed or offer advice. Where two bids have failed already. So the organisers needed to encourage players to participate, not blame others because the negatives were allowed to take root in the vaccuum. Blame AR if you must but his post (#8 Mt Buller Championships thread) kind of hits the nail on the head -


Oh man, you so need a PR adviser .... See, your response is not going to help. It'll just rally people to Jenni's corner. What you need to do is this. Just bang out the positives, if any, of the MB II deal, focus on these, and try as much as possible to divert attention away from minuses and onto the pluses.

I was very concerned that I did not see the ACF members asking George to be accountable when he opened a new thread (Mt Buller Championships) on 13/7 - the day after the bid is accepted - cancelling the promised free buses from Melbourne and replacing them with the Mansfield shuttle, across all events, because he had a budget of $2000 and the actual cost was more like $20000. Only Jenni, peanbrain and myself pushed him on the issue publicly. Did this flag concern for the Council? If not, why not? It wasn't about the buses themselves, it was about what that potentially meant across the whole budget. How real were the figures and the benefits?

From the Mt Buller Championships thread -

#72 on 14/7 George says (my emphasis) -
We will also have a minibus do a daily run to Mansfield wait sufficient time for people to do shopping then come back to Mt Buller. We will find the money if the budgeted amount is insufficient.

#80
The shuttle bus Mt Buller/Mansfield cost $3000 so that can certainly be achieved. A bus shuttle of minibus every day will happen.

#95
budget for buses was $2000 which was for the shuttle which is now $3000 but can be covered in the budget

and in response to me suggesting every second day might be sufficient -

#114
I want to cover all bases re shuttle bus so there are fewer grizzles so every day it will be.

In the end, the Juniors received a bus 3 times over the course of their event. Why? Had they been surveyed and their needs assessed as being less than an every day, or every second day service? Not to my knowledge. If, again, the reduction in service was because the service had not been properly costed, does that concern the ACF? If the juniors, attending in better than budgeted numbers, had the funds within their own tournament funding package - where did this money go instead? This isn't an accusation of fraud or misappropriation. I think we should be able to ask what additional costs etc resulted in funds not being available to fund this service for the Juniors.

Similarly, the advertised BBQ and party cancelled at the end of the Juniors was one of few things actually promoted in the ridiculously costly and wasteful information booklet. Jenni posted that George ran the excuse that too many people were leaving early (doesn't that just mean catering for a smaller - 50-60% - group of players?) When pressed, he didn't want to spend the money (or that is what we have been told on the BB). Why not? Will he be held accountable? What was the budget for the party? What planning (ordering of food etc) did he have to cancel or had no planning or ordering been done at all? Given, again, the Juniors attended in better than budgeted numbers, why was there any issue regarding money for their party at all? Does that concern anyone at all?

I have been told that even the sports hire at LaTrobe, for which each of about 80 juniors paid $20, may have run at a profit. Even in the vicinity of $600 profit (these are hearsay figures). Should this be correct - is that not $600 in additional funding which could have made up any shortfall for the party at least? Anyone looking for more than a sausage, bread, chips, lollies & softdrink (even cordial) would have been barking up the wrong tree :)

We could, from a junior slant, climb back on the hobby horse of the Juniors subsidising the seniors ( who did get their party & shuttle even if they didn't attend in the budgeted numbers). In part, that's OK. I subscribe to the idea that a healthy junior environment is enhanced by a healthy senior one but tell me how much that subsidy should be and when the grown ups needs to start paying for themselves? Don't the juniors, by playing rated events, contribute a significant stream of revenue in rating fees? Don't they pay a levy to the ACF for every school team playing across Australia? At which point do juniors stop "contributing" and become the whole bread and butter?

There was an organising committee for these events. Not George alone. Garvin, in particular, seems keen to emphasise they were powerless against George. But to some extent, most of the committee seem to intimate they would have liked some things to operate differently. Well - why didn't they? If you have strong convictions about something, share them with the other members of the committee. Be prepared to say that something is wrong. Say it collectively and don't back down if someone is unreasonable. Trawling through old threads Garvin, I come up with you having done tertiary level studies in sports administration and George suggests you have training in event management. That surely had you well placed to deal with some issues or even to understand the sorts of problems that may arise. Alex & Andrew had run the events in Adelaide, very well from all reports. Could nobody assert themself and say - this is what should be done. If all members of the committee felt this way, and seemed to enjoy popular support on the BB anyway, couldn't change have happened? Instead a chain of bickering and finger pointing got underway on the BB. That must have fostered a better working relationship in Mt Buller - not.

On 11/8 Garvin said (#597 Mt Buller Championship)
It is not just George that is running the Australian Open, there is an organising team and we all have different and overlapping responsibilities. It's very unclear who was responsible for what, only that, in the aftermath, George is responsible for everything?

Don't get me wrong, I'm ravenous for gossip. But I would rather have seen proactive steps towards change. I know you all knew my position. You had certainly all received an email from me where I put my case for the problems created for me, as ACTJCL President and coordinator of our team, months ago.

I fought and fought for some organisation of activities for the children at the Junior and it wasn't very nice to get the sense that our own people didn't give a toss if the pool was open (as normal) for the children. And if they didn't want to negotiate harder for us with the sponsor over the pool, what were they planning? Garvin posted in response to me raising the cinema being open on Saurdays & Mondays -


this will be open much more for us.

Was it? No. We had one extra session when I finally decided to ring the cinema myself in December. They didn't even know we would be there. That late, there was little they could do for us in arranging extra movies. I thought - maybe - this was the sort of task George would follow up in his weeks up at Mt Buller. And although we ended up with a very good deal on the hire of the Sports Hall (thanks to the Saints), George told me it was too expensive many months ago. Obviously he had done a lot of research and attempted some negotiations from early on :P Heavens! Why would you want some good publicity!

The real problem I have is the extravagent promises made for the Mt Buller events. With due respect to those who applaud George for "having a go" and for noidea's staements that it was a good tournament and everyone pitched in - we were promised more. People were paid to deliver more. That is why everything from the flow of information, media coverage, conduct of the committee etc strikes hard. Alternatives were put on the table at the ACF meeting but this one was selected because of the package of benefits it could deliver.

I am most unsure that the ACF took into account the actual capacity of our organisation to deliver the promised event. An OK event was delivered. I've been to many OK events.

Kerry Stead
30-01-2005, 04:24 PM
Outstanding post Libby ... the matters you have raised are the ones of most concern.

As far as my own involvement in the events at Mt Buller, they were regretably much less than I would have liked. My committments with work meant that I wouldn't be able to have much involvement when the actual tournament was on, however I was more than happy to assist with the pre-tournament planning.

Disclaimer: I was part of the organising team ... and was reimbursed for my airfare to Melbourne when George, Garvin & myself went to Mt Buller in August to have a look at the venue, talk with Peter & Roman from the Mercure, etc. When I went there for a few days at the end of the open/start at the junior I was not paid, nor were my costs reimbursed, however I did get a bed in Helihouse for the days I was there.

Initially, I got involved in the events to try and assist (perhaps even organise it myself) the recruiting of foreign titles players to the Open. I was interested in the list that Cordover had as 'confirmed' (although I was suspicious about the truth of these confirmations), and would have liked to see the list improved upon for the actual event. However I was told by George that he had all the info from Cordover, and that he was following everything up, including telling the people on Cordover's list that he didn't have the money previously on offer. Ian Rogers had talked to some players, and was close to getting a top 10 player to the tournament for about a week in a 'guest' capacity, however the Mercure, and Roman in particular, were not at all interested in providing a little bit extra in hospitality to make the time for the guest enjoyable ... and George seemed to be happy enough to follow this line. To me, this was really disappointing, and George's continued insistence that there be no appearance money for anyone (with the exception of the Italians and Kengis, who had fees sourced from outside the tournament budget, and Darryl, who was [rightfully] considered vital for the tournament to be properly considered an Australian Open) did little to keep me enthused.

I was then put in the position of Junior Contact, for the simple reason that George and Garvin had little or no experience with juniors, so by default, given my involvement in various junior things, I got the job.
A number of things that were promised did not eventuate, and I was not party to the negotiations (if any) between the ACF (ie: George) and the Mercure, so can not comment on what (if anything) was put in writing.

As for George's claim at the opening ceremony (of the juniors) that these were the first professionally run national events, I think the even speaks for itself, and the word 'professional' not only involves a payment for service, but also implies a level of proficiency and competency that was sorely lacking.

As a general comment for future events, I think that the juniors can pretty much be run anywhere - there are large enough numbers of kids who will play in the Australian Junior no matter where it is held ... the Open, however does not have this luxury, as was demonstrated this year. Also a must for organisers is a level of detail in their planning to cover things which will (or might) eventuate ... it seems that only non-organisers such as Libby were interested in these questions.

Apologies for my involvement (or lack thereof) in the events this year :(

Libby
30-01-2005, 04:41 PM
Outstanding post Libby ... the matters you have raised are the ones of most concern. (

Err - thanks Kerry. I was a bit scared of what I was leaving myself open for. Reading those old threads was pretty interesting in the aftermath. I had forgotten a lot of what went on and even some of what was promised.

I think it could have been a good event. The repeatability factor is more about whether there are real, measurable benefits well above what can be achieved elsewhere.

Garvinator
30-01-2005, 07:52 PM
If the juniors, attending in better than budgeted numbers, had the funds within their own tournament funding package - where did this money go instead? This isn't an accusation of fraud or misappropriation. I think we should be able to ask what additional costs etc resulted in funds not being available to fund this service for the Juniors.

I would like to know too.



Similarly, the advertised BBQ and party cancelled at the end of the Juniors was one of few things actually promoted in the ridiculously costly and wasteful information booklet. Jenni posted that George ran the excuse that too many people were leaving early (doesn't that just mean catering for a smaller - 50-60% - group of players?) When pressed, he didn't want to spend the money (or that is what we have been told on the BB).

This story is 100% accurate. Actually the full story is much more vicious than that from what I have been told by both Jenni and George. I didnt even know the BBQ had been cancelled until after George had taken the unilateral decision to cancel it. He didnt discuss it with anyone that I am aware, just he cancelled without discussion.


There was an organising committee for these events. Not George alone. Garvin, in particular, seems keen to emphasise they were powerless against George. But to some extent, most of the committee seem to intimate they would have liked some things to operate differently. Well - why didn't they? If you have strong convictions about something, share them with the other members of the committee. Be prepared to say that something is wrong. Say it collectively and don't back down if someone is unreasonable.

Well I let you in on a nugget of information Libby. During the juniors I had my suitcase packed ready to walk out. I had had a gutful of being caught in the middle of George's crap. It was only after having a frank discussion with George and Alex that I decided to stay as it was only a few days till the end.
If we had done what you ask Libby, then I would be almost sure that I would have resigned much earlier in protest at George's handling of events. Would having more uncertainty helped the events?
I made a judgement call that what we had was better than complete bickering and my resignation.

The fact that George wont even acknowledge that mistakes were made or participate in any type of debate shows what type of person he is.


Trawling through old threads Garvin, I come up with you having done tertiary level studies in sports administration and George suggests you have training in event management. That surely had you well placed to deal with some issues or even to understand the sorts of problems that may arise. Alex & Andrew had run the events in Adelaide, very well from all reports. Could nobody assert themself and say - this is what should be done. If all members of the committee felt this way, and seemed to enjoy popular support on the BB anyway, couldn't change have happened? Instead a chain of bickering and finger pointing got underway on the BB. That must have fostered a better working relationship in Mt Buller - not.

Your right, it didnt foster a good working relationship and I have said that if George is involved next time, i wont be and I would say mt buller 2007 would be a disaster if George is main organiser again.

I cant speak for Andrew or Alex and I wish they would contribute more to these threads, but I guess they actually have to speak to George still in Adelaide and dont want to offend him by being honest. That is ok but doesnt help improving things cause it just leads to denialability and problems arent addressed.

I am very well aware that my forthright posts might cost me organisational posts in the future, if that is the case, so be it.

I would recommend that the acf council take George and the rest of us to task and I would be very willing to give an in person account of what happened and when. But I will not be the fall guy for George's mismanagement of these events and for his attitude.

The acf council would have almost no chance of getting George to answer for his actions and I would doubt that the acf could do much anyways as it doesnt have much real power to hold ppl up for their actions.

If the acf council did have real power, then the unmentionable one would have been hauled over the coals already.

Mischa
30-01-2005, 08:03 PM
I am beginning to think that Voldemort may have been less to blame than was originally stated. The argument of him being money hungry seems silly when I hear all the talk about other's money concerns. Why was Voldemort critisized for wanting to make a profit? If unethical, then I agree he should be taken to task. But name me one coach or oraganiser that was NOT concerned with profit making really. Honestly.

Don't yell at me guys I just want to understand.

Libby
30-01-2005, 08:23 PM
Well I let you in on a nugget of information Libby. During the juniors I had my suitcase packed ready to walk out. I had had a gutful of being caught in the middle of George's crap. It was only after having a frank discussion with George and Alex that I decided to stay as it was only a few days till the end.
If we had done what you ask Libby, then I would be almost sure that I would have resigned much earlier in protest at George's handling of events. Would having more uncertainty helped the events?
I made a judgement call that what we had was better than complete bickering and my resignation.

The fact that George wont even acknowledge that mistakes were made or participate in any type of debate shows what type of person he is.

I think this misses my point Garvin. Was any attempt made to employ some collective bargaining? George seemed able to be dragged to certain points with enough pressure from people he considered to have "worthy" opinions. Me not being one of them. If the whole of the rest of the committee disagreed with George, and were generally receiving player feedback (here or elsewhere) that they were on the right track, why didn't you act on those feelings? Collectively. And if that saw the rest of the committee resign en masse who would have egg on their face? You guys? I think not.

I'm not talking about dummy spits or walkouts at the event. I'm talking about the months when people blissfully toed the line (in public anyway) and when there was a chance to make a difference.


I would recommend that the acf council take George and the rest of us to task and I would be very willing to give an in person account of what happened and when. But I will not be the fall guy for George's mismanagement of these events and for his attitude.

The acf council would have almost no chance of getting George to answer for his actions and I would doubt that the acf could do much anyways as it doesnt have much real power to hold ppl up for their actions.

If the acf council did have real power, then the unmentionable one would have been hauled over the coals already.

I'm tired of the blame game. I thought George was a bit of a (will not post my exact description) but I am more concerned about why the ACF processes allow someone to run the ACF events just how they want to, irrespective of what was put on the table with the bid. Change can be forced upon you by unavoidable events but it can be a result of failing to do the job properly. I think (and to be fair, it may still be planned) we should expect to see why the promises were not delivered.

Like I said. People don't cut a volunteer an even break. The Mt Buller organisers were paid and all sorts of claims were made about "professionalism." Where was this exhibited above & beyond the events previously run?

Libby
30-01-2005, 08:43 PM
But name me one coach or oraganiser that was NOT concerned with profit making really. Honestly.

Try ACTJCL and then work out why you might want a JCL in Victoria or a strong junior focus in your senior association.

ACTJCL entrants received -

a bus organised at cost price

assistance with accommodation

a regular bulletin with details of Mt Buller announcements

Coaching for $150 per child (ACTJCL subsiding each child by $100) and a ratio of 6 children per coach

most received a subsidised team shirt, all receive full subsidy of the embroidery costs on the shirt

a voluntary team manager

a voluntary liaison person for matters to do with the orgnaising committee

We made no profit on the event. It is a significant annual expenditure for ACTJCL. For our efforts however, one of our unaccompanied U18 players could get accommodation, coaching, transport to the event and entry fee for less than $500 total. That may just have contributed to us having a pretty big contingent at the event.

Mischa
30-01-2005, 09:03 PM
Libby,
Don't be cross with me. I am in total agreement with you on this issue. I WISH for an effective junior organisation in Victoria. this has been discussed before. Until the factions stop warring, I see no way out.
This is not only an orgainsation problem but a coach competition. It is hard for the juniors to get support when not only are the coaches "fighting" so to speak but the clubs seem to be competing as well. I suggested once that an effective Australian junior organisation needed to be worked out.

I admit it was refreshling to see the teams from interstate working and bonding as a team. I was very jealous, but admiring as well. What can I do in Victoria? so much petty vying for money and position. I may even withdraw my kid from a club because it seems to be run by a coach and not the organisation I thought.

As a result, many Vic juniors are left with no real support from a club and the competition seems to be more about the coaches than the kids.
I think I may have just stuck my neck out, but I guess it had to be said. I will probably be shot down in flames...which will underline the problem.

My question about Voldermort still remains. Junior clubs notwithstanding...He was critisized for being money hungry. Name me an organiser or coach that didn't look to make a profit...I don't mean clubs.

I heard of one coach who had 18 kids in his retinue and he was the only coach. Is this not about making money?
I just thought it was unfair to accuse Voldemort of wanting to make a profit from Mt. Buller and then not suggesting the same of others.

Libby, I am not the enemy

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 09:09 PM
My question about Voldermort still remains. Junior clubs notwithstanding...He was critisized for being money hungry. Name me an organiser or coach that didn't look to make a profit...I don't mean clubs.

I heard of one coach who had 18 kids in his retinue and he was the only coach. Is this not about making money?
I just thought it was unfair to accuse Voldemort of wanting to make a profit from Mt. Buller and then not suggesting the same of others.
I think where people are making the comparison is not about coaches wanting to make money but about chess organisers of ACF events.
Generally they have been run simply to break even or make a small profit/loss.

Libby
30-01-2005, 09:11 PM
Libby, Don't be cross with me.

That's OK. I'm not cross with you :)

There's a funny culture in chess about volunteering etc. People seem to want to pay for something because that will mean it is "better."

Sometimes that is true. However, with payment should come a standard of accountability. A standard we might like to hold volunteers to (nobody should step up for a job and relish doing it poorly - even as a volunteer) but a standard we are entitled to hold paid employees or contractors to.

I still compare it to years of unpaid softball coaching, umpiring, event organisation etc. To travelling with a state team and paying your own way, player or coach.

adelandre
30-01-2005, 09:14 PM
With regards to posting on here more often, i consider myself a doing person and prefer to leave most of the debate to others. I don't have a lot of time to come on here, and have many other priorities in life. I only post on here what I deem to be neccessary. With regards to myself thinking AR cost us 15 entrants, i made one comment to garvin to not respond to his comments that were deliberately malicious, as they are not worth responding to. I have met AR once and got on with him in person. I do believe his adopted personality on here is too strong.

With regards to trying to change the status quo of this event, quite frankly i did nothing on this event for 4 months. I made this clear upon joining that i would DO the entry forms and DO the bulletins - I prefer most of my efforts to go into achieving some tangible results. However, I do believe in responding to the publics commands, and left this to George, Garvin, Kerry etc on here. At the Adelaide events, i took on most of this myself. I did nothing in 4 months as a) I was working 80 hours a week finishing engineering b) we had severe family health problems which were prioritised. Forseeing the end of my engineering being too demanding, I took what I thought was a responsible step in making it clear I could not be involved for a period of time.

When I did have have an opportunity to change things at the event, I suggested the following to George/others:

a) Get all documents signed (i repeated this a number of times)
b) Supply V-Line booking forms so that we can coordinate bus trips with playres.
c) include all Open games in the bulletin ( I was only at Mt Buller for the Open), rather than the original suggestion
d) Give players water at the event, which i went about achieving
e) Provide a CD of full bulletins and photos etc to somewhat account for the problems with supply.

A number of these I implemented personally, as i believe in backing up your words. Some were unfortunately out of my control.

With regards to commenting on George, Garvin, I am not one to point fingers. I made most of my opinions that I thought would be constructive in another post. I believe George was very effective as a "Publicity Officer" in Adelaide. Enough said.

With regards to the brochures being excessive, Libby, with a $20, 000 budget available that was only available for printing it seemed prudent to try and provide information in a professional, attractive manner to players.

I thought I addressed your social events concerns somewhat when I was available, by working with and making Alex accountable for this. I thought Alex made some good inroads here, in combination with your excellent efforts on the brochure.

Kind Regards,
Andrew

Don_Harrison
30-01-2005, 09:21 PM
I think where people are making the comparison is not about coaches wanting to make money but about chess organisers of ACF events.
Generally they have been run simply to break even or make a small profit/loss.

Am I correct in that the then President of the ACF was also the successful tender for the running of the Mt Buller events? And continued in the role of President of the ACF? And that the Mt Buller events were a private profit/loss situation? If so, it raises the rather dumb question of where was the separation between the contractor and the contract management? If none, then that's really dumb. Quite stupid in fact.

Or did the ACF go for about six months without a President, hence, no formal direction and no official management of the contract? No that is even dumber if that is possible.

Bill Gletsos
30-01-2005, 09:29 PM
Am I correct in that the then President of the ACF was also the successful tender for the running of the Mt Buller events?
Yes.


And continued in the role of President of the ACF?
He effectively stood aside and the Deputy President took over.


And that the Mt Buller events were a private profit/loss situation?
Any loss is born by the organiser and profit is split with the ACF 50:50.


If so, it raises the rather dumb question of where was the separation between the contractor and the contract management? If none, then that's really dumb. Quite stupid in fact.

Or did the ACF go for about six months without a President, hence, no formal direction and no official management of the contract? No that is even dumber if that is possible.
You seem to have already made up your mind.

Don_Harrison
30-01-2005, 09:41 PM
I do appreciate the clarification and I thank you for the information. On whether I "seem seem to have already made up [my] mind" there is a presumption in that quote which may or which may not be correct. I, and no-one else, will decide when I have reached a conclusion.

arosar
31-01-2005, 02:33 AM
With regards to myself thinking AR cost us 15 entrants, i made one comment to garvin to not respond to his comments that were deliberately malicious, as they are not worth responding to.

You can't seriously believe that I cost you 15 entrants. That's laughable!

AR

firegoat7
31-01-2005, 10:31 AM
Hello,

I agree with sentiments about Libbys posts. Probably the best post I have seen in the last two years.

Unfortunately, there should be some recognition from the chess playing community, as a whole, that this sort of mentality in Australian Chess has been operating for years. We simply do not focus on building an organisation that has the correct checks and balances in its systemic approach to its product.
Instead, the ACF behave like a perennial wallflower, who waits every year for the right dance offer, desperate to impress but not confident in their own abilities.

The key question here is- was George acting in his own interests or the ACFs?

If its his own, then we have the same old legacy of everything pre-established, with notable historical exceptions like the Koshnitskys, NSW junior chess league etc. The chess mafia type personalities, who continually personally co-erce for their own personal gain, be that glory or profit.

If it is the ACFs, then we probably have an interesting historical first (or is that second after Tumbi?). The ACF finally organising its own premium events. An incredibly important historical moment in the history of Australian Chess. Granted there were mistakes, but begineers are prone to errors.

Unfortunately, with the tendering process being announced again, my inclination is that it is the former not the latter. The ACF still appears to not want to take responsibility for its own events. It still appears to lack confidence in pushing its own product, how else do we interpret a relationship where it becomes dependent on others to run events for it?

Kerry Stead
31-01-2005, 01:04 PM
Unfortunately, there should be some recognition from the chess playing community, as a whole, that this sort of mentality in Australian Chess has been operating for years. We simply do not focus on building an organisation that has the correct checks and balances in its systemic approach to its product.
Instead, the ACF behave like a perennial wallflower, who waits every year for the right dance offer, desperate to impress but not confident in their own abilities.

Unfortunately, with the tendering process being announced again, my inclination is that it is the former not the latter. The ACF still appears to not want to take responsibility for its own events. It still appears to lack confidence in pushing its own product, how else do we interpret a relationship where it becomes dependent on others to run events for it?

Good response firegoat7 ... however the suggestion you offer, for the ACF to run its own events, although logical, lacks a vital component - someone to act as the person who co-ordinates the efforts on behalf of the ACF for the Australian Championships/Open. Yes, there is value in the idea - mistakes will not be repeated as there would be a substantially similar organising team each time who could learn from any mistakes made at an event ... however there does not seem to be the manpower available to do it. A further complication is that in order to get someone to take on the role, some sort of remuneration might need to be offered ... but where is this to come from? The ACF is hardly flush with funds, and although the rating fees bring in enough to cover the day-to-day expenses of the ACF, it would seem to be insufficient to support a fee in the $1000s to pay a tournament organiser.

Should the rating fee be increased to cover this cost? What about the entry fees for the Australian Championships/Open? Reduce the prize fund? Another idea? Or does this idea have no merit at all?

Libby
31-01-2005, 01:31 PM
With regards to the brochures being excessive, Libby, with a $20, 000 budget available that was only available for printing it seemed prudent to try and provide information in a professional, attractive manner to players.

Up to a point, I agree. I wasn't going to post back on all of this because there's nothing worse than an outsider saying how they would have done it - after the event.

Why did I state the brochures were ridiculous & excessive? Because we threw so many away and because we received steady feedback that people were not finding useful information in them - in the ACT anyway. I understand 10,000 were printed. Was that for each event (Open & Juniors) or altogether? Either way, 10000 (or 20000) booklets generated about 250 entries. Given your chess audience is a captive one (playing at established clubs or linked to established organisations) it wasn't like you needed to drop them in mailboxes to encourage the broader public to attend.

Please don't take this personally. I'm not posting this to criticise what you did, under time constraints and with other priorities (quite rightly) in your life. This is what I think might be more effective if we find ourselves here in future and with a bit of a bucketload of money set aside for this purpose.

If we are short of time, and have to get something out quickly, produce a single page document covering all your basic event info with weblinks etc. We are used to this with the Juniors. More money may mean you can produce that in a glossy, pamphlet style. It would incorporate your entry form. Simple & inexpensive and perhaps you want to have 10000 so they can be at every event and every club in the leadup. They could also be downloaded from the website.

Once you have your basic info out there, or if you have more time to produce something, then look at what people were expecting of the 2004 booklet. Not just the timetable of events and prizemoney, but where to stay (even if it is only the sponsor's accommodation), where to eat, what's on. In Mt Buller you could have done some of what ended up in my booklet like menus, cinema sessions, bushwalks, local places of interest etc. Sold the whole Mt Buller experience to sell the event. This could have been supplied AFTER the original "flyer."

With a big printing budget, the booklet could have incorporated a scorepad in the back, giving players an incentive to retain it. Or even just somewhere to store their scoresheets to provide an incentive for people to keep it as a memento of the event. (Can sell potential advertising space on that basis as it is not a "throw-away" item). Kids like stuff like that (like T-shirts etc). Even just a page for them to record their opponents & results. It may all seem a bit "twee" but some people value that kind of stuff cluttering up their homes.


I thought I addressed your social events concerns somewhat when I was available, by working with and making Alex accountable for this. I thought Alex made some good inroads here, in combination with your excellent efforts on the brochure.

Kind Regards,
Andrew

Yes you did, and the hire of the Sports Hall was great, as was the assistance to get Kerry L's Trivia night idea up and running. My problem is not with what you did in January.

My problem is with the promises made and not kept. My problem is that I felt our committee ranked the sponsor ahead of their constituency in negotiations over silly things like the pool. And using the pool as an example, it was always immensely silly. The pool was managed by The LaTrobe Uni and they advertise it for use by their students (who do not stay at the Mercure). So why didn't our own people want to negotiate on our behalf? Why was it - that's the way the sponsor wants it, so that's the way it will be?

Don't get me wrong. Sponsors are there to be buttered up. But there are ways to do the buttering that don't have to mean negotiating away benefits for your own people.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 02:11 PM
One of the major criticisms I heard about the brouches was they had no accomodation information or contact numbers whatsoever, not even for the Mercure.

On that basis it appears the organisers wanted the players to organise their own accomodation and stay where they liked. As such it is a bit rich for the organisers to then criticise people for not staying at the Mercure.

If they wanted people to consider the Mercure first and formost then they should have put accommodation and contact information in the brouchre.

adelandre
31-01-2005, 04:44 PM
I must admit I never took the pool under my wing, and found it hard to visualise the venue early on as i had not made the trip up there (due to uni commitments) unlike kerry, goerge and garvin. I do agree it should have been addressed much better, and social issues should have been considered earlier. I do believe cancelling the final night party was unacceptable.

It must be hard for me to convey my tone on here, as I am not upset/concerned at your remarks in any way, I am just stating my slant on things when I deem necessary. I agree that the entry brochure should have had more information on social events, and in the future this should definately be included. Unlike for events in capital cities, this is even more critical for Mt Buller. I did not consider this in as much detail at the time.

With regards to the inclusion of accomodation details in the brochure, George informed me that the Mercure Grand Chalet would be providing detailed information on their accomodation in a flyer/brochure that would be sent our with our entry brouchure. I believe unless George removed it in the final edit that I even referred to it in the brochure. I was quite amazed when this did not occur, and somewhat frustrated. A breakdown of communication or something, I assume.

There were contact details for George, Garvin and Kerry as relavant including email and phone in the brochures.

Kind Regards, Andrew Saint

Libby
31-01-2005, 05:15 PM
It must be hard for me to convey my tone on here, as I am not upset/concerned at your remarks in any way, I am just stating my slant on things when I deem necesary.

No, probably not hard to convey your tone. Strangely enough ;) , I have been viewed as opinionated, belligerent and prone to over-estimating the importance of my own opinion (feel free to butt in here to contradict me :) ).

I'm a bit sensitive to being a non-player (ie knows nothing about chess), a parent (prone to hysteria and advocating anything to benefit my own child), female (something of a minority and someone people don't seem to quite know how to read) and inexperienced myself - I have run a multitude of junior events but nothing on the "big ticket" list.

So I toss and turn - to post or not to post - mostly I can't resist the urge to share my opinion. Of course I know best :P . I can be a stirrer. I can be a rude, angry cow. But mostly with Mt Buller, I set out to help and developed a level of paranoia (see description previous paragraph) as a consequence of the only responses I received at the time. If I actually felt there was support for my position (outside those who had a reason - on a personal level - to be nice to me), I would have turned up. I might still have spat the dummy on occasion, but I would still have been trying to help.

Thunderspirit
31-01-2005, 06:19 PM
After being on the hill for the full month, I think that I am reasonably qualified to talk about the pros and cons of this event.

Sadly I have to say the Mt Buller festival was the most poorly organised chess event I have ever been involved with, which made the month a very difficult, and unless there are major changes I won't be close to Mt Buller in 2 years time.

I'm sure this post with sound a little personal, but I try and be as fair as possible.

George: George is a great guy, but his greatest failure was that he failed to ask anyone for advice to assist him in how the event should be run. True he asked Ian and Cathy Rogers for advice but here's a short list of people I would ask.

Ian and Cathy Rogers, Gary Bekker, Manuel Weeks, Shaun Press, Brian Jones, The team from the 1999 Sunshine Coast Open, Gary Westell, Graeme Gardiner, Andrew Greenwood and Jason Lyons are just a few....

There are of course other people that could have helped, but these people in Ozzie chess have been helpful, and though I believe I could do an Ok job these people would be essential help lines, as THEY HAVE DONE IT BEFORE!

Garvin: Garvin liked George worked hard, and but in a good effort, but made the fatal mistake of an organiser trying to help out in roles that aren't his responsibility. Though I've been an arbiter for ages, I don't think that compared to a lot of other DOP's that I'm all that good, but I do know a little, Garvin there were a few times during the event you made decisions that should have been left for the DOP team. By trying to assist us (though appricated) you annoy the players invloved, as well some of the DOP team.

Another frustrating element of the event was there was nothing to do... There were only really two places to eat at night, being the Mecure and Alberg, and though both had good food, more variety, at varying prices was necessary as budget concerns fo some players/families was noticed.

Going back to the nothing to do.... What did the organisers expect players/parents to do at night... Go out.... where! The movies were on rarely, and other than socialising with other players there was nothing to do.

Shopping: To be to George, I didn't have any shopping problems. George suppled a ton of food including for me lot of vegan stuff, which I must thank George for. But if you had a family, or were part of a squad than going to Manfield, or even ordering stuff isn't so good.

Another element of the tournament that was completely unaccpetable was the lack of Australian IM's and how there were treated. George claimed they were all 'Prima Donnas' which is complete rubbish. All they need is a little assistance. With 3 mths notice and $500 each, there could have been 6-8 Ozzie IM's we don't need to import them from over seas. The fact that Smurf turned up, was just good luck for the event.

Cat
31-01-2005, 08:52 PM
Unfortunately, there should be some recognition from the chess playing community, as a whole, that this sort of mentality in Australian Chess has been operating for years. We simply do not focus on building an organisation that has the correct checks and balances in its systemic approach to its product.
Instead, the ACF behave like a perennial wallflower, who waits every year for the right dance offer, desperate to impress but not confident in their own abilities.




Seconded.

Right now there's a serious risk that Australian Chess will implode under the weight of criticism. I would suggest we stop the feeding frenzy and cool off for a while. Unneccesary wounds are being exposed in a way that can serve no purpose other than to assuage the frustration of what is after all, a one of event. Old wounds run deep and if we're not careful we'll create a lot of damage.

Fg7's right, it's time for the ACF to assert itself, develop a longterm strategy & to restructure. Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan. I think we all see now the consequences of that rejection and Australian Chess must learn from that mistake!

Garvinator
31-01-2005, 08:58 PM
Fg7's right, it's time for the ACF to assert itself, develop a longterm strategy & to restructure. Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan. I think we all see now the consequences of that rejection and Australian Chess must learn from that mistake!
one of the acf's biggest weaknesses is that it is a federation of states and no state wants to give up their slice of a small pie. Something I have also noticed is that states and individuals/clubs would rather have 20% of a small pie instead of 10% of a much larger pie. :wall:

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 09:29 PM
Fg7's right, it's time for the ACF to assert itself, develop a longterm strategy & to restructure. Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan.
Dont try putting words into Denis's mouth.
The only thing Denis was referring to was the failure of his motions to create a position of a Junior Chess Coordinator and a Coordinator for Adult Chess.

Cat
31-01-2005, 09:32 PM
Dont try putting words into Denis's mouth.


I sense this is a sensitive subject Bill! I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, Dennis was speaking for himself.

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 09:34 PM
I sense this is a sensitive subject Bill! I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth, Dennis was speaking for himself.
Yes, he was but you are twisting his words.
I know because he and I discussed it.

Cat
31-01-2005, 09:42 PM
Yes, he was but you are twisting his words.
I know because he and I discussed it.

Ah so now you're putting words in his mouth! Dennis posted clearly Bill and there was obviously a sense of disappointment in his narrative. The question is, who were the lemons that voted against it?

shaun
31-01-2005, 09:52 PM
Seconded.

Right now there's a serious risk that Australian Chess will implode under the weight of criticism. I would suggest we stop the feeding frenzy and cool off for a while. Unneccesary wounds are being exposed in a way that can serve no purpose other than to assuage the frustration of what is after all, a one of event. Old wounds run deep and if we're not careful we'll create a lot of damage.


I don't think the ACF is likely to implode over the criticism of Mt Buller, especially as a number of key figures in the ACF have already moved to put distance between themselves and the organisers. In fact the ACF council meeting at Mt Buller had a reasonably contentious debate on who would be on the Mercure sponsorship sub-committee, with the initial make up of the committee not including any of the key decision makers from this years event, and only after a long debate was this changed.
I think the ACF, in its post-election make up, fully realise that mistakes were made and will take active steps not to repeat them.



Fg7's right, it's time for the ACF to assert itself, develop a longterm strategy & to restructure. Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan. I think we all see now the consequences of that rejection and Australian Chess must learn from that mistake!

While David is right in what he says, the ACF have now had a couple of attempts to restructure itself into a more effective structure over the last 15 or so years, but it seems as though the states are running a roster system to see who can oppose it each year. It had been QLD and WA previously, now it is NSW's turn. Garvins observation on this is probably as good a summation as any.
And having discussed the matter with Denis on a number of occasions, the statement "Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan." is a true one, even if he only signalled his disapointment to me.

Cat
31-01-2005, 10:07 PM
I don't think the ACF is likely to implode over the criticism of Mt Buller, especially as a number of key figures in the ACF have already moved to put distance between themselves and the organisers. In fact the ACF council meeting at Mt Buller had a reasonably contentious debate on who would be on the Mercure sponsorship sub-committee, with the initial make up of the committee not including any of the key decision makers from this years event, and only after a long debate was this changed.
I think the ACF, in its post-election make up, fully realise that mistakes were made and will take active steps not to repeat them.



While David is right in what he says, the ACF have now had a couple of attempts to restructure itself into a more effective structure over the last 15 or so years, but it seems as though the states are running a roster system to see who can oppose it each year. It had been QLD and WA previously, now it is NSW's turn. Garvins observation on this is probably as good a summation as any.
And having discussed the matter with Denis on a number of occasions, the statement "Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan." is a true one, even if he only signalled his disapointment to me.

Thanks for the clarification Shaun.

Denis_Jessop
31-01-2005, 10:22 PM
From David Richards: Fg7's right, it's time for the ACF to assert itself, develop a longterm strategy & to restructure. Dennis has already signalled he was disappointed by the rejection of last years restructuring plan. I think we all see now the consequences of that rejection and Australian Chess must learn from that mistake!



Dont try putting words into Denis's mouth.
The only thing Denis was referring to was the failure of his motions to create a position of a Junior Chess Coordinator and a Coordinator for Adult Chess.


I think you are both right on this.

I was certainly disappointed by the failure to get any support for my two coordinator motions though this is now in part assuaged by the establishment of the Junior Chess Subcommittee which, if it works well, may prove to be the single most important ACF initiative in recent years.

I was also disappointed by the defeat of the restructuring proposals, having strongly supported them as well as putting a lot of work into drafting them. Where I probably differ from David is in the effect of their defeat. It is this aspect that I discussed with Bill on the phone recently

The proposals were only for the restructuring of the ACF's day-to-day administering body, the Council. They would have converted it to a fully-elected Commission instead of a body with an elected Executive and appointed State delegates.

What they would not have done was to alter the ACF's basic constitutional functions and powers. In practice the position of the ACF in Australian chess would have been unaltered. The ACF now relies heavily on the States to provide personnel to run ACF events and there are just not enough administrators to duplicate functions. Moreover, were the ACF ever to contemplate the running of Australian chess from the grass roots level to the top, a fundamental revolution would be required such as the conversion of the State Associations to ACF Branches subject to ACF control. It doesn't take much imagination to realise how impossible that would be to achieve now or in the near future, even were it thought to be a desirable outcome, bearing in mind the defeat of the modest restructuring proposal and, in the more distant past, proposals for a new constitution and a national membership scheme.

I think that the ACF's immediate future goals should be to maximise the efficiency of its present structure, and, in so doing, minimise divisive arguments about States' rights, and then to evolve from there. This is not necessarily consistent with my usual approach to problems of this kind but I feel that it is a more realistic approach to achieving some progress in the prevailing conditions.

Denis Jessop

Cat
31-01-2005, 10:28 PM
I think that the ACF's immediate future goals should be to maximise the efficiency of its present structure, and, in so doing, minimise divisive arguments about States' rights, and then to evolve from there. This is not necessarily consistent with my usual approach to problems of this kind but I feel that it is a more realistic approach to achieving some progress in the prevailing conditions.

Denis Jessop

Good luck Dennis, nice piece!

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 10:46 PM
The ACF Commission would not have avoided the problem of Mt. Buller.

However my complaint with David is that much earlier in another thread he said regarding Denis that

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.

It was always clear that the centralised control of Australian Chess was never a goal of the ACF Commission as the Commission did nothing about the ACF's powers, just the Council structure.

David then provided the following quote of Denis's to support his claim.

As for its being the ACF's responsibility to bring more adults into chess or to see that ex-juniors keep on playing, I'm not so sure. Though favouring an active role for the ACF in such matters, I see the rejection of the ACF Commission proposal, which I supported, and the failure of anyone to second my proposals for Chess Co-ordinators at the April Council meeting as indicators that the prevailing view is for the ACF to stick to things that are National in character in that they are better, or necessarily, to be done by the ACF than by the States.

Although Denis laments the failure of the Commission proposal it is quite clear from his post that he was not suggesting to give the ACF wider powers.

At the time Denis mentioned the failure of the Co-ordinator roles he should have mentioned the formation of the ACF Junior Subcommittee which was I believe unanimously supported.

Cat
31-01-2005, 10:52 PM
The ACF Commission would not have avoided the problem of Mt. Buller.

However my complaint with David is that much earlier in another thread he said regarding Denis that


It was always clear that the centralised control of Australian Chess was never a goal of the ACF Commission as the Commission did nothing about the ACF's powers, just the Council structure.

David then provided the following quote of Denis's to support his claim.


Although Denis laments the failure of the Commission proposal it is quite clear from his post that he was not suggesting to give the ACF wider powers.

At the time Denis mentioned the failure of the Co-ordinator roles he should have mentioned the formation of the ACF Junior Subcommittee which was I believe unanimously supported.


Don't tell me, let me guess - you were one of the lemons? Am I right, or am I right?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 10:59 PM
Don't tell me, let me guess - you were one of the lemons? Am I right, or am I right?
As you are aware from Denis's post the Co-ordinator role motions failed to get a seconder.
As such no vote was taken.

As for the ACF Commission it is well documented that NSW voted unanimously against it along with two of the VIC delegates.

Cat
31-01-2005, 11:08 PM
As you are aware from Denis's post the Co-ordinator role motions failed to get a seconder.
As such no vote was taken.

As for the ACF Commission it is well documented that NSW voted unanimously against it along with two of the VIC delegates.


Lemon!

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 11:16 PM
Lemon!
Unlike you who represent no one, NSW discussed the ACF Commission proposal at its AGM at the time, informed the members that they intended to vote against it and voted accordingly.

Cat
31-01-2005, 11:19 PM
Unlike you who represent no one, NSW discussed the ACF Commission proposal at its AGM at the time, informed the members that they intended to vote against it and voted accordingly.

Ah, so you weren't the only lemon, there was a whole bunch of lemons and you were just fitting in with the other lemons?

Bill Gletsos
31-01-2005, 11:23 PM
Ah, so you weren't the only lemon, there was a whole bunch of lemons and you were just fitting in with the other lemons?
All you are doing is once again demonstrating what a complete goose you are.
As usual you are a waste of space.

Ring-A-Rosie
01-02-2005, 05:06 PM
Why is there such a small amount of information about the finances of the event. Even GG seems not to know what happened.

This is particularly concerning as Mt Buller Chess, the supposed organisation which ran the event is an Incorporated Association (check SA Consumer Affairs or ASIC websites). That means it MUST be a not-for-profit organisation. It must have members, a consittution, financial statements, voting to decide matters..... So how do you become a member of this organisation? Were the organisers members? Who's the secretary, president, treasurer, public officer? Where are the audited financial statements? Or is it all a farce....

Did the ACF ever get a tournament report? Did they get any money from the Mt Buller Chess? Did the juniors get their $4000, or more because there were more entries than expected?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 05:09 PM
Did the ACF ever get a tournament report? Did they get any money from the Mt Buller Chess? Did the juniors get their $4000, or more because there were more entries than expected?
As was explained elsewhere as is the usual case no tournament report is required until the next ACF meeting in March.

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 05:12 PM
As was explained elsewhere as is the usual case no tournament report is required until the next ACF meeting in March.
What happens if the tournament report is not to the level of detail that the acf requires/would like?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 05:23 PM
What happens if the tournament report is not to the level of detail that the acf requires/would like?
Simple. We will ask for a clarification or if necessary additional details.

ursogr8
02-02-2005, 08:02 AM
Libby,
<snip>
I admit it was refreshling to see the teams from interstate working and bonding as a team. I was very jealous, but admiring as well. What can I do in Victoria? so much petty vying for money and position. I may even withdraw my kid from a club because it seems to be run by a coach and not the organisation I thought.

As a result, many Vic juniors are left with no real support from a club and the competition seems to be more about the coaches than the kids.
I think I may have just stuck my neck out, but I guess it had to be said. I will probably be shot down in flames...which will underline the problem.

<snip>



n i

I presume you have posted this observation that a coach is running a Club, not the organisers, with the intention of encouraging some change to occur?
Please post details here or PM (me) with the name of the Club and/or the coach.


starter

Mischa
02-02-2005, 09:00 AM
Sent a pm to you starter.

ursogr8
02-02-2005, 10:58 AM
Sent a pm to you starter.

Thanks n. i.

I agree, not a Club issue.
More akin to what you noted as the terrific bonding in some States; but in this case the group is not a State social group.

regards
starter

AES
04-02-2005, 08:50 PM
Why is there such a small amount of information about the finances of the event. Even GG seems not to know what happened.

This is particularly concerning as Mt Buller Chess, the supposed organisation which ran the event is an Incorporated Association (check SA Consumer Affairs or ASIC websites). That means it MUST be a not-for-profit organisation. It must have members, a consittution, financial statements, voting to decide matters..... So how do you become a member of this organisation? Were the organisers members? Who's the secretary, president, treasurer, public officer? Where are the audited financial statements? Or is it all a farce....

Did the ACF ever get a tournament report? Did they get any money from the Mt Buller Chess? Did the juniors get their $4000, or more because there were more entries than expected?

Hi Ring-a-rosie,

I am the secretary of Mt Buller chess. I am not sure about audited financial statements. George was in charge of all that. Did you want me to send him an email on it?

Cheers,
Alex Saint.

AES
04-02-2005, 08:57 PM
I have just sent him an email.