PDA

View Full Version : Mt Buller - Chess World letter to ACF



ChessGuru
30-06-2004, 06:54 PM
Australian Championship Events

30 June 2004
Dear Australian Chess Federation,

I write here to officially update you on the situation with the events that Chess World is organising on behalf of Chess Victoria. These are the events awarded by the ACF Council in January to Chess Victoria and for which final details were approved by email vote around the end of May. They are:
• 2005 Australian Open Chess Championships
• 2005 Australian Junior Chess Championships
• 2004 Australian Schools Finals

Chess Victoria, in turn, came to an arrangement with Chess World whereby the above events would be run without any financial burden on Chess Victoria. Let me state clearly that this is an obligation which Chess World still intends to fulfil. I look forward to re-confirming Chess World and Chess Victoria’s arrangement in respect of the tournaments at the new venues.

There has been much debate about the Championship Events being run in the slightly inaccessible location of Mt Buller. Concerns were raised regarding the opportunities for social and non-chess activity for the duration of the event, transport to and from the venue and concerns were expressed that due to the remote nature of the venue players would be financially taken advantage of by monopolised accommodation and food providers.

Efforts have been made to address these concerns in the approved venue at Mt Buller, however after prolonged negotiations Chess Victoria has chosen to reject the offer that the Mt Buller Chalet had on the table and pursue alternative arrangements rather than continue the negotiation process. This is due to a number of benefits being removed from offer and the advent of a previously unmentioned $28,000 cost for our preferred venue (ABOM restaurant).

Please understand that this decision by Chess Victoria’s Event Organising Committee was taken with the best interest of Australian Chess at heart and because we felt that the alternative arrangements and venue was going to make for a more successful Australia Championship series in 2004/2005.

I attach for your perusal the offer which CV chose to reject. I also attach an offer which is still valid (but with which Chess Victoria will not get involved); the management at The Mercure Grand Chalet at Mt Buller would be happy to go ahead if the ACF feels that this is a proposition more suitable than the Melbourne based options.

As such Chess Victoria requests that the ACF accept an amendment to the current standing version of the “Authority to Conduct an Australian Chess Championship” document. Details included are as requested under By-Laws for ACF Tournaments section 19, 20 and 23.
• That the venue for the Australian Open Championships be changed to read “Glen Eira Town Hall, corner of Hawthorn and Glen Eira Rds, Caulfield.”
• That the venue for the Australian Junior Championships be changed to read “Brighton Grammar School (Junior School), Grosvenor St, Brighton.”

Both these venues are more than suitable for the purposes of the Championships with the venue for the Junior Championships having access to swimming pool, tennis courts, playgrounds, sports equipment and canteen facilities all within the school grounds.

It is intended that all other details of the events, such as dates, prize-fund, appearance of GMs, time controls, schedule, entry fees and so forth, remain unchanged. I believe this move will result in a far more successful event than previously anticipated, being located in the easily accessible South-Eastern Suburbs of Melbourne.

We know from past approval motions that details of this event are satisfactory to the ACF. We are simply requesting that a more suitable venue be appointed and hope that this adds to the strength of our event organisation.

We request that this recommended change in venue be approved at the July 12 Council meeting so entry forms can be printed and distributed as quickly as possible. I am happy to attend the ACF Executive Meeting to discuss this further if you feel necessary.

I look forward to an even more successful event than anticipated.

Many thanks,



David Cordover
Chairman CV Committee,
Australian Championship Events

PS. Some concern has been expressed about the late change in venue and the possibility of individuals having booked accommodation or transport to Mt Buller. I request that the ACF make public the following statement:

“Due to the late notice provided in the change of venue for the Australian Open and Australian Junior Chess Championships, Chess World (at their sole discretion) will provide compensation to any person who is able to provide, in writing, evidence to the effect that a non-refundable deposit or other financial cost has been incurred by the change made at this time.”

Note that this is valid only if the ACF approves the venue change as requested in this letter.




TO: Australian Chess Federation

FROM: Mercure Grand Chalet Mt Buller

OFFER REJECTED BY CHESS VICTORIA
Mercure Grand Chalet will provide:
• Use of all spaces and all facilities at the Mercure Grand Chalet free of charge*
• Accommodation at the Chalet at $90 per room per night including full breakfast. The Chess Federation is required to book 58 rooms per day for the duration of the event (26 nights minimum).
o This will allow the organising committee to on-sell rooms at $120-$130 per night and retain the difference.
• 4 free hotel rooms at the Chalet for the duration of the events
• Free use of Heli House lodge, inclusive of cleaning, (17 beds)
• Use of other Lodge accommodation at $25 per bed per night
• Use of photocopy and internet facilities free of charge
• Free tea and coffee (urns only) for all participants at all events
• Pay $10,000 fee to Chess World on provision of monthly reports
• Hotel vouchers as prizes, to the value of $10,000 minimum.
• No additional hidden costs for any aspect of the events
• Printing of tournament program from Independent Distillers

OFFER ON THE TABLE**
Mercure Grand Chalet will provide:
• Use of all spaces and all facilities at the Mercure Grand Chalet free of charge*
• Accommodation at the Chalet at $90 per room per night including full breakfast.
o This will allow the organising committee to on-sell rooms at $120-$130 per night and retain the difference.
• 4 free hotel rooms at the Chalet for the duration of the events
• Free use of Heli House lodge, inclusive of cleaning, (17 beds)
• Use of other Lodge accommodation at $25 per bed per night
• Use of photocopy and internet facilities free of charge
• Free tea and coffee (urns only) for all participants at all events
• Pay $10,000 fee to Chess World on provision of monthly reports
• No additional hidden costs for any aspect of the events
• Printing of tournament program from Independent Distillers

*Note that it is possible to run a 140 player event within the Mercure facilities, however the ABOM was our preferred option (being easily able to accommodate 300 players).
**Note the only difference is that the Chess Federation is not required to book any minimum number of rooms at the hotel. I have also removed the offer of $10,000 in voucher prizes because I am unconfident that they would remain on offer for long.

jenni
30-06-2004, 07:56 PM
I am more than happy with a school in Melbourne, for the Juniors, but could I have some clarification on what is happening with the ASCC?

ursogr8
30-06-2004, 08:53 PM
Australian Championship Events


Efforts have been made to address these concerns in the approved venue at Mt Buller, however after prolonged negotiations Chess Victoria has chosen to reject the offer that the Mt Buller Chalet had on the table and pursue alternative arrangements rather than continue the negotiation process. This is due to a number of benefits being removed from offer and the advent of a previously unmentioned $28,000 cost for our preferred venue (ABOM restaurant).


Many thanks,



David Cordover
Chairman CV Committee,
Australian Championship Events



Thanks David for taking the time to make an in-detail report; which I read with interest. One part caught my eye......see quote.

How does it occur so late in the cycle of > initial negotiations >> proposal to CV >>> proposal to ACF >>>> advertising >>>>> early accomodation bookings >>>>>> engagement of GMs; that there is an previously unmentioned $28,000 cost . Dave this is a big amount. And to be apparent only so late. It erodes the chess communities view of someones competence or process. Can you give us more detail on this point.

It is a scarce talent to be able to stitch up one of these deals and you are one of the few to have a go on this magnitude. But $28,000! That is some late undisclosed item. Care to comment.

starter

peanbrain
01-07-2004, 12:00 AM
After two months away from this BB what do I see?! Another fxxx up by my friend the so called guru!

After all the hype of "biggest ever" event at Mt Buller we now end up with egg on the face and the guru is still trying to spin his "alternative" bid!!

Based on what we've seen so far I will go with Mr Parr's bid any day. :clap:

As for the guru, pigs will fly before he gets his act together. I hope the ACF is not so stupid to accept any bid from a guy who has history of delivering hot air!! :wall:

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2004, 01:47 AM
How does it occur so late in the cycle of > initial negotiations >> proposal to CV >>> proposal to ACF >>>> advertising >>>>> early accomodation bookings >>>>>> engagement of GMs; that there is an previously unmentioned $28,000 cost . Dave this is a big amount. And to be apparent only so late. It erodes the chess communities view of someones competence or process. Can you give us more detail on this point.

Indeed. And there was also this from 12 Jan 2004 in answer to my question about whether the event was definite:


Kevin – arrangements are clad in the finest glistening iron. Sponsorship is guaranteed, venue is definite. Should anything happen I’ll sue their pants off.

Let's just hope that ChessGuru is better at litigation than metallurgy. :hmm:

And as for this:


Note that this is valid only if the ACF approves the venue change as requested in this letter.

Not good enough. :hand:

arosar
01-07-2004, 09:19 AM
We'll have to rename Mt Buller as Mt B***s***

AR

ChessGuru
01-07-2004, 10:45 AM
KEVIN: I am happy to compensate anyone who has lost money because of a change of venue from Mt Buller to Melbourne, because that is my choice. I am not prepared to compensate people if the ACF makes a decision to shift the event to Sydney in August. I am prepared to be fully responsible for my own decisions, but cannot be held responsible for decisions made by others.

If it is not good enough then why don't you take up the reigns and organise the event at Mt Buller. You still have a FREE venue and a $10K management fee?

STARTER: This might be an issue of confusion amongst many people. We still have a FREE venue at the hotel. Our preffered venue was ABOM (a restaurant not far from the hotel). If I had run the other Mind Sports events (as planned) then the hotel ONLY would be unacceptable as there is only facility for 140 players in their main playing area. And in that consideration we would require ABOM. When he told me of the additional cost I immediately responded by cancelling the Mind Sports events (other than chess).

I am equally as surprised as you by the cost, and yes it is a large extra cost, but most of the CV executive had at some stage been up to Mt Buller and heard the same story from the management there, and there was never a mention of cost for the ABOM. I am sure that GW, myself and perhaps others asked SPECIFICALLY if it would be free and the answer was always YES until about 3 weeks ago.

So you see, the original offer from MT Buller still exists in some form, we do have a FREE venue which is suitable enough and we have some sponsorship and a management fee. So someone could if they wanted (BHCC?) take up the offer and run a Mt Buller event. Personally I wouldn't because I don't trust the management and I have made a decision, and recommended to CV and to the ACF, that we re-locate the events because they will be BETTER events in Melbourne.

The original reason for having events in Buller was that although we sacrifice some number of players (due to cost and accessibility) we would compensate ourselves with a relationship with Accor Hotel Chain which was going to be a long-term benefit for Australian Chess. Now it appears that this long-term relationship talk was just rubbish and there seems little advantage to having the events in Buller.

This is now up to the ACF to decide. If they are SO STRONGLY of the view that Mt Buller is the ideal location then they can run it up there and i will pass-on the full-deal to them. If not, then they will accept my recommendation to re-locate the event to Melbourne.

ChessGuru
01-07-2004, 10:53 AM
I believe this is about Power and the Responsibiltiy which goes with that power.

The ACF wishes to have full control over the Aus Champ events. That means they can dictate time-controls, entry fees etc. With this POWER they have also a RESPONSIBILITY to make other decisions.

This decision facing them now is not an easy one, and wasn't for me either. However the ACF has to take some responsibility and make the hard decision and take full responsibilty for that decision.

So, ACF is it a) or b) or is there another option c)?

a) Mt Buller - going against my and CV recommendations.

b) Accept my recommendation for a change of venue and run the events in Melbourne.

c) Any other option the ACF can dream up.


KEVIN: How would suing anyone help? If I win (and it will take years to complete the case) then how does that help run the 2005 Aus Open? We do not live in America, we don't have to sue people, we need to make the best of what we have and forget about what we cannot change.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 11:16 AM
KEVIN: How would suing anyone help? If I win (and it will take years to complete the case) then how does that help run the 2005 Aus Open? We do not live in America, we don't have to sue people, we need to make the best of what we have and forget about what we cannot change.
sometimes it is better to give the ppl responsible at mt buller bad publicity in regards to events than to take to the courts.

ursogr8
01-07-2004, 11:37 AM
STARTER: This might be an issue of confusion amongst many people. We still have a FREE venue at the hotel. Our preffered venue was ABOM (a restaurant not far from the hotel). If I had run the other Mind Sports events (as planned) then the hotel ONLY would be unacceptable as there is only facility for 140 players in their main playing area. And in that consideration we would require ABOM. When he told me of the additional cost I immediately responded by cancelling the Mind Sports events (other than chess).

I am equally as surprised as you by the cost, and yes it is a large extra cost, but most of the CV executive had at some stage been up to Mt Buller and heard the same story from the management there, and there was never a mention of cost for the ABOM. I am sure that GW, myself and perhaps others asked SPECIFICALLY if it would be free and the answer was always YES until about 3 weeks ago.

So you see, the original offer from MT Buller still exists in some form, we do have a FREE venue which is suitable enough and we have some sponsorship and a management fee. So someone could if they wanted (BHCC?) take up the offer and run a Mt Buller event. Personally I wouldn't because I don't trust the management and I have made a decision, and recommended to CV and to the ACF, that we re-locate the events because they will be BETTER events in Melbourne.

The original reason for having events in Buller was that although we sacrifice some number of players (due to cost and accessibility) we would compensate ourselves with a relationship with Accor Hotel Chain which was going to be a long-term benefit for Australian Chess. Now it appears that this long-term relationship talk was just rubbish and there seems little advantage to having the events in Buller.



CG
Thanks for ths response. It does help us see where the sticking point lies and how it emerged. And yes I do know that aspects can emerge late and upset the best plans.
In my view it is better to clear the air and know the true culprit rather than allow speculation, and consequent harm to reputation.
That is why I asked the question.
starter

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 11:44 AM
I believe this is about Power and the Responsibiltiy which goes with that power.

The ACF wishes to have full control over the Aus Champ events. That means they can dictate time-controls, entry fees etc. With this POWER they have also a RESPONSIBILITY to make other decisions.

This decision facing them now is not an easy one, and wasn't for me either. However the ACF has to take some responsibility and make the hard decision and take full responsibilty for that decision.

So, ACF is it a) or b) or is there another option c)?

a) Mt Buller - going against my and CV recommendations.

b) Accept my recommendation for a change of venue and run the events in Melbourne.

c) Any other option the ACF can dream up.
I seriously doubt a) would be a choice unless there is more to the story than you are letting on.
You havent responded to Jenni's query re the ASCC. So what is CV's recommendation regarding that.
With regards c) a likely option would to be to ask for new bids.


KEVIN: How would suing anyone help? If I win (and it will take years to complete the case) then how does that help run the 2005 Aus Open?
If this is your attitude then it just makes your original statement to sue their pants off look like grandstanding rhetoric.

Oepty
01-07-2004, 12:07 PM
David. A few questions about the free deal with the ABOM. Did you ever have this deal on paper, with signatures from both sides. It would seem to be a little irresponsible to go so far without getting it totally sercured. I would have though that this would have been done before you put the bid in or a time limit be put for it to be sercured or ACF approval is withdrawn. 1st of Febuary or there abouts would have seemed a good date to me.
I also think you should refund the money any people have lost due to the change of venue whether your alternative venue is accepted or not.
Also what have the overseas GM's said about the change of venue? Are they still coming if the alternatative venue is accepted? This to me was the best part of the tournament at Mt Buller.

Scott Colliver

P.S. I am involved with Alan Goldsmith Knights and Bytes business which is a competitor to Chess Kids in Adelaide.

arosar
01-07-2004, 12:40 PM
CG
Thanks for ths response. It does help us see where the sticking point lies and how it emerged. And yes I do know that aspects can emerge late and upset the best plans.
In my view it is better to clear the air and know the true culprit rather than allow speculation, and consequent harm to reputation.
That is why I asked the question.
starter

[deleted] What 'culprit'? You're being too kind mate. All we have is one end of a bloody yarn!

AR

arosar
01-07-2004, 12:55 PM
KEVIN: I am happy to compensate anyone who has lost money because of a change of venue from Mt Buller to Melbourne, because that is my choice. I am not prepared to compensate people if the ACF makes a decision to shift the event to Sydney in August. I am prepared to be fully responsible for my own decisions, but cannot be held responsible for decisions made by others.

HELLO!! Dinga-a-ling ding. Sirens all around please...you were THE MAN....you negotiated the deal. You cop it sonny! The ACF was subject to your [in]competence.

Well done for 'avin' a go mate. But fair dinkum, I reckon we've just just had about a gutful of this mountainous b***s***.

AR

Candy-Cane
01-07-2004, 01:54 PM
How much is accommodation going to cost for the Australian Junior at the school?

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 02:08 PM
HELLO!! Dinga-a-ling ding. Sirens all around please...you were THE MAN....you negotiated the deal. You cop it sonny! The ACF was subject to your [in]competence.

Well done for 'avin' a go mate. But fair dinkum, I reckon we've just just had about a gutful of this mountainous bull.schit.

AR
AR,
The GURU was the main organiser for Mt. Buller and as I understand it was pretty much carte blanche by CV on how to handle things.
However remember that the ACF awarded the events to CV not to the GURU.
Therefore it should not be automatically assumed even by the GURU that if the rights to the events remains with CV that he (the GURU) will still be the main organiser.

firegoat7
01-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Hello Everyone,


It seems to me that this particular thread has all the intrigue normally associated with Australian Chess. State versus Federal politics, Individuals versus Collectives, Private versus Public, Market regulation versus Goverment regulation. Add in a fair dose of morality, ethics, feelings, ego, competition and productivity. Yes my friends all the ingrediants are there!

As it stands the Australian Open cake appears half baked at the very least. It appears on the surface that Mr Cheeseguru, the effervescent upwardly mobile boy from the burbs, has left the oven on high without reading the appropriate instructions from the pre-frozen Australian Chess scene.

Instead of a well baked Cheesecake from guru boy we have a half baked fruitcake. Alas such is life! But do not worry avid chessplayers at least he gave it a go!

What absolute poppycock

The real issue is quite simply this....who becomes accountable when the Australian Open falls over? Quite simply THE ACF. Regardless of who runs the event it is the ACF who must ensure that the event is run bi-annually. Hence the problem with trusting individuals (despite their good intentions)- without proper governmental feedback.

So again, my berated friends, I will leave you with a few choice words of what is wrong with Australian Chess. THE STRUCTURES WE HAVE IN PLACE ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS OVERHAUL.We ( Oz Chess) have not learnt that we are applying 1930 philosophies to 22nd century problems.

Victoria, If I may be so bold to predict is a test case for the bigger picture. The STRUCTURAL problems that the chess playing community endure here are symptomatic of the whole. So may I suggest just one more time, Why is it that a private business can run and organise on behave of CV, while a key member remains on the panel of CV? Until OZ chess addresses these issues then there can be no change.

I mean lets face it, Had anybody else noticed that Chessworld was receiving $10,000 dollars worth of incentives without a realistic open tender process available to all concerned parties in Australian Chess?

If you call this competitive market forces I will simply say uncompetitive nepotistic beauracracy. This is the problem with a small circle mentality.

regards Firegoat7

skip to my lou
01-07-2004, 04:10 PM
Welcome back firegoat

PHAT
01-07-2004, 04:17 PM
Now let me ask these curly questions.

When the ACF was considering the bid(s), did it ask the critical question:

"Do all relavent parties (sponsors, promotors, commercial entities) have written and signed, in principle agreements, continingent upon mutual acceptance, to be formally entered into within 28 days, if/when the ACF accepted the bid?"

If not, the ACF has shown one of the most fantasic examples of incompetance I have ever known in a peak sporting body. Every ACF executive and the representives who voted for them should appoligise to the Australian chess community.

An ACF that cannot run its own Open, is not worth feeding. Ity is time for all states to kill it off and start again.

Ian_Rogers
01-07-2004, 05:46 PM
Mt Buller's side of the story.....

***************

Roman Solczaniuk
Mercure Grand Chalet
Mt Buller

1st July, 2004

Att George Howard
President Australian Chess Federation


Dear George

In reply to the offer rejected by Chess Victoria, I wish to make to the following comments-

Our original offer made to David Cordover was that we would provide $40,000 and David would fill the hotel (58 rooms) for 26 nights. David was also going to run a Mindsports Olympiad at the same time in order to make sure the hotel would be full during the duration. We agreed that David would pay us $120 per night per room.

David then later informed me that he could no longer run the mindsports. AT NO STAGE did we say that the Chess Federation is required to fill the hotel. The onus was on David and his company.

David then asked us if we would accept $90 per night per room instead of the $40,000 sponsorship. Under this arrangement the sponsorship was based on the number of rooms that David sold. David was to take all the bookings and charge what he liked per room and keep the difference as prize money. We also agreed to pay David $10,000 for the year on the understanding that he organised and held the event at the Mercure Grand Chalet Mt Buller.

Since the original offer to the Chess Federation we have increased the offer substantially-

1. Four free rooms at the Chalet for the 26 nights (Value $13,000)

2. Free use of the Heli House for 26 nights (17 beds)) (Value $18,000)

3. Other lodge accommodation at $25 per night per bed (50% discount)

4. Free use of photocopier and internet facilities

5. Hotel vouchers as prizes to the value of $10,000 for accommodation at Accor Hotels around Australia.

6. Printing of tournament programs by Independent Distillers to the value of up to $45,000.

I also pointed out to David that Accor sponsor the Sunrise program on Channel Seven and Mt Buller has a contra financial arrangement with Channel Seven. We were well under way in the process to see if we could get the program to televise from Mt Buller during the event in order to give Chess major exposure in the main stream.

I also pointed out that we had approached Mt Buller Ski Lifts to sponsor the Italian Chess team at no cost to David or the Chess Federation.

It is very surprising that David first failed to mention that, as per his letter, that the Chess Federation is NOT required to book any minimum number of rooms at the hotel and also that he removed the offer of the vouchers as prizes to the value of $10,000.

I also disagree that the facilities at the Mercure Grand Chalet Mt Buller could only cater to run a 140 player event.

David also failed to mention that we have the best hotel facilities such as swimming pool, saunas, squash courts, gymnasium all available to the competitors.

La Trobe University at Mt Buller has substantial facilities (just across the road) which can cater for over 500 players if required.

I insist that the offer is still on the table to anyone who wishes to run the event at Mt Buller and is most welcome to talk to us. I am more than happy to travel anywhere in Australia to have this matter satisfactorily concluded.

We were looking at a long term agreement at the end of this event and it is well known Accor worldwide is a major sponsor of chess. Our association could only have gotten bigger and better and Chess Australia would have been a big winner.

Yours sincerely,

Roman Solczaniuk
Event and Tournaments
Mercure Grand Chalet Mt Buller

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 05:51 PM
Ian,

Thank you for posting the "other side" of the story.

skip to my lou
01-07-2004, 06:11 PM
1. Four free rooms at the Chalet for the 26 nights (Value $13,000)

2. Free use of the Heli House for 26 nights (17 beds)) (Value $18,000)

3. Other lodge accommodation at $25 per night per bed (50% discount)

4. Free use of photocopier and internet facilities

5. Hotel vouchers as prizes to the value of $10,000 for accommodation at Accor Hotels around Australia.

6. Printing of tournament programs by Independent Distillers to the value of up to $45,000.

I also pointed out to David that Accor sponsor the Sunrise program on Channel Seven and Mt Buller has a contra financial arrangement with Channel Seven. We were well under way in the process to see if we could get the program to televise from Mt Buller during the event in order to give Chess major exposure in the main stream.

I also pointed out that we had approached Mt Buller Ski Lifts to sponsor the Italian Chess team at no cost to David or the Chess Federation.

Simply amazing... What is more amazing is that they are still willing to co-operate.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 06:18 PM
the question must be asked and im sure it will, how come the huge discrepencies between the two versions of events :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 06:25 PM
the question must be asked and im sure it will, how come the huge discrepencies between the two versions of events :hmm:
I know whose version I'd be inclined to believe and I'm sure that this will be discussed at the ACF Executive Meeting tonight.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 06:31 PM
I know whose version I'd be inclined to believe and I'm sure that this will be discussed at the ACF Executive Meeting tonight.
and im sure we will all be eagerly awaiting a report from that meeting ;) :D

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 06:43 PM
and im sure we will all be eagerly awaiting a report from that meeting ;) :D
I doubt you will get one unless George decides to make a comment.
I suspect they will decide to follow up on a number of items and make a recommendation for consideration by the whole ACF Council at its meeting on July 12th.

Feldgrau
01-07-2004, 06:45 PM
Sigh...

I was going through a point by point review of this mountain of incompetence, greed, conflict of interest and mismanagement. Then I realized I truly do have better things to do with my life these days.

It's very sad that chess has been portrayed in such a light again with another potential major sponsor, all these saga's accumulate through networks and it's one of the key reasons it's so darn hard to get money from the government for organizations like the ACF.

Is it just me or does anyone else see a potential conflict of interest with key personel being involved with both Chess World and Chess Victoria?

Also it must be just me, but the offer from Chess World of ::
"the above events would be run without any financial burden on Chess Victoria." doesn't seem to be..
1)generous in the slightest
2)In tune with a commitment for Chess Victoria to guarantee 58 room bookings for 26 nights at $90. (A total guarantee of $135,720.. Must be flush with funds these days Chess Victoria...)

Can I also suggest a bit of editing to the following paragraph would go a long way to generating some good will..

“Due to the late notice provided in the change of venue for the Australian Open and Australian Junior Chess Championships, Chess World (at their sole discretion) will provide compensation to any person who is able to provide, in writing, evidence to the effect that a non-refundable deposit or other financial cost has been incurred by the change made at this time.”

-- remove the (at their sole discretion)

This event might be best served by offering it up for bidding/tendering again and organizers with a proven track record might once again step into the breech.

**Just the personal thoughts of someone who wishes all the success in the world to Australian chess**

... sigh ....

Ian Rogers, top journalistic work on providing that letter and your chess columns!

FeldGrau.

skip to my lou
01-07-2004, 07:00 PM
Sigh...

Yeah..


I was going through a point by point review of this mountain of incompetence, greed, conflict of interest and mismanagement. Then I realized I truly do have better things to do with my life these days.

I think alot of people are starting to realise this.

Alan Shore
01-07-2004, 07:04 PM
I was going through a point by point review of this mountain of incompetence, greed, conflict of interest and mismanagement. Then I realized I truly do have better things to do with my life these days.

:clap:

I'll drink to that.

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 07:07 PM
I insist that the offer is still on the table to anyone who wishes to run the event at Mt Buller and is most welcome to talk to us.

Yours sincerely,

Roman Solczaniuk
Event and Tournaments
Mercure Grand Chalet Mt Buller
I wonder if this includes the Guru.
I would be surprised if it did.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 07:08 PM
i just want to know where im supposed to be saving my money up for and where im going to be going to so i can book all the tickets required :hmm: but still better to take a bit longer and get it right, than make a rushed decision and make a wrong decision.

arosar
01-07-2004, 07:34 PM
Ha! I told youse we only got one end of a laughable yarn! What a joker this Guru is! Single-bloody-handedly undermining what could be a top-notch partnership. A right-genuine-Guru alright, right up there with them bull-schit artists mate.

Right....there's no way bloody way I'm haulin' me as.s to anything where there's the Guru's hand.

Amen!

AR

Ian Rout
01-07-2004, 07:37 PM
So just hypothetically, what is the position if some other group from Victoria volunteers to run the Open in conjunction with the Mt Buller people, either

(a) with the support of CV?

or

(b) not supported by CV?

Is it the case that (b) is messy as ACF awards the event to a State association, so ACF would need to withdraw the acceptance of CV and have, say, the Tasmanian Chess Association formally run an event in Victoria if it wants Mt Buller to go ahead?

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 07:45 PM
(b) not supported by CV?

Is it the case that (b) is messy as ACF awards the event to a State association, so ACF would need to withdraw the acceptance of CV and have, say, the Tasmanian Chess Association formally run an event in Victoria if it wants Mt Buller to go ahead?
Persuant with ACF Bylaws on allocating tournaments the ACF can :

1. The organisation of an ACF title event (as listed in clause 2 of the ACF Tournament By-Law) may be granted by the ACF Council to:-

a. The ACF.

b. An affiliated State Association.

c. An affiliated body which has the consent of its State Association to organise the event.



Therefore the ACF could awarded the event to itself and then arrange for an independant organiser (be it individual or group).
This independant organiser could be a State Association.

PHAT
01-07-2004, 07:49 PM
Mt Buller's side of the story.....


Putting this and Guru's version together, it would seem:

* That the bid was accepted without any of the basic details being finalised.
* That communicaton after the bid was poor.
* The sizes of the amounts of money required and the numbers of entries that would have to be secured, fightened the schit out of Guru and he has pulled the plug.
* The ACF will blame somone else (tonight).
* The Australian chess community is disappointed by its administrators and made look chronically amateur.

ACF FO.

Finally, I would still go to Mt Buller, if it goes ahead, but gee wizz, the Sydney option looks sexy.

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 07:59 PM
Putting this and Guru's version together, it would seem:

* That the bid was accepted without any of the basic details being finalised.
* That communicaton after the bid was poor.
* The sizes of the amounts of money required and the numbers of entries that would have to be secured, fightened the schit out of Guru and he has pulled the plug.
* The ACF will blame somone else (tonight).
* The Australian chess community is disappointed by its administrators and made look chronically amateur.
It would seem that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
That however never stopped you from shooting your mouth off before so we should not expect anything different now.
Just go back to running your 16 player events and leave the real work to others.


ACF FO.
Many would wish you would follow this advice and do the same.


Finally, I would still go to Mt Buller, if it goes ahead, but gee wizz, the Sydney option looks sexy.
Fortunately you have no say in it.

PHAT
01-07-2004, 08:17 PM
Just go back to running your 16 player events and leave the real work to others.

...

Many would wish you would follow this advice and do the same.

...

Fortunately you have no say in it.




:lol: How true to form! The heat is on you, so you attack other people. It's the simple and usually effective stratergy of, deflection. It won't work. The buck stops at [drum roll] the ACF.

Hell will freeze over before the great Bildo admits that the administrations in which he serves, are rancid. If he did, he would have to tell us that te white things on his shoulders were maggots and not rice from his wedding with Glicko.

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 08:28 PM
:lol: How true to form!
The only thing true to form is the rubbish you sprout.
You are great at attacking others.
However when push came to shove you did absolutely nothing whilst you were on the NSWCA Council.
BTW how is your supposed work progressing on the National Coaching Accreditation Scheme.
Lemme guess, its like your work on the Sydney Chess Centre Committee.
Zip.



:The heat is on you, so you attack other people.
You should be shown for what you are. A do nothing stirrer.


It's the simple and usually effective stratergy of, deflection. It won't work. The buck stops at [drum roll] the ACF.
And no doubt the ACF will handle it. :hand:


Hell will freeze over before the great Bildo admits that the administrations in which he serves, are rancid. If he did, he would have to tell us that te white things on his shoulders were maggots and not rice from his wedding with Glicko.
If so I must have got those maggots off you when we last shook hands. :owned:
Guess you didnt wash them after a trip to the loo. :whistle:

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 08:36 PM
Guess you didnt wash them after a trip to the loo. :whistle:
and will both of you be able to keep your debates out of the toilet :confused:

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 08:40 PM
and will both of you be able to keep your debates out of the toilet :confused:
Ha ha. :whistle:

If we are lucky he will get flushed away. :hand:

ursogr8
01-07-2004, 10:15 PM
Putting this and Guru's version together, it would seem:

* The sizes of the amounts of money required and the numbers of entries that would have to be secured, fightened the schit out of Guru and he has pulled the plug.




Is that what you really believe Matthew? That the dollar-numbers simply got to big for the GURU?

The GURU always had the simple option to scale back the exercise to cater for the most-likely field size he could attract. Your theory that he got cold feet is just not believable.

The GURU probably calculated that he could make profits at quite a few potential field sizes > 80, 100, 150, 250. There is no doubt the risk went up with each of these options. But my guess is that he could have cut the deal at what ever scaling he was willing to risk. Lets face it......how many other groups will hire a major ski complex for 20+ days at that time of the year. A chess tourney must be one of the few candidates that the hotel chain can get expressions of interest.

I am inclined to believe the GURU. The scaling wasn't the problem, it was the late undisclosed extra cost. I think a late $28,000 undisclosed cost would sink most of us. (NOTE, I said 'believe the GURU' not 'trust the GURU').

starter

PHAT
01-07-2004, 11:46 PM
Is that what you really believe Matthew? That the dollar-numbers simply got to big for the GURU?

I am inclined to believe the GURU. The scaling wasn't the problem, it was the late undisclosed extra cost. I think a late $28,000 undisclosed cost would sink most of us. (NOTE, I said 'believe the GURU' not 'trust the GURU').



I rarely believe what I think. That is, I have less than far less than 100% confidence in my own correctness. But I am willing to make a guess when there is less than 100% knowledge/understanding, and willing to risk failure.

I trust Guru insofar as he is trying to make a future for himself in chess. Therefore, I do not think he is trying to shoot himself in the foot. I trust the ACF insofar as they want the best for Australian chess. However, we are all human, we all [deleted]. Only some of us are able to accept that reality in ourselves and in others. But acceptance has its limits. How many times can Guru fail to bring home the bacon before the ACF shouts, enough! How many times can the ACF preside over dud bids before the rank and file shout, enough!

There is a saying, "Any port in a storm." Perhaps the ACF shouls set a course for Peter Parr's bid.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2004, 12:41 AM
KEVIN: I am happy to compensate anyone who has lost money because of a change of venue from Mt Buller to Melbourne, because that is my choice. I am not prepared to compensate people if the ACF makes a decision to shift the event to Sydney in August. I am prepared to be fully responsible for my own decisions, but cannot be held responsible for decisions made by others.

No, this is still not good enough and I know now that I am far from the only one who feels that way.

You gave clear guarantees that the event would be on and would be on at Mt Buller. The responsibility for the collapse must lie with either the organisers, Mercure, or both. It does not lie with the ACF. The ACF has a clear right to move the event if it chooses to do so on account of the original bid having well and truly collapsed.

Furthermore, it may be that some monies some potential entrants have spent would be wasted irrespective of the ACF's decision (eg costs from Melb - Mt Buller or at Mt Buller). I don't know if this is actually the case or not, but if so it undermines your argument further.

Have you looked into who is legally liable for all this compensation (how much is it likely to be anyway)? I wonder if you even have a leg to stand on here at all.


If it is not good enough then why don't you take up the reigns and organise the event at Mt Buller. You still have a FREE venue and a $10K management fee?

What is not good enough is your failure to take full responsibility for the discrepancy between your public statements and the reality that has developed, and to be willing to compensate people accordingly. That is the problem - not the very fact that the bid has collapsed, and therefore the above is simply completely missing the point.

I'll assume for the sake of argument that this is, at least in part, the organisers' stuff-up, although I don't know that for certain. Almost any chess organiser makes the odd mistake here and there and that is human and entirely forgiveable. Been there, done that. The issue is how one responds to it. You don't seem too keen to take full responsibility based on the kind of guarantees you gave - yet you sometimes don't seem too forgiving of the little alleged errors of others who don't even do this sort of thing for a living.


I am sure that GW, myself and perhaps others asked SPECIFICALLY if it would be free and the answer was always YES until about 3 weeks ago.

Did you ask in writing and obtain responses from them likewise?


KEVIN: How would suing anyone help? If I win (and it will take years to complete the case) then how does that help run the 2005 Aus Open? We do not live in America, we don't have to sue people, we need to make the best of what we have and forget about what we cannot change.

I echo Bill's point on this.

The obvious advantage of suing Mercure (if it was possible to sue them successfully) is that you would win money which you could then use to later compensate those out of pocket, irrespective of the ACF's decision on the venue.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2004, 01:51 AM
* That the bid was accepted without any of the basic details being finalised.

Fair enough, although your way of making your point is as sensationalist as usual. There is something for us to learn from this one in dealing with ambitious bids involving commercial agreements in future - get the bidder to show us a conditional contract with the business if possible.

It remains the case that CG gave public guarantees about the event that it now seems were utterly bogus. Without these guarantees I doubt the bid would have been approved. And normally, such erroneous guarantees would not be made by prospective organisers.


* That communicaton after the bid was poor.

Whose do you mean in particular? (10 points for any answer other than "everybody's".)


* The ACF will blame somone else (tonight).

Many aspects of this are indisputably someone else's fault. :hand:


* The Australian chess community is disappointed by its administrators and made look chronically amateur.

Whereas ChessGuru just looks chronically professional, right? :lol:


Finally, I would still go to Mt Buller, if it goes ahead, but gee wizz, the Sydney option looks sexy.

I suggested to Exec that bids should be re-opened briefly to see if anyone else wanted to put a bid on the table. If this does happen and alternate bids do emerge then I'll certainly consider any alternate bid on its merits.

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2004, 02:06 AM
Look who's back. :P Kills me (laughing) to say it but on this topic he's almost welcome.


So again, my berated friends, I will leave you with a few choice words of what is wrong with Australian Chess. THE STRUCTURES WE HAVE IN PLACE ARE IN NEED OF SERIOUS OVERHAUL.We ( Oz Chess) have not learnt that we are applying 1930 philosophies to 22nd century problems.

Naaaah, get off your old hobbyhorse (hobbygoat?) already. I don't think it's a structural issue, it seems more like an issue of ACF needing to get used to the cultural changes involved and the pitfalls that arise when major events are organised by professional chess marketers, with their different ways of doing things, rather than essentially non-profit amateur clubs and committees. We can easily deal with this within the present structure.


So may I suggest just one more time, Why is it that a private business can run and organise on behave of CV, while a key member remains on the panel of CV? Until OZ chess addresses these issues then there can be no change.

You might want to have a word to someone who knows a bit of law about vested interests. At the moment CG, also being on ACF as the CV rep, is having to abstein from a hell of a lot of things because of his commercial interests. It's no obstacle to him holding a position - it just means there's a lot he can't vote on. However ACF is covered under ACT incorporation law and the picture for CV may be different.


I mean lets face it, Had anybody else noticed that Chessworld was receiving $10,000 dollars worth of incentives without a realistic open tender process available to all concerned parties in Australian Chess?

Are you talking about the $10,000 fee associated with the bid? If so, that was Mercure's business and CG's was the only bid on the ACF's table at the start of the year. So I'm not quite sure how else you would have had us proceed - I doubt Mercure had any legal obligation to open it for tender.

FWIW, I can't clearly remember hearing of the $10,000 before but it may well have been in the fine print somewhere.

ursogr8
02-07-2004, 08:14 AM
I rarely believe what I think. That is, I have less than far less than 100% confidence in my own correctness. But I am willing to make a guess when there is less than 100% knowledge/understanding, and willing to risk failure.

I trust Guru insofar as he is trying to make a future for himself in chess. Therefore, I do not think he is trying to shoot himself in the foot. I trust the ACF insofar as they want the best for Australian chess. However, we are all human, we all [deleted]. Only some of us are able to accept that reality in ourselves and in others. But acceptance has its limits. How many times can Guru fail to bring home the bacon before the ACF shouts, enough! How many times can the ACF preside over dud bids before the rank and file shout, enough!

There is a saying, "Any port in a storm." Perhaps the ACF shouls set a course for Peter Parr's bid.

Not happy Matthew,
You paste in one of my quotes and then diverge off on a tangent of another issue. If you are not going to address the point from my post why bother to paste it in.

I said
1 I did not believe your contention that the GURU got cold feet because of the scale of the exercise. He had the leverage to be able to scale it down.
2 I did think he bailed out when a new cost factor emerged late.

Now you may not want to address these points. If not, just go back and delete my quote in your post #42; then I will be happy again.

starter

Garvinator
02-07-2004, 09:45 AM
i am interested to find out why the acf did not pursue further the details that were submitted for the mt buller bid. Especially when the claims in the bid were larger than what seems to be in a normal bid. Even more scrutiny when it is at a venue that has fallen over before.

Oepty
02-07-2004, 10:47 AM
I am a bit unsure about a couple of things. It seems to me, but maybe I have miss read that orginally Cordover thought that use of the ABOM restuarant was free, and then 3-4 weeks ago they changed their mind about this and are now asking for $28000. Looking at information on Mt Buller it seems the Mt Buller Mecure Grand Chalet and the ABOM hotel which contains the restuarant are completely different places. If I haven't made a huge error in this I am wondering why the restuarant had anything to gain by giving us the venue for free.
Is it because the two bodies are owned by the one company?
Is the restuarant ussually closed in the Summer?
I am a little puzzled.
Also is the restuarant shown in this ABOM Restuarant Tour (http://www.dreamcatcher.com.au/panoramas/vbulabomrest/index.htm) the ABOM restuarant being talked about?

Scott

ChessGuru
02-07-2004, 11:41 AM
Well all looks interesting. Thank you GM Ian for bringing us a copy of Roman's letter. Looks very similar (even exactly) to the offer that I had quoted in my original post here (letter to the ACF).

I do now, as I did then, offer anyone else the opportunity of taking up the offer at Mt Buller. As you can see it isn't something that has collapsed, but I am making a decision not to be involved....it could well still end up at Mt Buller and I wish anyone who chooses to go down that path the best of luck!

Scott: Perceptive aren't you, perhaps more so than anyone else. Yes, the ABOM and Mercure are completely separate spaces. The ABOM is owned by the same person (but that doesn't mean they can do what they like with the space) as the Mercure and originally was to accommodate overflow from the hotel for the other Mind events due to run.

STARTER: You are trying to work out WHY CV is recommending to the ACF not to accept Mt Buller's bid....and I answered that in my letter. The event will be a better event run elsewhere.... As you can see from the Mt Buller offer there is little to no risk and I get $10K as a management fee (Kevin- I had not disclosed earlier the amount of my fee, because it was none of anyone's business, but I do so now in the interest of openness - also I'd like to give the ACF the full picture and the possibility of taking this on with a different organiser - but CV will not be involved).

Starter, i am not bailing due to a new cost...the cost was for ABOM, i could easily continue with the event and just not use that space - we can run a 140 player event in the hotel and that is free. I have made my recommendation and it is up to the ACF to do what they like....by the looks of things they are going to see if anyone else wants to run things at Mt Buller under the existing 'sponsorship' offer and if nobody does then it will be back open for bids, and i assume that CV will be one of the few with a bid on the table.

All you talkers out there should get up and continue on with the Buller event if that is what you want....i'll be happy to hand over all the work i've done so far so you aren't starting from square one, but you will then be the one with egg on your face when you realise that the CV recommendation is a good one! Or does everyone just talk and not actually ever do anything?????

Kevin and others. If what you want is unreserved compensation then I offer such, I invite anyone who has incurred costs becuase of this to apply to me for compensation. My email is compensation@chessworld.com.au

Firegoat...why doesn't the MCC take on Mt Buller organising? They could keep the $10K....you have experience with running Aus Champs....I'll be happy to work with you for a smooth transition!

ursogr8
02-07-2004, 12:11 PM
STARTER: You are trying to work out WHY CV is recommending to the ACF not to accept Mt Buller's bid....and I answered that in my letter.



CG

Err. Well, no. I had not got that far with my understanding.
I was just trying to understand why you bailed.

What CV do with their hold on the baton is their business; I am not on the Executive, nor a Club delegate.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing the detail.
We should alll concentrate now on the next positive actions to get alternative bids in pace.

starter

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2004, 08:53 PM
As you can see from the Mt Buller offer there is little to no risk and I get $10K as a management fee (Kevin- I had not disclosed earlier the amount of my fee, because it was none of anyone's business, but I do so now in the interest of openness - also I'd like to give the ACF the full picture and the possibility of taking this on with a different organiser - but CV will not be involved).

That's all fine with me.


Kevin and others. If what you want is unreserved compensation then I offer such, I invite anyone who has incurred costs becuase of this to apply to me for compensation. My email is compensation@chessworld.com.au

Thank you. That's all I was after.

(For the record, I personally had not committed any money.)

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2004, 11:20 PM
The ACF has a clear right to move the event if it chooses to do so on account of the original bid having well and truly collapsed.

Not so clear. All who like to claim that I never admit to being wrong please pay careful attention, there will be an exam on this later.

The above comment was based on reading the Procedure for Allocating ACF Tournaments section in the By-Laws. I didn't realise there was more detail on the same issue in the By-Laws for ACF Tournaments section.

It now appears that CV's proposal to move the event must first be considered before any prospective alternative bid could possibly be entertained.

Garvinator
06-07-2004, 11:26 PM
It now appears that CV's proposal to move the event must first be considered before any prospective alternative bid could possibly be entertained.
what happens if cv decides to endorse the whitehorse proposal at their next meeting before july 12?

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2004, 11:30 PM
what happens if cv decides to endorse the whitehorse proposal at their next meeting before july 12?

Then the Whitehorse proposal would become the CV proposal and it would be up to Council to decide whether to approve it as a variation to CV's original proposal.

Garvinator
06-07-2004, 11:33 PM
Then the Whitehorse proposal would become the CV proposal and it would be up to Council to decide whether to approve it as a variation to CV's original proposal.
oh ok, thought it might be a case if cv changes which proposal they endorse, then it becomes a free for all between mt buller, whitehorse and any other bids.

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 08:19 AM
oh ok, thought it might be a case if cv changes which proposal they endorse, then it becomes a free for all between mt buller, whitehorse and any other bids.

g''''g''''
It has become a free-for-all subsequent to George Howard promising a brand new bid on Friday 9 July.
starter

Bill Gletsos
07-07-2004, 09:59 AM
g''''g''''
It has become a free-for-all subsequent to George Howard promising a brand new bid on Friday 9 July.
starter
That of course pre-supposes the ACF Cncil agrees that the ACF President/Executive had the right to call for new bids in the first place.

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 10:24 AM
That of course pre-supposes the ACF Cncil agrees that the ACF President/Executive had the right to call for new bids in the first place.

Bill
Hard to see what you mean. :hmm:

The ACF gave the baton to CV=CG+Mt Buller.
Now that has clearly fallen over there needs to be something in its place.
How else to progress unless there is a call for bids? Even if it is a short-list of 2 then it would be termed a call for bids.
Or are you hinting the Council would just give the baton to a designated rescuer?

starter

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 11:05 AM
Bill
Hard to see what you mean. :hmm:

The ACF gave the baton to CV=CG+Mt Buller.
Now that has clearly fallen over there needs to be something in its place.
How else to progress unless there is a call for bids? Even if it is a short-list of 2 then it would be termed a call for bids.
Or are you hinting the Council would just give the baton to a designated rescuer?

starter

ill have a go at an answer without knowing exactly how things will work, but this is my take on it.

The acf council first point of business will be to debate and vote on whether to accept the change of venue and bid from mt buller to brighton. If the acf council accepts this option, then no other bid needs to be looked at we are all off to brighton.

If the acf council decides against the change of venue, then all bids are looked at ie whitehorse, any new mt buller bid, any peter parr bid and any others.

This is just my understanding and actually has no weight, maybe Bill could add more to my thoughts.

Bill Gletsos
07-07-2004, 11:15 AM
Bill
Hard to see what you mean. :hmm:

The ACF gave the baton to CV=CG+Mt Buller.
Now that has clearly fallen over there needs to be something in its place.

One could argue that the Mt. Buller bid has not fallen over just CV's involvement with it.

As such the Mt. Buller bid plus a new organiser could just be accepted without a call for bids.



How else to progress unless there is a call for bids? Even if it is a short-list of 2 then it would be termed a call for bids.
Or are you hinting the Council would just give the baton to a designated rescuer?
I'm suggesting that the National conference clearly recommended the ACF Council accept the Mt. Buller proposal.
The ACF Council awarded the events to CV on the understanding the events would be held at Mt. Buller. After all if CV or any other state for that matter had put up a proposal that said, hey we are going to run all these events but we have no idea at this stage what the venue will be they would have never gotten past square one.

The events can still be held at Mt. Buller just no longer under the control of CV.

arosar
07-07-2004, 11:29 AM
This is very stupid. The pockets of parents - who, as Mrs Oliver keeps reminding us, are hardly millionaires - should not be held hostage to the Mt Buller carrott.

And what's so wrong with temporarily shelving the Mt Buller relationship for, say, another year, until the details are sorted out, expectations set, and some degree of competence in relationship-management is attained by the ACF overall? Here, it sounds like you're all just rushing into things cos the offer is just too good to refuse.

So pause, take a deep breath, and think this through.

AR

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 11:39 AM
This is very stupid. The pockets of parents - who, as Mrs Oliver keeps reminding us, are hardly millionaires - should not be held hostage to the Mt Buller carrott.

and what about the parents of the juniors of other states, they still have to travel somewhere interstate. Decisions are made on what is best for australian chess, not victorian chess alone.


And what's so wrong with temporarily shelving the Mt Buller relationship for, say, another year, cause the australian open does not come around for another TWO years. Also this opportunity may not be available in two years time.

arosar
07-07-2004, 11:48 AM
and what about the parents of the juniors of other states, they still have to travel somewhere interstate. Decisions are made on what is best for australian chess, not victorian chess alone.

Do you understand that there is an extra cost to actually hauling ass.es off to the mountain as well as actually staying there?


cause the australian open does not come around for another TWO years. Also this opportunity may not be available in two years time.

Non-issue. If the so called relationship is solid, then it can wait. Think of it as being like a coupling of abstinent catholics. Else, there is always the Champs.

AR

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 11:59 AM
One could argue that the Mt. Buller bid has not fallen over just CV's involvement with it.



One could argue as you have argued Bill. One could say that the Mt Buller bid has not fallen over.
But
> if the State Association is walking away from it
>> the key promoter (GURU) is walking away from it
>>> the terms and conditions are about to change significantly (as per George’s advice)

then I think some of us would say the bid has fallen over. Or at least changed so much that at least bids from other promoters should be considered.





As such the Mt. Buller bid plus a new organiser could just be accepted without a call for bids.



The ACF could do this but it is effectively short-listing to a lone new bidder.



starter

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 12:04 PM
Do you understand that there is an extra cost to actually hauling ass.es off to the mountain as well as actually staying there?
and from my reading off the offers from mt buller, most of the so called 'extra' cost will be off set by their plans. im not even sure how much more people will have to pay for accommodation to stay in off season mt buller compared to staying in melbourne during summer. That is another thing that is good about mt buller for me, getting away from the heat of summer by being way above sea level:D



Non-issue. If the so called relationship is solid, then it can wait. Think of it as being like a coupling of abstinent catholics. Else, there is always the Champs.
I dont think the organisers would be rather interested in the champs. I just see this as an opportunity that we as australia chess should not miss out on. It is an opportunity to move from the way things have been done in the past to a more professional better way to run tournaments.

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 12:08 PM
ill have a go at an answer without knowing exactly how things will work, but this is my take on it.

The acf council first point of business will be to debate and vote on whether to accept the change of venue and bid from mt buller to brighton. If the acf council accepts this option, then no other bid needs to be looked at we are all off to brighton.

If the acf council decides against the change of venue, then all bids are looked at ie whitehorse, any new mt buller bid, any peter parr bid and any others.

This is just my understanding and actually has no weight, maybe Bill could add more to my thoughts.

gg''''''''

Not what Bill is saying at all.
He is saying that the accepted proposal is Mt Buller, whoever runs it.
So the first point of business is vote on who runs it, at Mt Buller. He is saying there is no initial debate on the venue.

But george is saying that Mt Buller bid 1 is poles apart from Mt Buller bid 2.
So, I regard it as a bit of a travesty for Bill to argue that the Mt Buller venue has the baton.

starter

ps....as you said earlier...........interesting. Here are two more for you to muse over.
> Who is George going to annoint as the new Mt Buller promoter. (Does he come from NSW? And if so Bill's pushing that other venues be excluded from bidding will get criticized by fg7 as a COI).
>> Why does not CG re-enter if the accommodation requirement is now off the table...........seems like the RISK has gone away.

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 12:17 PM
gg''''''''

Not what Bill is saying at all.
He is saying that the accepted proposal is Mt Buller, whoever runs it.
So the first point of business is vote on who runs it, at Mt Buller. He is saying there is no initial debate on the venue.

But george is saying that Mt Buller bid 1 is poles apart from Mt Buller bid 2.
So, I regard it as a bit of a travesty for Bill to argue that the Mt Buller venue has the baton.

starter as you will have noticed i hope, i posted my thoughts before reading Bills comments. So it was just my thoughts on how things would work.


ps....as you said earlier...........interesting. Here are two more for you to muse over.
> Who is George going to annoint as the new Mt Buller promoter. (Does he come from NSW? And if so Bill's pushing that other venues be excluded from bidding will get criticized by fg7 as a COI). and im sure fg7's claims will really sway votes and interests at acf council level:hand:

But anyway, doesnt GW and co have a coi as well as they will be pushing the cv bid(s)?


>> Why does not CG re-enter if the accommodation requirement is now off the table...........seems like the RISK has gone away.
since we can only speculate, maybe the final money amount was just the final straw and there were alot of other issues cg and mt buller didnt agree over and the money amount was just the final disagreement that cause both to stop discussions with each other.

arosar
07-07-2004, 12:22 PM
But anyway, doesnt GW and co have a coi as well as they will be pushing the cv bid(s)?

Now what's wrong with this question gray?

AR

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 12:24 PM
Now what's wrong with this question gray?

AR
what are you asking arosar(i genuinely dont understand what you are asking :confused: )

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 01:36 PM
and what about the parents of the juniors of other states, they still have to travel somewhere interstate. Decisions are made on what is best for australian chess, not victorian chess alone.


g''''''y

Probably I am the cause of your assumption that this is a VICTORIAN junior chess issue that we are trying to win. Probably you think my main cause is to push for a solution that does not require VIC parents (of juniors) to travel to the bush. I have posted on such matters and I am not surprised that you think this is the main issue.

But it is not.


The main issue is this
> Mt Buller as a venue will require all Australian juniors (and a number of families) to travel to a venue where the prices will have a premium and ancillary costs will be high.
>> as a reward for this, Mt Buller hotel management will make monies and services available to the Chess administrators in charge.
>>> this reward will be applied to Senior OPEN prizes, and to invitation costs of o/s GMs
>>>> this reward will not be applied to lower entrance fees for juniors, nor low accommodation costs for juniors, nor prize money for juniors.
In essence the Mt Buller bundling proposal is a mechanism that exploits all Aus. juniors and diverts money to Aus. seniors.

Many seniors will judge this transfer of cash to be a good thing. On behalf of the entire junior community we say, THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Based on the GURU’s earlier proposals the size of the transfer of cash is $25,000.


starter

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 01:53 PM
Probably I am the cause of your assumption that this is a VICTORIAN junior chess issue that we are trying to win. Probably you think my main cause is to push for a solution that does not require VIC parents (of juniors) to travel to the bush. I have posted on such matters and I am not surprised that you think this is the main issue. ok thanks for clarifying that, now we can move on:D

I will try and answer these from some of my research into packages and accommodation myself.


> Mt Buller as a venue will require all Australian juniors (and a number of families) to travel to a venue where the prices will have a premium and ancillary costs will be high.
I was able to find single room accommodation for a total of $520 for 13 nights ie $40 a night from the internet. I am sure for a group booking and for one month, this price might even be reduced further as it is OFF SEASON IN MT BULLER.
This seems very reasonable to me and would match what is being offered in Melbourne. Also jenni would be able to give more information as ACTJL had a deal and money paid with a lodge there, benmore i think:confused: Also there was accommodation packages mentioned previously too. I would suspect that these packages might go to parents and juniors booking through state associations, but that is just a thought of mine and has no fact based on it.
I would suspect as i have said before that buses would be provided from melbourne to mt buller, so that means parents and juniors from interstate would only need to pay for flights to melbourne, so the cost is very similiar to holding the aussie juniors in melbourne.



>> as a reward for this, Mt Buller hotel management will make monies and services available to the Chess administrators in charge. is both gaining from things a bad thing?


>>> this reward will be applied to Senior OPEN prizes, and to invitation costs of o/s GMs speculation from the gurus previous bid which probably would not be repeated as the gurus ideas have not been popular and well received in the past.


>>>> this reward will not be applied to lower entrance fees for juniors, nor low accommodation costs for juniors, nor prize money.
In essence the Mt Buller bundling proposal is a mechanism that exploits all Aus. juniors and diverts money to Aus. seniors.
again speculation based on gurus previous plans.

arosar
07-07-2004, 02:06 PM
...speculation . . .

. . . again speculation based on gurus previous plans.

You're starting to sound rather Gletso-esque!

AR

jase
07-07-2004, 02:11 PM
Agreed g"g", the transfer of funds starter insists on harping about was a Guru construct, and may have little to do with the present.

My curiousity is aroused by George's leading post about announcements on Friday, prior to the new bidding deadline.

The deals done by Guru are quite astonishing in their optimism, and make an utter lie of many of his earlier posts. That is to say, his assurances that players wouldn't have to stay ot Mt Buller were in stark contrast to the deals he had negotiated.

And he took me to task earlier this year [by PM/email] for my suggestion that his ethics were "dubious" :uhoh:

I had a call late last week by some prominent chess identities [not George] sounding me out about becoming the organiser for Mt Buller. I was on holidays at the time and said I'd think abut it. I've just returned from Byron, and am wading through the correspondence, pros and cons, blah blah...maybe it's political hari kari to take it on.

I do think there's a lot of opportunity with this venue, and it's still a potentially very attractive deal, if costs can be kept low [which I think they can]. I've worked with Accor before as a sponsor, in 1999, and they were excellent to deal with.

But I haven't heard from George so I'm assuming there's someone else stepping in.

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 02:23 PM
You're starting to sound rather Gletso-esque!

AR
i dont want to sound like bill, but that is all it is, speculation.

george
07-07-2004, 02:40 PM
Hi All,

Garvin is absolutely correct. Speculation about what may or not be in a new Mt Buller bid if one eventuates is merely that speculation.

I just posted on the other thread the fact that if you wish to have a say contact your local Council State/territory representative.

Nothing will be posted here by myself unless I have informed the Council beforehand and in any event details of all or any bids will not be available even to the Council until the morning of the 12th because we are for want of a better term in a "tender " situation so given the time constraints the ACF Council needs to discuss all the merits of all the proposals.

Any Organiser for a new mt Buller bid would be working at some speed to tighten up areas of concern , so the tight timeframe I suspect advantages bids other than Mt Buller , but we get dealt cards and we have to play them accordingly.

As the issues are many deep and varied an email discussion is not a reasonable way for ACF Council to debate discuss etc etc even though we have that facility and indeed the Council may decide to spend significant time in a discussion period on the allocation of a successful bid. The timing of Bid Submissions is so that the Entire Council can view all submissions and discuss and vote.

My heartfelt suggestion is CHILL and WAIT a few days.

Regards
George Howard

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 02:48 PM
Agreed g"g", the transfer of funds starter insists on harping about was a Guru construct, and may have little to do with the present.

.

hi jase

Curious choice of words, mate, to describe my posts

"...insists on harping about .."

Almost looks as though you don't agree with my argument that the bundling of three tournaments at Mt Buller is an arrangement that transfers cash from the junior community to the senior community.

But if you think the Mt Buller offer is not biased against the junior community then I reason that you would not mind the Aus. Junior being a separate tourney in Melbourne. Right?

starter

jase
07-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Not a curious choice at all. Your repitition makes such a choice obligatory.

As an organiser I think the Juniors and Open make for a better event when combined. However if the best proposal is one which separates the events, then all well and good.



The new Mt Buller bundled-bid with a new Manager to be announced by George Friday 9 July. We will not get sufficient chance to see nor evaluate this new deal before the decision making on the w/e.

I read George's post and thought it was great that some details were going to be placed on this forum at all. As he's written, it's not for us to evaluate.


And George with his 'I will release it so close to midnight that scrutiny will be limited', are more culpable.

Given your strong desire for complete disclosure of event details, I ask if the two letters you have posted on this forum are the sum total of the Box Hill/White Horse bid? You have drafted the bare bones of a promising proposal, [which may the best one can do in this limited time], but I find your criticisms a bit rich when you're barely rounding 1st base with the Box Hill proposal.

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 06:31 PM
Not a curious choice at all. Your repetition makes such a choice obligatory.


Well just a tiny bit curious jase. Because I am writing the stuff and I am not conscious of undue repetition. But if you find it repetitious then perhaps put me on IGNORE, now and then.



As an organiser I think the Juniors and Open make for a better event when combined. However if the best proposal is one which separates the events, then all well and good.



More than likely everyone will agree with your pair of sentences jase.

The real issue was whether you were comfortable with the GURU’s early proposals that transferred money from the junior community to the senior. And perhaps we will face the same issue with what the President is putting forward on Friday. But you have not declared on that issue.



I read George's post and thought it was great that some details were going to be placed on this forum at all.



Yes I agree it good that george will post here whereas Gazza will not.



As he's written, it's not for us to evaluate.



Is that why you join the BB jase, to read but not evaluate?




Given your strong desire for complete disclosure of event details, I ask if the two letters you have posted on this forum are the sum total of the Box Hill/White Horse bid?


Not the sum total of the bid jase.
There is our reputation too, known to Chess VICTORIA.
1. Our bid is put forward by the Committee that conducted the junior event at Churchill in Gippsland.
2. Our bid is put forward by the group that ran the recent VICTORIAN OPEN.

As george has written
The only bid which does not have to be endorsed by a state or territory is a revamped bid Re Mt Buller if one eventuates. All other bids must still come through a State or Territory to be an approved bid - therefore the submission would need to come from Chess Victoria.
Therefore we have to convince CV first.



You have drafted the bare bones of a promising proposal, [which may the best one can do in this limited time], but I find your criticisms a bit rich when you're barely rounding 1st base with the Box Hill proposal.


Sorry jase you have not seen enough detail. What extra would you like to see?

regards
starter

jase
07-07-2004, 07:07 PM
The real issue was whether you were comfortable with the GURU’s early proposals that transferred money from the junior community to the senior.

It is convenient that you seek refuge in this point, declaring it "the real issue". It is but one issue among many. Perhaps you feel that it is only here you can satisfactorily respond.

I wasn't aware of the Guru's budgeting until recent days. I've made some quite blatant statements about his organisation and structure, which you might chose to reflect upon.

Specifically this financial juggling is not in line with my own views. However I have no problem with the concept in principle. It happens in almost every tournament that entry fees from one section contribute to prizes in another. I take issue only with the extent to which Cordover is employing this theme.

Personally I regard your suggestion of $60/$80 entry fees to a Junior Championships at the upper level of what I consider reasonable. Given that prize money is not a high priority in junior events [a good thing], entry fees can be kept quite low.


Is that why you join the BB jase, to read but not evaluate?

Because of its brevity is hard to assess whether your question is disingenious or ignorant. I refer you in full to George Howard's comments, which I was endorsing. That any detail should be posted here prior to the ACF convening I regard as a luxury; that you feel it is your right to evaluate competing proposals on this forum diminishes your credibility in my view.


Sorry jase you have not seen enough detail. What extra would you like to see?

Your should live by your own mantra - you criticise the lack of scrutiny in a rival proposal, whilst yourself submitting a document that I regard as scant. As should be evident, but has clearly escaped you [see above] I am content to view whatever your committee wishes to post here. It the ACF's and not my decision.

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 07:17 PM
Because of its brevity is hard to assess whether your question is disingenious or ignorant. I refer you in full to George Howard's comments, which I was endorsing. That any detail should be posted here prior to the ACF convening I regard as a luxury; that you feel it is your right to evaluate competing proposals on this forum diminishes your credibility in my view.

thank you for reminding me of this angle. I had forgotten of its importance.
If we all use another example, the olympiad selection thread, it was agreed by the high majority of posters that no applicant should be able to see another applicants application, as it might give an unfair advantage to a late applicant.

Now following on with this principle for bids for any or all of the three events, the same principle must apply. One set of organisers should not be able to see another organisers bids before they have been assessed by the acf council.

Any organiser can publicise their bid if they wish, but all organisers should only need to be seen by those ppl who need to make a decision on those bids.

After the decision has been made by the acf council, then all bids can be displayed to all interested parties.

ursogr8
07-07-2004, 09:05 PM
It is convenient that you seek refuge in this point, declaring it "the real issue". It is but one issue among many. Perhaps you feel that it is only here you can satisfactorily respond.

I wasn't aware of the Guru's budgeting until recent days. I've made some quite blatant statements about his organisation and structure, which you might chose to reflect upon.

Specifically this financial juggling is not in line with my own views. However I have no problem with the concept in principle. It happens in almost every tournament that entry fees from one section contribute to prizes in another.



Jase
Have to agree with most of your quote.
But they are not addressing the point I was making…
The Aus senior OPEN and the Aus Junior are not one tournament. They are separate events for mainly separate parts of our chess community. So your argument to exploit one (the juniors) and transfer the cash to the other one (the seniors) is where you and I part company on our views.
You are entitled to your view of course.



I take issue only with the extent to which Cordover is employing this theme.


And I defnitely agree to this to the tune of $25,000.





Personally I regard your suggestion of $60/$80 entry fees to a Junior Championships at the upper level of what I consider reasonable. Given that prize money is not a high priority in junior events [a good thing], entry fees can be kept quite low.


Thanks for your feedback on this. We listened to similar feedback when we were designing the VIC OPEN, and that made the event even more successful.





Because of its brevity is hard to assess whether your question is disingenious or ignorant. I refer you in full to George Howard's comments, which I was endorsing. That any detail should be posted here prior to the ACF convening I regard as a luxury; that you feel it is your right to evaluate competing proposals on this forum diminishes your credibility in my view.



I will have to live with diminished credibility then.
But I have not evaluated george’s proposal because it is coming on Friday; for a decision on Saturday and again on Sunday.




Your should live by your own mantra - you criticise the lack of scrutiny in a rival proposal, whilst yourself submitting a document that I regard as scant.


Ok jase
Scant it is. If you want to call it that.

Personally, and also the Committee that put it together, thought a tournament comes down to entrance fees, prize level, accommodation cost, timetable of games, and playing conditions/venue. So that is where the brevity comes from. Focus on the important.

But if it is detail and pics and brochures and maps, and accom. guide, and travel agents etc >>
we do that too jase. But we usually do it on the web-site after we have won the job.


In summary, jase, you might just be correct on the ‘harping’ word. Looking back over the threads I find
Bill….just remarking on process
Paul B…..just commenting on trust
Kevin…..silent
Paul S…silent
Amiel….mainly silent…..I cannot believe how few posts
eclectic…silent
guru…..mainly silent
gg’’……very vocal but not from NSW……now there is a clue
barry……silent till prodded
matthew…..silent …school holidays
ian rout……mainly silent
kerry…….silent
george……thanks for something
firegoat…….one post
jenni…….on holidays?
Shaun…..mainly silent



Now maybe this is a done deal and NSW knows who has got the job.
But I am sure of one thing, we have done the job well before, and we could do the job for the JUNIORS again.

starter

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 09:18 PM
Now maybe this is a done deal and NSW knows who has got the job.

starter
well peter parr did make one post proposing his deal ;) maybe that is the one that will be taken, only the acf council knows after the 12th. but what did you mean by your comment about me not being silent :uhoh:

jeffrei
07-07-2004, 09:58 PM
Now maybe this is a done deal and NSW knows who has got the job. But I am sure of one thing, we have done the job well before, and we could do the job for the JUNIORS again.

It's funny you say that because I just got an email from Ruperto Lugo, currently at the World Youth Olympiad in India. Ruperto writes to say that he, Dusan Stojic, and NSWpeople J.Cronan and V.Suttor all DON'T want the juniors to be held at Mt Buller. Which is no coincidence, because pretty much all of the 35+ kids and parents - from a wide variety of states - I've talked to over the past two days have thought the precise same thing. Perhaps because having the juniors there is just an irredeemably sh*tty idea? One that's guaranteed to alienate virtually all the kids and all the parents? (But only around 10 of them said they wouldn't go if it were in Mt Buller - if mama and papa bear are still willing to open their chequebooks, maybe that's not a problem for the ACF...)

Since Jase and George have been the most vocal defenders of this scheme, the onus is on them to show why the juniors and their parents should accept Mt Buller over Melbourne as a venue for the Australian Juniors (aside from the fact that you’re about the present it to them as a fait accompli for the second time).

/jef

Garvinator
07-07-2004, 10:31 PM
It's funny you say that because I just got an email from Ruperto Lugo, currently at the World Youth Olympiad in India. Ruperto writes to say that he, Dusan Stojic, and NSWpeople J.Cronan and V.Suttor all DON'T want the juniors to be held at Mt Buller. Which is no coincidence, because pretty much all of the 35+ kids and parents - from a wide variety of states - I've talked to over the past two days have thought the precise same thing. Perhaps because having the juniors there is just an irredeemably sh*tty idea? One that's guaranteed to alienate virtually all the kids and all the parents? (But only around 10 of them said they wouldn't go if it were in Mt Buller - if mama and papa bear are still willing to open their chequebooks, maybe that's not a problem for the ACF...)

Since Jase and George have been the most vocal defenders of this scheme, the onus is on them to show why the juniors and their parents should accept Mt Buller over Melbourne as a venue for the Australian Juniors (aside from the fact that you’re about the present it to them as a fait accompli for the second time).

/jef


and without having spoken to any of these players myself, i am willing to bet that most of their unhappiness is based on:

1) the belief that the way the guru was going to run things is the way it will be run by any other organiser

Maybe their opinion will change after they see the possible plans of any organiser for mt buller??
:eek:

jeffrei
07-07-2004, 10:59 PM
and without having spoken to any of these players myself, i am willing to bet that most of their unhappiness is based on:

1) the belief that the way the guru was going to run things is the way it will be run by any other organiser

Maybe their opinion will change after they see the possible plans of any organiser for mt buller??
:eek:

No, it's based on Mt Buller being a sh*t place to spend one's summer holidays. What could the new organizers possibly offer them? Large cash prizes are not a possibility - they just want a decent place to play chess, without their parents' money getting sucked up by someone else's pipe dreams for the Open. And it's just plain obvious that the only way to make the Open in Mt Buller workable financially is by relying on the parents of the juniors plonking down mad $$$ for the privilege of staying in the middle of nowhere for two weeks.


What appears one day to be dead can be resurrected and brought to life bigger better and more affordable than ever.

This horse was processed into glue a long time ago. Although I was unhappy with the ACF's mindless optimism in accepting the first Mt Buller bid, I served on the organizing committee (in a minor role, advising about the time limits for the juniors and such). I am WELL AWARE of the difficulties that the original bid hit, and I don't see any reason for optimism about this second one. No doubt George and others have been working in good faith on a plan that would benefit Australian chess if it could be followed through - but just as they were the first time around, things are not what they seem!

Consider this: if David Cordover couldn't make the Open work two weeks ago, how much harder is it going to be to convince people to go to Mt Buller now that the bubble has burst? Now that we're looking at the salvage operation as opposed to the '6 GMs' type deal? I think we need to scale back our ambitions and go for 'no frills' options for both the Juniors and the Open. If Accor really does have a long-term interest in Australian chess, they'll be ready to come to the party next year or the year after, when we step to them with a better-thought-out plan, more time on our hands, and - dare I say it - maybe even some real consensus?

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 12:30 AM
No, it's based on Mt Buller being a sh*t place to spend one's summer holidays.
I know a number of people who would describe Melbourne also as a sh.t place to spend summer holidays, just as I'm sure there are others who would describe Sydney that way.


they just want a decent place to play chess, without their parents' money getting sucked up by someone else's pipe dreams for the Open.
This is just conjecture on your part at this stage and not based on any actual facts as far as I can tell.


And it's just plain obvious that the only way to make the Open in Mt Buller workable financially is by relying on the parents of the juniors plonking down mad $$$ for the privilege of staying in the middle of nowhere for two weeks.
Well just because the Guru and the organising committee for the Mt Buller seemed to fall into a hole does not mean another organiser will follow suit.

Waiting for the actual facts to appear rather than generating wild speculation would seem prudent.




This horse was processed into glue a long time ago. Although I was unhappy with the ACF's mindless optimism in accepting the first Mt Buller bid, I served on the organizing committee (in a minor role, advising about the time limits for the juniors and such). I am WELL AWARE of the difficulties that the original bid hit, and I don't see any reason for optimism about this second one.
Perhaps said difficuulties were betwwen Mt Buller and the organsier. Does not mean they will continue to be.


No doubt George and others have been working in good faith on a plan that would benefit Australian chess if it could be followed through - but just as they were the first time around, things are not what they seem!
Yes it will be intersting to hear a viewpoint on Mt. Buller other than one originating from the defunt organising committee.


Consider this: if David Cordover couldn't make the Open work two weeks ago, how much harder is it going to be to convince people to go to Mt Buller now that the bubble has burst?
Just because David could not make it work then perhaps someone whose inyerest may not involve making any profit will have better success.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 12:35 AM
As george has written
The only bid which does not have to be endorsed by a state or territory is a revamped bid Re Mt Buller if one eventuates. All other bids must still come through a State or Territory to be an approved bid - therefore the submission would need to come from Chess Victoria.

I would add to that that a revamped Mt Buller bid requires no further endorsement only if CV support it. In this case the removal of CG from the picture would be an internal matter of no ACF interest. However CV has clearly walked away from Mt B.

My view is that the ball is in CV's court and whatever bid CV decides to support will most likely be approved.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 12:56 AM
My view is that the ball is in CV's court and whatever bid CV decides to support will most likely be approved.
I dont think I can agree with you on this.

The ACF clearly endorsed the Mt Buller bid based on the recommendation of the National Conference. It just so happened that CV were the relevant state association and were prepared to support it.

Certainly if it had been put to the the national conference that Cv would runthe evnts at a location to be determined later they would not have got it.

If CV walks away from the Mt Buller bid, I see no reason why it the Mt Buller bid should not go to another organiser with the ACF itself replacing CV.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 01:14 AM
I have received two requests by PM to clarify my comments above (and maybe this will answer Bill's comments too).

This ties in with what I was saying about the Constitution. The ACF Constitution, section "By-Laws for ACF Tournaments" contains the following:

18. Where the Council has determined the state where a tournament will be held, the Council shall not withdraw the tournament from that state unless:

a. the State Association consents thereto; or

b. the State Association has seriously neglected its duties in relation thereto or does not comply with these by-laws.

and

22. A decision of a sponsoring State Association on any item mentioned in By-Law 20 approved by the Federation shall not be varied except by consent of the Federation and the sponsoring State Association.

This means that the new CV proposal should be treated as an amendment to an existing bid, not a new bid.

Council then has two issues to consider -

- whether the collapse of Mt Buller constitutes serious neglect of CV's duties with relation to the Australian Open, in which case Council can strip Victoria of the bid and award it to another state.

- whether Council approves the venue change; if not and Council was implacable on that point I suppose CV would be faced with the choice of reviving Mt Buller or else giving up the bid.

My point is that CV appears to be in the prime bidding position. It is not a straight fight between bids, but rather, if the CV bid overcomes the simple points above (not serious neglect, venue change approved) then the CV re-bid must be approved and no other bid gets onto the table.

If anyone differs with my understanding of the constitution on this point I would appreciate it if they explained why, with reference to specific clauses.

Note: I'm not saying this is a good thing, I personally think that it would be nice if CV/CG now had to compete with other bids on a level playing field in view of the way the event was advertised as a sure thing when it most clearly was not.

(added: item 20 is:

20. The sponsoring State Association shall forward details of the following to the ACF Council for approval, and keep the Council apprised of any changes to such details.
a. all details supplied per clause 19;
b. the time controls, being FIDE time controls in an Australian Championship and in a tournament to select a player for a FIDE event;
c. the closing date for entries;
d. the name and address of the competition director and the composition of the tournament committee if any;
e. the procedure for settling disputes during the tournament;
f. the entry fees;
g. the playing rules other than the FIDE rules;
h. the count-back procedure to be used;
i. the times of the playing sessions;
j. the date and time for the start of the opening ceremony,
i. the dates on which the tournament is to start and finish,
ii. the dates for each rest day (if any), and
iii. the date and time for the start of the presentation of prizes;
k. any other matter connected with the tournament which the Federation may reasonably require.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 01:22 AM
I have received two requests by PM to clarify my comments above (and maybe this will answer Bill's comments too).

This ties in with what I was saying about the Constitution. The ACF Constitution, section "By-Laws for ACF Tournaments" contains the following:

18. Where the Council has determined the state where a tournament will be held, the Council shall not withdraw the tournament from that state unless:

a. the State Association consents thereto; or

b. the State Association has seriously neglected its duties in relation thereto or does not comply with these by-laws.

and

22. A decision of a sponsoring State Association on any item mentioned in By-Law 20 approved by the Federation shall not be varied except by consent of the Federation and the sponsoring State Association.

This means that the new CV proposal should be treated as an amendment to an existing bid, not a new bid.

Council then has two issues to consider -

- whether the collapse of Mt Buller constitutes serious neglect of CV's duties with relation to the Australian Open, in which case Council can strip Victoria of the bid and award it to another state.

- whether Council approves the venue change; if not and Council was implacable on that point I suppose CV would be faced with the choice of reviving Mt Buller or else giving up the bid.

My point is that CV appears to be in the prime bidding position. It is not a straight fight between bids, but rather, if the CV bid overcomes the simple points above (not serious neglect, venue change approved) then the CV re-bid must be approved and no other bid gets onto the table.

If anyone differs with my understanding of the constitution on this point I would appreciate it if they explained why, with reference to specific clauses.

Note: I'm not saying this is a good thing, I personally think that it would be nice if CV/CG now had to compete with other bids on a level playing field in view of the way the event was advertised as a sure thing when it most clearly was not.
My only comment is they are by-laws and not part of the Constituion.
The ACF Council can change/suspend by-laws as they see fit by simple majority vote.
We did so last year with regards the selection appeals by-law.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 01:26 AM
I dont think I can agree with you on this.

I'm not sure I agree with myself on that specific quote either. It is quite possible that Council will make use of one of the two avenues I have mentioned to squash CV's replacement bid, if enough people are angry enough about what has occurred.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 01:30 AM
My only comment is they are by-laws and not part of the Constituion.
The ACF Council can change/suspend by-laws as they see fit by simple majority vote.
We did so last year with regards the selection appeals by-law.

Yes, this is quite correct. Council can simply tack a "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in by-law #x" onto the front of a motion and override the by-law that is contradicted by the action in question.

I am not sure how much I like the idea of doing so though.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 01:33 AM
well peter parr did make one post proposing his deal ;) maybe that is the one that will be taken, only the acf council knows after the 12th. but what did you mean by your comment about me not being silent :uhoh:
As NSWCA President I am unaware of any bid coming from NSW.
No request has been made to the NSWCA to support any bid.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 01:35 AM
Yes, this is quite correct. Council can simply tack a "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in by-law #x" onto the front of a motion and override the by-law that is contradicted by the action in question.

I am not sure how much I like the idea of doing so though.
As a rule I'm not generally in favour of such actions either, but it surely was never envisaged by those formulating the by-laws that a sequence of events such has been the case with the Mt. Buller proposal/bid would eventuate.

Can anyone think of a time when a state association that won the rights to an event actually ended up changing the venue so late in the year if at all.

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 01:36 AM
As NSWCA President I am unaware of any bid coming from NSW.
No request has been made to the NSWCA to support any bid.
actually my post was just meant to be a jibe at starter about other bids ;)

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 01:38 AM
actually my post was just meant to be a jibe at starter about other bids ;)
Yes but starter was also implying NSW may have a bid.

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 01:46 AM
As a rule I'm not generally in favour of such actions either, but it surely was never envisaged by those formulating the by-laws that a sequence of events such has been the case with the Mt. Buller proposal/bid would eventuate.

The By-Law seems to anticipate some kind of disaster because it includes the "serious neglect" provision.

I suppose we should ask seriously whether what has happened adds up to serious neglect.

Thoughts, anyone?

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 01:48 AM
Yes but starter was also implying NSW may have a bid.
ok so that leaves as far as has been revealed:

1) any new organisers mt buller bid
2) guru's change of location to brighton grammar
3) whitehorse for the australian junior.

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 01:51 AM
The By-Law seems to anticipate some kind of disaster because it includes the "serious neglect" provision.

I suppose we should ask seriously whether what has happened adds up to serious neglect.

Thoughts, anyone?
my thoughts are that there has been serious neglect on cv's part, but i dont know at all how much cv was keeping up to date with negotiations with guru and mt buller. So unless that part can be clarified further, i dont think we can comment with much accuracy.

Also I am aware that it is one thing to sit here and type and say cv is guilty of all sorts of charges, but it is another to vote for it when your vote counts for something.

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 08:41 AM
My view is that the ball is in CV's court and whatever bid CV decides to support will most likely be approved.

Good morning Kevin

Thanks for the post.
Personally I appreciate your reappearance on this topic; my successive posts were starting to look like harping.

And the content of your post is right on the money in defining a core issue. I followed subsequent posts between yourself and Bill re over-turning the CV bid for various reasons with mild interest until I suddenly realised that CV has only one bid. :eek:
It only has the Brighton Grammar proposal. :eek: :eek:
The Whitehorse Junior Chess submission is a proposal for the Junior event only.

So, can you advise, what was the wording of the actual motion(s) that gave CV the nod for Mt Buller.
Was it A.
ACF awards AUS SENIORS & JUNIORS & SCHOOLS to CV ,
or was it B.
1. ACF awards AUS Seniors to CV
2. ACF awards AUS JUNIORS to CV
3. ACF awards SCHOOLS to CV, and we like skiing on grass.

If it is A. then it is game over for Whitehorse unless they also put an additional proposal to hold the AUS OPEN.

starter

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 10:15 AM
If it is A. then it is game over for Whitehorse unless they also put an additional proposal to hold the AUS OPEN.

starter
starter, thanks for your pm. as for this comment, i think this is the point i was trying to make all along in regards to the whitehorse bid when i was asking what about the aussie open and the effect that the whitehorse bid could have on the aussie open.

It seemed to me that the acf would not award the aussie junior to whitehorse and then have to try and find new bids for the aussie open as a stand alone event. Especially when they will probably have at least two bundled bids to choose from.

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 11:24 AM
starter, thanks for your pm. as for this comment, i think this is the point i was trying to make all along in regards to the whitehorse bid when i was asking what about the aussie open and the effect that the whitehorse bid could have on the aussie open.

It seemed to me that the acf would not award the aussie junior to whitehorse and then have to try and find new bids for the aussie open as a stand alone event. Especially when they will probably have at least two bundled bids to choose from.

OK GG""YY
If that was the point of your post long back then apologies from me, I did not catch on at the time.
Now the penny has dropped.

No harm done though. We can put a proposal together, if we want to hold all events, by the week-end...no sweat.
Now jase might doubt this because he likes to see everything in a proposal, and two days would be insufficient to meet his standard.
But that fortunately is not the challenge.
In fact the challenge is to convince CV that we are the preferred bidder.
We can do that if we choose too.
And if we are the preferred bidder from CV, then of course the ACF has to recognise this (Evidence.........the constitution and by-laws discussion between KB and Bill in the previous 24 hours).
Could be game over for Brighton and Mt Buller, my (banana-bending) mate. :hmm:

starter

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 11:37 AM
Could be game over for Brighton and Mt Buller, my (banana-bending) mate. :hmm:

starter
i dont agree. I would say changing the organisers from guru to whitehorse and also the venue from mt buller to whitehorse would attract more consideration from the acf council.

What do i mean by 'more attention'. Well, as kevin has said, serious neglect is the standard(shortened his words- editors note ;) ). If i was on the acf council from reading the by laws and constitution, i would be asking more questions about why the cv council chose to change from the guru's altered venue (his bid same as mt buller, just different venue with required alterations for new venue) to a whole new organisation. What went wrong, all that stuff.

Also i think the acf will be more cautious in who they award things too this time. I would of course love to see many high quality bids from different organisers.

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 11:57 AM
I would say changing the organisers from guru to whitehorse and also the venue from mt buller to whitehorse would attract more consideration from the acf council.

What do i mean by 'more attention'. Well, as kevin has said, serious neglect is the standard(shortened his words- editors note ;) ).


'raa'y

Rather hard to argue that it is 'serious neglect' on CV's decision-making to move from a bid that has fallen over (GURU + Mt Buller) to a bid that comes from a group with a track record. To me CV looks as though it is handling this particular decision-making well. A better choice of words would be 'serious improvement'.

starter

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 12:15 PM
' A better choice of words would be 'serious improvement'. starter of course you would say that;) :lol:



Rather hard to argue that it is 'serious neglect' on CV's decision-making to move from a bid that has fallen over (GURU + Mt Buller) to a bid that comes from a group with a track record.
a hard argument has never stopped me before ;) and it aint going to here either. The serious neglect in my opinion would be in reference to why the cv/guru mt buller bid fell over and why now cv has to alter their possible endorsement.

You never know starter, GW(i say GW and not cv, cause as you pointed out before, potentially the cv endorsement could be made on GW's vote only ;) ) might just say we dont want any part of this as an organisation and then allow the acf to consider all bids as individual bids.

A long time ago i said that mcc should be part of cv, if for the only reason is to get rid of some members of cv (i was thinking of what is best in terms of mcc only). Well if mcc was part of cv right now, they could use their votes to at least shaft the guru by voting for the whitehorse proposal, cause as we know the guru and fg7 are great friends :lol: ;)

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 12:24 PM
The serious neglect in my opinion would be in reference to why the cv/guru mt buller bid fell over and why now cv has to alter their possible endorsement.



No more serious neglect than ACF’s reliance on CV.





You never know starter, GW(i say GW and not cv, cause as you pointed out before, potentially the cv endorsement could be made on GW's vote only ;) ) might just say we dont want any part of this as an organisation and then allow the acf to consider all bids as individual bids.


Will not happen, because CV will have at least 1 feasible solution.

starter

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 12:44 PM
So, can you advise, what was the wording of the actual motion(s) that gave CV the nod for Mt Buller.
Was it A.
ACF awards AUS SENIORS & JUNIORS & SCHOOLS to CV ,
or was it B.
1. ACF awards AUS Seniors to CV
2. ACF awards AUS JUNIORS to CV
3. ACF awards SCHOOLS to CV, and we like skiing on grass.

If it is A. then it is game over for Whitehorse unless they also put an additional proposal to hold the AUS OPEN.

starter
The wording of the recommendation by the National Conference to the ACF Council was "that this Conference recommends to the ACF Council that it accepts the proposal to conduct the following events, at Mt Buller, generally in accordance with the submission presented, on behalf of the ACF".
The wording of the ACF Council motion was "That the ACF Council accepts the
recommendation of the National Conference to authorize Chess Victoria Inc
to conduct the following events, at Mt Buller, generally in accordance with
the submission presented, on behalf of the ACF".

As can be seen Mt. Buller is explicitly mentioned in both motions.

As such I would be arguing that if the venue is not Mt. Buller then there is no awarding of the "events" to CV.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 12:53 PM
No more serious neglect than ACF’s reliance on CV.
You cannot equate the two.
CV and its organising committee had the hands on responsability.
Up until the CV/ Mt. Buller bid fell thru there were no reports emanating from CV to the ACF that I am aware of to indicate there were any issues/problems with the Mt. Buller venue/conditions.

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 12:56 PM
You cannot equate the two.
CV and its organising committee had the hands on responsability.
Up until the CV/ Mt. Buller bid fell thru there were no reports emanating from CV to the ACF that I am aware of to indicate there were any issues/problems with the Mt. Buller venue/conditions.
would i be correct in saying that cv has/had a responsibility to keep the acf informed as things move along?

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 01:16 PM
You cannot equate the two.
CV and its organising committee had the hands on responsability.
Up until the CV/ Mt. Buller bid fell thru there were no reports emanating from CV to the ACF that I am aware of to indicate there were any issues/problems with the Mt. Buller venue/conditions.

Bill
I do equate the two.

The bid fell through in month 6.
For months 1,2,3,4,5 both CV and ACF thought 'alls well'. At least that seems to be what I have read on the bb here.

starter

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 01:18 PM
would i be correct in saying that cv has/had a responsibility to keep the acf informed as things move along?

gg

The bid fell through in month 6.
For months 1,2,3,4,5 both CV and ACF thought 'alls well'. At least that seems to be what I have read on the bb here.


Yes, CV has a responsibility to advise ACF. And yes the ACF has a responsibility to ask regularly...is all well?'

starter

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 01:27 PM
gg

The bid fell through in month 6.
For months 1,2,3,4,5 both CV and ACF thought 'alls well'. At least that seems to be what I have read on the bb here.


Yes, CV has a responsibility to advise ACF. And yes the ACF has a responsibility to ask regularly...is all well?'

starterstop doubling your post reply ;) hehe i think ill let bill answer these questions as he is on the acf council and im not. I dont know anything about what has/has not been discussed between cv and acf. So ill just keep reading for now.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 01:41 PM
Bill
I do equate the two.

The bid fell through in month 6.
For months 1,2,3,4,5 both CV and ACF thought 'alls well'. At least that seems to be what I have read on the bb here.

starter
The ACF was liasing with CV. After all the ACF Deputy President is the CV President.
My understanding is that the CV President informed the ACF as soon as he was aware of the problems between Mt Buller and the organiser and CV decided to walk away.
Now it appears CV gave pretty much carte blanche control of the organisng to the guru.
Perhaps they should have kept a tighter rein on proceedings

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 01:41 PM
As can be seen Mt. Buller is explicitly mentioned in both motions.

As such I would be arguing that if the venue is not Mt. Buller then there is no awarding of the "events" to CV.

This is a technical twist I had not anticipated and I'm waiting to see if Denis Jessop or anyone esle has any reply to it, since I don't. If this does stand up then Council is indeed free to do whatever it likes.

A note re the "serious neglect" provision - if Council was to use that, that would extinguish all CV bids. So it may be best not to go there hastily.

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 01:51 PM
This is a technical twist I had not anticipated and I'm waiting to see if Denis Jessop or anyone esle has any reply to it, since I don't. If this does stand up then Council is indeed free to do whatever it likes.

A note re the "serious neglect" provision - if Council was to use that, that would extinguish all CV bids. So it may be best not to go there hastily.
ok my quietness lasted about half an hour :lol: who is denis jessop on here? and secondly, couldnt any bids received from victoria be considered as individual bids without state involvement?

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 02:13 PM
The ACF was liasing with CV. After all the ACF Deputy President is the CV President.
My understanding is that the CV President informed the ACF as soon as he was aware of the problems between Mt Buller and the organiser and CV decided to walk away.
Now it appears CV gave pretty much carte blanche control of the organisng to the guru.
Perhaps they should have kept a tighter rein on proceedings

Bill

The deal fell over in month 6 because the problem appeared in month 6 (according to postings here). It was not a creeping problem that tight reins would detect.
So, back to square 1, CV and ACF had the same degree of neglect.

(Sorry GG''''' and jase, I have had to repeat for a third time as some people are slow to agree).


starter

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 02:15 PM
This is a technical twist I had not anticipated and I'm waiting to see if Denis Jessop or anyone esle has any reply to it, since I don't. If this does stand up then Council is indeed free to do whatever it likes.

A note re the "serious neglect" provision - if Council was to use that, that would extinguish all CV bids. So it may be best not to go there hastily.

KB

George has invited new bids so new bids can't be extinguished?

starter

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 02:22 PM
Bill

The deal fell over in month 6 because the problem appeared in month 6 (according to postings here). It was not a creeping problem that tight reins would detect.
So, back to square 1, CV and ACF had the same degree of neglect.

You can say it as much as you like, it does not make it true.
CV had the day to day hands on responsability.
They should have better monitored the guru's dealings with Mt. Buller.

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 02:24 PM
KB

George has invited new bids so new bids can't be extinguished?

starter
Of course they can if the Council decides he had no authority to do so.
Mind you I'm not saying they will decide that, just that they could.

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 02:25 PM
You can say it as much as you like, it does not make it true.
these debates have been civilised so far, dont start sounding like a matt or david debate ;) :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 02:27 PM
these debates have been civilised so far, dont start sounding like a matt or david debate ;) :lol: :whistle:
Dont worry starter and I are light years away from one of those mainly because I respect his opinion even though I disagree with him. ;)

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 02:28 PM
You can say it as much as you like, it does not make it true.
CV had the day to day hands on responsability.
They should have better monitored the guru's dealings with Mt. Buller.i

The ACF was liaising with CV. After all the ACF Deputy President is the CV President.
My understanding is that the CV President informed the ACF as soon as he was aware of the problems between Mt Buller and the organiser and CV decided to walk away.


Bill
As I said...same degree of neglect.
starter

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 03:12 PM
i


Bill
As I said...same degree of neglect.
starter
Changing colors and font size does not make it so.
The ACF reponsability was to get reports from CV.
CV had a responsabilty to ensure everything was going as planned.
It apparently wasnt.

However I guess it comes down to a matter of trust.
There are some people whose words you would accept.
There are others who you would want to be on top of all the time.
I'll let you guess who I think fits into the two categories. :whistle:

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 03:31 PM
I'll let you guess who I think fits into the two categories. :whistle:
guessing in these situations can get everyone into a lot of trouble ;) :lol:

ursogr8
08-07-2004, 03:48 PM
Changing colors and font size does not make it so.
:

Ah
But
Correcting your spelling should have counted for something.
;) :wall:

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2004, 04:08 PM
who is denis jessop on here?

He isn't here as far as I know, he probably has too much sense. He's on the ACF Council and is also on the Constitutional Committee (when it exists).


and secondly, couldnt any bids received from victoria be considered as individual bids without state involvement?

Such bids are not valid. Events must be either run by the ACF itself or supported by a state association.

[EDIT: Unless Council overrides the By-Laws to award them to a club)

Garvinator
08-07-2004, 04:19 PM
He isn't here as far as I know, he probably has too much sense.
oh come on now, it aint that bad :whistle:

Libby
08-07-2004, 08:15 PM
Ok - as one of those chequebook wielding parents this is my view of the Aus Jnrs at Mt Buller. (BTW - I carry an extremely small chequebook as one of those minority "home duties" type mothers so nobody need bring up any stereotypes of laptop wielding, GM coached, private school brats with pushy mothers).

I organised a very cheap accommodation option for ACT juniors at a lodge in Mt Buller and we had booked the place out and paid in full (extra 10% off for that). We were paying $27per night for adults and $13.50 for kids. For us, accommodation didn't look like a big minus at Mt Buller. As we have now cancelled that booking - and some Porsche car clubbers are very happily absorbing part of our booking we will be pretty p****d if it ends up being there after all (not that we expect that will influence the decision making but it gives another example of how this on/off decision making impacts on families).

In my discussion with the lodge I discovered that it is almost impossible to shop in Mt Buller in Summer. No, not for my laptop accessories or glamourous gowns for prizegiving, just for bread and milk etc. My enquiries about whether we could buy some basic meat, fruit, bread etc at the "mini-mart" in Mt Buller yielded a "hmm, maybe milk and newspapers and some odds & ends" and not much more. In Winter apparently goods can be ordered from Mansfield and a courier will deliver them to you (for a fee) and "maybe" this could be organised if our order was big enough.

This fed into my main concern about the venue - the "closed shop" nature of the venue where your accommodation discount can be eaten up by the premium paid for other services and food. My daughter and I travel on a pretty strict budget each year (we stay in the dorms at school venues) and eating cheap is part of that budget. I was looking at packing a lot of tinned spaghetti.

Travel to the venue was a problem for us. It's a little further than I thought to drive and we are a one-car family. My (some say) better half stays in Canberra with our non-chess playing daughters but would be driving to Mt Buller & back to drop us off. ACTJCL was planning to look at a bus option but many prefer to drive themselves and a bus is only viable if you can fill it. If we flew into Melbourne we are not much better off with a similar distance still to travel from the opposite end. It's just not the greatest place to get to.

And what to do for 2 weeks? Can't say we're the bushwalking types but we'd give it a go for the first week. Sorry, Mt Buller is my idea of a nice weekend or so, not a fortnight.

If the events end up in Mt Buller we will support them because we are kind-of a captive group. Please remember that the kids want to play the events and parents try to provide the opportunities. Try asking those of us who actually wield those chequebooks, cancel the family holidays, arrange babysitting for the rest of the kids, take time off work, drive the cars etc what works for us. Not just this year - all the time. We don't want the most magnificent 5 star resort deals, glamourous locations and whopping amounts of prizemoney. We want an accessible venue, range of accommodation choices, a daggy trophy for the winners and a good time had by all. And we'd like to know a little in advance please. And we'd like you to have it signed, sealed and delivered before you tell us where it's going to be - so we don't look like idiots as well and so we can make some plans for our whole families, not all of whom care a jot about chess.

Libby :wall:

BroadZ
08-07-2004, 09:22 PM
aight this is comin late since my internet wouldnt load up the bb when i wanted it to but better late then never
assuming the aussie jnrs is planned yet again to be at mt buller id like to, in the nicest way possible, to say <snip> to anyone who supports this idea
bullers a great place to go, but in the summer??? in the middle of nowhere?? if this aint about cash then you're all <snip> in the head
last year i worked my ass off for a month straight, 12-16 hour days every day to go to perth, and it was worth my efforts, but theres no <snip> way that im gonna do that again just to go to that <snip>.
yeh, maybe ppl think of melbourne as a <edit> place to go for the summer holidays, but i can guarantee you all that they would pick melbourne any day over buller
i aint alone in this, believe it or not, most ppl do NOT want the jnrs there, dont believe me? ill start a petition and show all you <edit> who doubt it just say the word.
if the jnrs are in buller im not goin, oh wait, ive forgotten, im just the rude lil punk that yall look down your noses at, youll be glad if i dont go yeh? i will make sure that i wont be alone in this, i WILL make sure others dont go
dont like me? <edit>. especially you gletsos

Bill Gletsos
08-07-2004, 10:41 PM
aight this is comin late since my internet wouldnt load up the bb when i wanted it to but better late then never
assuming the aussie jnrs is planned yet again to be at mt buller id like to, in the nicest way possible, to say <snip> to anyone who supports this idea
bullers a great place to go, but in the summer??? in the middle of nowhere?? if this aint about cash then you're all <snip> in the head
last year i worked my ass off for a month straight, 12-16 hour days every day to go to perth, and it was worth my efforts, but theres no <snip> way that im gonna do that again just to go to that <snip>.
yeh, maybe ppl think of melbourne as a <edit> place to go for the summer holidays, but i can guarantee you all that they would pick melbourne any day over buller
i aint alone in this, believe it or not, most ppl do NOT want the jnrs there, dont believe me? ill start a petition and show all you <edit> who doubt it just say the word.
if the jnrs are in buller im not goin, oh wait, ive forgotten, im just the rude lil punk that yall look down your noses at, youll be glad if i dont go yeh? i will make sure that i wont be alone in this, i WILL make sure others dont go
dont like me? <edit>. especially you gletsos
I'm not sure I've actually attacked you before on the BB broadz even though you have come across as a rude, abusive arrogant little prick.
When you are old enough to vote and become a NSW resident then I'll listen to you. Until then you are out of luck.

Anyway you clown even if NSW voted for Mt. Buller, for it to get up it would obviously need the support of the majority of the other Council members.

However if you actually used what between your ears for other than just filling space you would have noted that I said before when it comes to junior issues NSW votes as recommended by the NSWJCL.
Its a shame you mexicans dont have one.

BroadZ
09-07-2004, 12:40 AM
I'm not sure I've actually attacked you before on the BB broadz even though you have come across as a rude, abusive arrogant little prick.
When you are old enough to vote and become a NSW resident then I'll listen to you. Until then you are out of luck.

Anyway you clown even if NSW voted for Mt. Buller, for it to get up it would obviously need the support of the majority of the other Council members.

However if you actually used what between your ears for other than just filling space you would have noted that I said before when it comes to junior issues NSW votes as recommended by the NSWJCL.
Its a shame you mexicans dont have one.


ive come across as a rude, abusive arrogant little prick? you dont know the half of it

AES
09-07-2004, 12:45 AM
And will the petition be from those in Melbourne? :D

BroadZ
09-07-2004, 01:25 AM
so far the petition contains the following interstate names (aside from 40+ more from Victoria):

James Cronan
John Cronan (parent)
Rebecca Harris
Michael Wei
Vincent Suttor
Ronald Yu
Moulthun Ly
Rebecca Harris
Manuel Weeks (coach)
James Obst
Raymond Song
Angela Song
Sonia Song(parent)

ive been taking this with help from Geoff Saw and Chris Wallis. the only one from interstate weve asked who didnt protest against Buller was Heather Huddleston, who said she ‘needed to see more information’
whadya reckon of that? i reckon weve got some good support goin here.
yeh btw hows your pro-Mt Buller petition goin? how many names you got from the Mt Buller Chess Club?
that ones gonna be a struggle good luck with that....nah, im [snip] with ya

jeffrei
09-07-2004, 01:58 AM
I think a couple of these names were subject to confirmation. The proper records are on Chris's computer and I'll check it with him tomorrow. Actually we'd shelved the idea of getting a survey of juniors since we'd given up hope of anyone actually caring what the kids/parents thought! Since the ACF knows that parents will go pretty much anywhere for their kids, they can bank on a lot of people turning up (however unwillingly) wherever the event's held. I find it totally immoral for the ACF for exploit this fact unless there are VERY COMPELLING reasons for doing so.

Although actually some of these people said they would not go to an Aus Junior if it was held in Mt Buller (e.g. Songs, and ChrisWallis himself).

PS: BroadZ, Ruperto also helped with the survey collection. He's another one who was totally against Mt Buller, but I don't know if it'd be enough to prevent him from playing.
PPS: According to Chris we can add Jenni Oliver to your anti-Buller list. Apologies to Chris and/or Jenni if I'm misrepresenting either of them! Hopefully Jenni will be back online soon and we will be able to hear her views in full.

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 02:05 AM
when was this petition ran? Do you actually know the details of any new mt buller bid?

My bet is that those names were gained based partly if not mostly from details of gurus mt bullers bid and not from any details from any new organiser.

It is interesting that some posters have said that whitehorse should run the juniors and guru should run the open. Interesting, the deal falls through regarding gurus mt buller and straight away ppl are saying lets jump back into bed with guru at melbourne, just because it is handy to get to.

I notice also that some of the players on the 'petition' are the ones who are in india, so its fine to travel to india, but mt buller is too difficult. Give me a break. :hand:

jeffrei
09-07-2004, 02:17 AM
My bet is that those names were gained based partly if not mostly from details of gurus mt bullers bid and not from any details from any new organiser.
These names were not gained through knowledge of anyone's bid, but through knowledge of Mt Buller and the general suckage thereof.



I notice also that some of the players on the 'petition' are the ones who are in india, so its fine to travel to india, but mt buller is too difficult. Give me a break. :hand:
Ruperto was the one asking the India people, not me, but I guess their reasoning might be that India is an exciting exotic country and that Mt Buller is a burnt molehill in the middle of summer. It's not the distance that's the problem.

AES
09-07-2004, 02:17 AM
My thoughts exactly gg.

I think Jeff, you are trying to convince yourself that it should be elsewhere. This is NOT justified. Wait until after July 12.

Nothing is set in stone yet.

jeffrei
09-07-2004, 02:19 AM
Wait until after July 12.

I don't particularly feel like waiting until after it's too late. First time round I didn't even know about the Mt Buller bid and then *whoosh* it's already been accepted. And didn't that turn out just peachy? :clap:

By the way, has anyone noticed that I went from total silence in this debate 2 days ago to writing every second post today? Being the nice, trusting type, I sortof figured that sanity would prevail of its own accord. But then watching the starter vs BillGletsos debate I started to realize - to my total shock and unmitigated horror - that Mt Buller #2 was virtually a done deal, and that a whole lot of people from this BB had been roped into it. I don't actually like being a firestarter but I'll do it to save certain people from themselves.

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 02:21 AM
Ruperto was the one asking the India people, not me, but I guess their reasoning might be that India is and exciting exotic country and that Mt Buller is a burnt molehill in the middle of summer. It's not the distance that's the problem.
and it could be argued by some that melbourne is a filthy city with a bad looking river :whistle: as Bill Gletsos has said previously, some people wont be happy going to melbourne, sydney or wherever any tournament is going to be held. At least in mt buller you wont have to worry about dysentry and other nice lovely second/third world diseases :uhoh:

BroadZ
09-07-2004, 02:26 AM
I notice also that some of the players on the 'petition' are the ones who are in india, so its fine to travel to india, but mt buller is too difficult. Give me a break. :hand:

now the $20k question do you: a) pay a fair bit but go to india where you know its gonna be one sweet trip? or do you b) pay less, but go to buller in [snip] of a trip?
give you a break? give me a break.

AES
09-07-2004, 02:27 AM
I don't particularly feel like waiting until after it's too late. First time round I didn't even know about the Mt Buller bid and then *whoosh* it's already been accepted. And wasn't that just a fantastic idea?


Good point, I quite agree. :P

Given that, I feel that Mr Howard would be most receptive to a private email as this is obivously a serious concern you have. I am not sure what others think but perhaps provide contacts for those on your petition so that George himself can see what people think. I am not sure how much this would achieve though.

BroadZ
09-07-2004, 02:28 AM
and it could be argued by some that melbourne is a filthy city with a bad looking river :whistle: as Bill Gletsos has said previously, some people wont be happy going to melbourne, sydney or wherever any tournament is going to be held. At least in mt buller you wont have to worry about dysentry and other nice lovely second/third world diseases :uhoh:

you make me laugh.

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 02:30 AM
you make me laugh.
im happy that at least one of us is laughing, but judging from your previous posting technique, i was expecting another foul mouth post from you :whistle:

AES
09-07-2004, 02:31 AM
yeah it was a good comment gg.

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 02:33 AM
yeah it was a good comment gg.
im curious, who are you aes? send me a pm if you dont want to answer here :D

Alan Shore
09-07-2004, 02:44 AM
and it could be argued by some that melbourne is a filthy city with a bad looking river :whistle: as Bill Gletsos has said previously, some people wont be happy going to melbourne, sydney or wherever any tournament is going to be held. At least in mt buller you wont have to worry about dysentry and other nice lovely second/third world diseases :uhoh:

Let's have it in Brisbane, we can get CAQ to charge exorbitant entry fees and get a turnout of about 20 people as per the norm! :doh: :rolleyes:

AES
09-07-2004, 02:51 AM
gg, take a look at your inbox.

arosar
09-07-2004, 10:25 AM
I notice also that some of the players on the 'petition' are the ones who are in india, so its fine to travel to india, but mt buller is too difficult. Give me a break. :hand:

It's all about value. For these guys travelling to India for that tournament has better returns (chess-wise, fun-wise, travel-wise) than travelling to a hill in the back of beyond with nothing to do and all probability of running out of food supply.

It's a bit like my choice to go to the Vic Open when I could have just as easily stayed in NSW and played in our own home event. See, I had never been to Mexico and, as it turns out, I loved the place (except for that sinister sky).

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 11:02 AM
But then watching the starter vs BillGletsos debate I started to realize - to my total shock and unmitigated horror - that Mt Buller #2 was virtually a done deal, and that a whole lot of people from this BB had been roped into it.
I dont believe its a done deal at all.
I just want to hear all the facts rather than just idle speculation by those ex CV organising committee member bagging Mt. Buller.

After all I wouldnt expect them to actuallly come out and say it fell thru because they "c.cked it up".

Also considering the concerns people had regarding the gurus lack of information re the Open at Mt Buller on here before he withdrew from it, I find it amazing that you can now all suddenly support his Open bid in Melbourne.

If the ACF should be scrutinising anything and not rushing into a hasty decision its another guru bid supported by CV.

Oepty
09-07-2004, 11:31 AM
In my view going with Cordover as an organiser for any tournaments in the future would be just stupid.
Mt Buller is not an appropriate location for the junior champs no matter what the deal is and who is organising it.
Box Hill Chess Club and Whitehorse Junior Chess Club have proven themselves to be excellent clubs and have a record of successfully running events so this seems to be by far the best bid for the juniors.
This leaves nothing for the Open unless it can be held at Mt Buller without the juniors.
So I think the best thing that can be done is accept the bid for the juniors at Box Hill and the ACF actively seek out another venue for the Open and if needed directly run it. The best hope for the Open seems to be a successful local tournament with minimum overseas involvement, similar to the last one.
Scott

arosar
09-07-2004, 11:40 AM
So is this the end of Mr Cordover being an organiser?

AR

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 11:48 AM
In my view going with Cordover as an organiser for any tournaments in the future would be just stupid.
Mt Buller is not an appropriate location for the junior champs no matter what the deal is and who is organising it.
Box Hill Chess Club and Whitehorse Junior Chess Club have proven themselves to be excellent clubs and have a record of successfully running events so this seems to be by far the best bid for the juniors.
This leaves nothing for the Open unless it can be held at Mt Buller without the juniors.
So I think the best thing that can be done is accept the bid for the juniors at Box Hill and the ACF actively seek out another venue for the Open and if needed directly run it. The best hope for the Open seems to be a successful local tournament with minimum overseas involvement, similar to the last one.
Scott

and scott here is where reality could come in sorry. the acf council could face a situation where they will be choosing between:

1) A complete mt buller bid for all three events
2) whitehorse bid for juniors only
3) The guru proposal for a change of location to brighton grammar
4) A combined bid between whitehorse for the junior and guru for the open.

Well my thoughts, clearly only one of 2,3,4 will be on the table from cv. Which one will they choose, or maybe the acf constitution will force their hand?

To all those who are complaining about where to hold the juniors and open, this is a factor that you clowns
:hand: have not considered, that the acf's process of allocation may be forced as to where to hold all the events.

Consider this series of events:

1) CV has their meeting and gives their endorsement to any of the bids
2) The acf sits down with two bids to consider, the new organisers mt buller bid and any of the three cv deals mentioned earlier.

3) then the acf starts questioning GW and any other victorian delegates or David Cordover who should be there as Director of coaching (source of this information http://www.auschess.org.au/acfexec.htm ).

4) After this debate/discussion the acf rules that their was serious neglect in the gurus mt buller bid falling over and then rules that any cv bid cannot be accepted.

5) Well then this leaves just the new organisers mt buller bid. What are they then supposed to do? Not accept that either.

So all you whingers, events may transpire that leave no option other than mt buller, no matter how much you lump it :whistle:

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 11:50 AM
So is this the end of Mr Cordover being an organiser?

AR
id say not, just that any of his bids/ideas in the future will be examined with a very fine tooth comb and any of his bigger claims will be questioned in extreme depth.

Paul S
09-07-2004, 11:52 AM
Jase

Looking back over the threads I find
..................
Paul S…silent
..................


I haven't said anything as the organisation/running of Australian Championships/Open is something I know very little about. My only (almost inconsequential) experience with Australian Championships/Open was in 2003 at Penrith where I assisted Brian Jones in setting up the equipment (the day before the start) and playing in the Lightning.

However, just for you, Starter, I will make a few comments! ;) :lol:

Why can't the Mt Buller people put in a bid of their own? Why is it necessary for some chess individual/organisation to be the organiser? Why not have an arrangement wherby Mt Buller themselves put in a bid like:
1) Entry fees are $x for players staying at the Mercure and $(x+y) for players not staying at the Mercure.
2) Mt Buller to do and pay for all the promotional work such as mailing out of flyers (State Chess associations to allow temporary access to their members database for this purpose), and advertise in appropriate chess forums (eg Brian Jones magazine).
3) Mt Buller to pay $1000 to Chess Victoria for hire of chess equipment.
4) Mercure to be responsible for hotel rooms being filled. After all, what would chess individuals/organisations know about selling hotel rooms?
5) When required/needed, advice to be provided to Mt Buller people on any aspects of running a chess tournament by people in the chess community who have experience in running large chess tournaments (and who agree to act on behalf of the ACF). A "consultancy fee" of $2000 to be paid to the ACF for this purpose.
6) etc etc etc

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 12:07 PM
Why can't the Mt Buller people put in a bid of their own? Why is it necessary for some chess individual/organisation to be the organiser? my understanding is that the acf constitution for allocating australian tournaments does not allow this. Bids must come from either the acf directly, from a state association or from an affiliated body with the consent of a state association. association.http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/.



Why not have an arrangement wherby Mt Buller themselves put in a bid like:
1) Entry fees are $x for players staying at the Mercure and $(x+y) for players not staying at the Mercure. this idea has been discussed before, ill dig out the thread if you want me to. In short its illegal. Called third party pricing i think Kevin called it. In short accommodation and entry fee costs cant be tied together like you have suggested. the basic entry fee must be the same for everyone.


2) Mt Buller to do and pay for all the promotional work such as mailing out of flyers (State Chess associations to allow temporary access to their members database for this purpose), and advertise in appropriate chess forums (eg Brian Jones magazine).
umm allowing mt buller to access state association member databases might also be illegal due to privacy concerns- but i dont know but that is my suspicision. It would be third party viewing members personal records and i would not be happy about this personally. Also i dont think cv would have such a record base anyways as they have club membership, not individual membership.



4) Mercure to be responsible for hotel rooms being filled. After all, what would chess individuals/organisations know about selling hotel rooms? one of the organisers might work in the hotel business, or could get mt buller advice on some aspect of it that is required.

arosar
09-07-2004, 12:14 PM
Consider this series of events:

1) CV has their meeting and gives their endorsement to any of the bids
2) The acf sits down with two bids to consider, the new organisers mt buller bid and any of the three cv deals mentioned earlier.

3) then the acf starts questioning GW and any other victorian delegates or David Cordover who should be there as Director of coaching (source of this information http://www.auschess.org.au/acfexec.htm ).

4) After this debate/discussion the acf rules that their was serious neglect in the gurus mt buller bid falling over and then rules that any cv bid cannot be accepted.

5) Well then this leaves just the new organisers mt buller bid. What are they then supposed to do? Not accept that either.

So all you whingers, events may transpire that leave no option other than mt buller, no matter how much you lump it :whistle:

And the word of the day for you gray is . . .

S P E C U L A T I O N

AR

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 12:18 PM
And the word of the day for you gray is . . .

S P E C U L A T I O N

AR
haha :lol: too shay i think its spelt ;) but actually my scenario is based on my understanding of the constitution/ by laws and from explainations of Kevin and Bill previously.

arosar
09-07-2004, 01:20 PM
this idea has been discussed before, ill dig out the thread if you want me to. In short its illegal. Called third party pricing i think Kevin called it. In short accommodation and entry fee costs cant be tied together like you have suggested. the basic entry fee must be the same for everyone.

You're very skilfull at looking for problems gray. How about a solution?

Here's one. If the Mt Buller deal gets up...have the organiser lodge a notification with the ACCC. Given the limited nature of this arrangement, I would think that immunity from the relevant provisions of the TPA be granted.

AR

Kevin Bonham
09-07-2004, 05:32 PM
this idea has been discussed before, ill dig out the thread if you want me to. In short its illegal. Called third party pricing i think Kevin called it.

Third line forcing. It is indeed illegal.

There has been a lot of discussion of the constitutional issues by email away from the BB and there are still a number of tricky points but it seems that, as Bill says, since the relevant provisions are only By-Laws there is always the option of simply overriding the By-Laws.

Have to say I like Scott's comments at the moment, as it is extremely difficult to get to the bottom of the Mercure/CG breakdown and impossible to know which of these parties to trust. The "pox on both your hourses" response has a lot going for it. However I reserve the right to change my mind at least another five times before the meeting on Monday.

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 05:41 PM
since the relevant provisions are only By-Laws there is always the option of simply overriding the By-Laws.
overriide the by laws to get the result you want :hmm:

arosar
09-07-2004, 05:43 PM
overriide the by laws to get the result you want :hmm:

. . . to achieve a win-win result . . .

AR

Oepty
10-07-2004, 01:17 PM
Kevin. Just to clarify, I am not against the Open being at Mt Buller in principle, but I am against the Juniors being at Mt Buller. This is not because I distrust the Mercure people, I don't know enough on this issue. What I have heard though would indicate that they are most likely trustworthy. In the end if the only way to get a non-Cordover Australian Open is to have both events at Mt Buller then I would relucantly agree to it being the best option, although not a good option. I have expressed my concerns to Tristom Cooke the SA delgate on the ACF council this morning at the Uni Open
Scott

jenni
11-07-2004, 12:42 AM
PPS: According to Chris we can add Jenni Oliver to your anti-Buller list. Apologies to Chris and/or Jenni if I'm misrepresenting either of them! Hopefully Jenni will be back online soon and we will be able to hear her views in full.

Chris' e-mail was one of the few I answered from Dunk. I have since asked my family and you can add Shannon, Gareth, Tamzin and Tony to the anti-Mt Buller list.

I know the sponsorship sounds fantastic, but why do we have to link the juniors and the adult tournament? It benefits a very small number of juniors who want to play in both. otherwise they really don't belong together. The sort of venue that is very suitable to an adult is not for a family unit. I am fortuanate now in having all my children play chess. I can still remember the days when I dragged a very bored 5 year old around to Aus Juniors. Sydney 1996, was awful - in the city and the juniors were running in the morning and adults in the afternoon. There was a little garden dowstairs and I found myself playing a lot of hide and seek with Tamzin and Janos Nemeth's sister and another little girl. I have made enough comments about Perth 1997. Adelaide in 1998 was great - in a school. Lots of place for kids to play safely and an analysis room where the kids could make a noise without disturbing anyone. We boycotted Hervey Bay in 1999, where once again the needs of the adults and a few top juniors were paramount. Morwell 2000 and Sydney 2002 and Adelaide 2003 were all juniors friendly venues (as was Perth 2004).

Now we seem to be going back to the bad old days, where the needs of the adults are what counts.

I have to admit after Mt Buller 1 fiasco, I wouldn't like to see Cordover run an Aus Juniors in 2005, but I also don't really think Mt Buller is the right place for the Aus Juniors. I would be prepared to grit my teeth and put up with Mt Buller for my kids' sake. However in all of this the schools comp seems to be ignored (mind you I haven't read all the threads yet). A 1000 million times over - it should not be held in Mt Buller.

It belongs in the school year, in a school environment.

PHAT
12-07-2004, 04:52 PM
My point is that CV appears to be in the prime bidding position. It is not a straight fight between bids, but rather, if the CV bid overcomes the simple points above (*not serious neglect, venue change approved) then the CV re-bid must be approved and no other bid gets onto the table.

If anyone differs with my understanding of the constitution on this point I would appreciate it if they explained why, with reference to specific clauses.

[*bold added by MS]


That CV neglected to keep CG to his 'word(s)' is manifestly neglectful. Is it "serious"? The answer can only be subjective. I think it is serious. I think to OK a bid for the pimo event and then keep it on the rails, leaving the who chess community shaking their heads 5 months out, is seroiusly neglectful.

Give CV an almighty boot in the cods and put them in the dunces' corner.

ursogr8
12-07-2004, 05:00 PM
That CV neglected to keep CG to his 'word(s)' is manifestly neglectful. Is it "serious"? The answer can only be subjective. I think it is serious. I think to OK a bid for the pimo event and then keep it on the rails, leaving the who chess community shaking their heads 5 months out, is seroiusly neglectful.

Give CV an almighty boot in the cods and put them in the dunces' corner.

Matt

Fg7's boot is already in the place you designate so you could seek room in another nether region.
But before you do, just give us your wisdom on how you stop a hotel manager changing his offer after the 6 month mark (as claimed by the GURU).

starter

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:01 PM
No more serious neglect than ACF’s reliance on CV.


"No more" is correct. However, CV is still fully derelict in its management of th CG bid. The buck stops at ... [drum roll ] ... the top - the ACF!

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:04 PM
Bill
For months 1,2,3,4,5 both CV and ACF thought 'alls well'.


When it was actually "all swell".

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2004, 05:04 PM
But before you do, just give us your wisdom on how you stop a hotel manager changing his offer after the 6 month mark (as claimed by the GURU).
If they did in fact change their offer (asd claimed by the guru) perhaps this was in response to changes in promises previously made by the guru. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2004, 05:04 PM
That CV neglected to keep CG to his 'word(s)' is manifestly neglectful. Is it "serious"? The answer can only be subjective. I think it is serious. I think to OK a bid for the pimo event and then keep it on the rails, leaving the who chess community shaking their heads 5 months out, is seroiusly neglectful.

Give CV an almighty boot in the cods and put them in the dunces' corner.

The post of mine you were replying to was a very early one in the evolution of debate about how to deal with this issue. Later ones may be more useful. In particular, it seems that Council can do more or less whatever it likes with the bids available, so long as it words it correctly.

arosar
12-07-2004, 05:06 PM
. . . give us your wisdom on how you stop a hotel manager changing his offer after the 6 month mark (as claimed by the GURU).

A contract.

Was one signed?

AR

ursogr8
12-07-2004, 05:10 PM
If they did in fact change their offer (asd claimed by the guru) perhaps this was in response to changes in promises previously made by the guru. :whistle:

Bill

Two good observations or surmises made by you
> maybe Mt B did not change the offer
>> maybe the GURU changed his offer and Mt B retaliated.

Btw, are you going to address the question I asked in the post you have obviously responded to. Thanks for these two diversions in the interim.

starter

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:10 PM
It was not a creeping problem that tight reins would detect.


You fail to understand that even if this was true, the fact that there were no reins is, in and of itself, "serious neglect".

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2004, 05:12 PM
A contract.

Was one signed?

AR

I've been asking that question since Mt B I fell over and I am still to get a direct answer. :rolleyes:

Garvinator
12-07-2004, 05:13 PM
I've been asking that question since Mt B I fell over and I am still to get a direct answer. :rolleyes:
who have you been asking :doh:

arosar
12-07-2004, 05:18 PM
I suggest that once all this is over and done with that the ACF go through some sort of review of procedures. You prolly thought about it anyways. Might be wise to appoint a project manager to oversee the whole organising thing. As I understand it, the ACF has a program office - with a special projects officer at the helm.

AR

ursogr8
12-07-2004, 05:20 PM
You fail to understand that even if this was true, the fact that there were no reins is, in and of itself, "serious neglect".

Matthew
I do understand this point that it would better if a contract was in place, with iron-clad clauses that have no ambiguity. I do. I do.

Just try writing one for a situation where the other side is tabling breathtaking figures such as $40,000 printing, free this and that, $10,000 organisers fee.
OK, another thimble and pea merchant met another thimble and pea merchant, and eventually it unravelled. Not such a good thing for the GURU's reputation, but that was known when the ACF gave him the nod for Mt B.mark2.

When did the serious neglect start?

starter

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:25 PM
As we have now cancelled that booking - and some Porsche car clubbers are very happily absorbing part of our booking we will be pretty p****d if it ends up being there after all ...

... We want an accessible venue, range of accommodation choices, a daggy trophy for the winners and a good time had by all. And we'd like to know a little in advance please. And we'd like you to have it signed, sealed and delivered before you tell us where it's going to be - so we don't look like idiots as well and so we can make some plans for our whole families, not all of whom care a jot about chess.


WOW. If you run, I will vote for you. :clap:

Garvinator
12-07-2004, 05:26 PM
WOW. If you run, I will vote for you. :clap:
the post you have replied to has been consigned to the dust bin of history sorry.

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:33 PM
aight this is comin late since my internet wouldnt load up the bb when i wanted it to but better late then never
assuming the aussie jnrs is planned yet again to be at mt buller id like to, in the nicest way possible, to say <snip> to anyone who supports this idea
bullers a great place to go, but in the summer??? in the middle of nowhere?? if this aint about cash then you're all <snip> in the head
last year i worked my ass off for a month straight, 12-16 hour days every day to go to perth, and it was worth my efforts, but theres no <snip> way that im gonna do that again just to go to that <snip>.
yeh, maybe ppl think of melbourne as a <edit> place to go for the summer holidays, but i can guarantee you all that they would pick melbourne any day over buller
i aint alone in this, believe it or not, most ppl do NOT want the jnrs there, dont believe me? ill start a petition and show all you <edit> who doubt it just say the word.
if the jnrs are in buller im not goin, oh wait, ive forgotten, im just the rude lil punk that yall look down your noses at, youll be glad if i dont go yeh? i will make sure that i wont be alone in this, i WILL make sure others dont go
dont like me? <edit>. especially you gletsos

I know that in Perth, a large and influencial group of parents-of-juniors, voted with near ubanimity that the Aust-Jnrs shbould [n]NOT[/b] be held outside of school term days. The ACF f...ed them over by accepting the Buller bid. DEATH TO THE ACF.

BTW. good on ya for working hard to get to Perth. The grey-haired f...ers who run Australian chess need to be deposed by the energetic, like you. :clap:

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2004, 05:34 PM
who have you been asking :doh:

Anyone who I thought might know.

(Except Mercure.)

arosar
12-07-2004, 05:35 PM
the post you have replied to has been consigned to the dust bin of history sorry.

And the point of your post was . . . ?

AR

ursogr8
12-07-2004, 05:41 PM
And the point of your post was . . . ?

AR

:eek: :eek:
Obvious
Barry > 1768
gg > 1736

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:50 PM
But before you do, just give us your wisdom on how you stop a hotel manager changing his offer after the 6 month mark (as claimed by the GURU).


It don't take no wizdm. Get it in writing. It is called a contract. :wall:

PHAT
12-07-2004, 05:56 PM
The post of mine you were replying to was a very early one in the evolution of debate about how to deal with this issue. Later ones may be more useful. In particular, it seems that Council can do more or less whatever it likes with the bids available, so long as it words it correctly.
Yes, I can seee that [i]now]/i]. I am just skimming throughty the posts. I have just had 10 days with my family in QLD theme parks. You are lucky that you hate parents and parenting and children so much, as it means you will never have to do what I have done.

Brian_Jones
12-07-2004, 06:09 PM
There just has to be a contract between the CG and Mt Buller; it may not be 50 pages long but it could be an exchange of letters or written notes of a meeting or a diary record of a witnessed or unwitnessed conversation. But there is no compulsion to reveal the details of the contract unless it is going to be enforced by either of the parties. Maybe, we just have a breakdown in the relationship or the goodwill. Maybe in future these things should not be done by one person alone? I have copies of the contracts from Penrith but these will remain private and confidential between the various parties involved.

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2004, 12:34 AM
There just has to be a contract between the CG and Mt Buller; it may not be 50 pages long but it could be an exchange of letters or written notes of a meeting or a diary record of a witnessed or unwitnessed conversation.

I am not sure (from what I have heard) that there was ever an absolutely exact version of the proposal that was agreed to by both sides.


You are lucky that you hate parents and parenting and children so much, as it means you will never have to do what I have done.

I do not hate any of these things in most cases- I merely choose not to be the first, do the second or have the third.

Alan Shore
13-07-2004, 07:50 AM
And the point of your post was . . . ?

AR


:eek: :eek:
Obvious
Barry > 1768
gg > 1736

FFS, STFU!!

Jeo can you make arosar and starter's postcount 6000 so they will f***ing shut up?

skip to my lou
13-07-2004, 08:21 AM
How about I just implement the reputation system?

Garvinator
13-07-2004, 08:23 AM
How about I just implement the reputation system?
how about eliminating post counts :eek:

skip to my lou
13-07-2004, 08:24 AM
how about no

Alan Shore
13-07-2004, 08:33 AM
How about I just implement the reputation system?

Wasn't that system going to be too much work for moderators? You can leave the current system but like, ban people if they ever mention postcount again, it's pathetic.

And gray you can't just get rid of it cos of the special things you can do if you're over 200.

skip to my lou
13-07-2004, 08:35 AM
No actually now, I can let certain usergroups vote.

Alan Shore
13-07-2004, 08:44 AM
So users vote for whether a post is good or not? Apologies but I don't care enough, I won't be voting.. I think only arosar and starter would bother!

skip to my lou
13-07-2004, 08:45 AM
Implemented, see next to the online/offline status there is a tick/cross button.

Use it to approve or disapprove of a post. You must approve or disapprove of atleast 3 peoples post before coming back to the same person.

If it doesn't work out i'll remove it on the weekend.

ursogr8
13-07-2004, 08:52 AM
how about eliminating post counts :eek:

Not a good idea GG''.
Jeo eliminated them from the non-chess section and look at how arid and dry that has become.
starter

skip to my lou
13-07-2004, 08:57 AM
it went from 800 posts on the old bb to 4000+ now, I do not see how that is "dry"

Garvinator
13-07-2004, 09:17 AM
Not a good idea GG''.
Jeo eliminated them from the non-chess section and look at how arid and dry that has become.
starter
but if it was applied to all sections, then it is applied equally to all. How about we get back to talking about the chess world letter and mt buller :eek:

ursogr8
13-07-2004, 09:37 AM
but if it was applied to all sections, then it is applied equally to all. How about we get back to talking about the chess world letter and mt buller :eek:

gg''

I am shocked that the features that K/J develop are so easily discarded by you ( a big thank you to chesskit for such a wonderful BB). They work long and hard to add features to the BB. Next you will be suggesting eliminating emoticons because they are over-used by some posters.

I agree, back to the GURUs letter to the BB.

starter

Garvinator
13-07-2004, 09:59 AM
( a big thank you to chesskit for such a wonderful BB). They work long and hard to add features to the BB.
I agree with this sentiment too :)

eclectic
13-07-2004, 05:30 PM
Implemented, see next to the online/offline status there is a tick/cross button.

Use it to approve or disapprove of a post. You must approve or disapprove of atleast 3 peoples post before coming back to the same person.

If it doesn't work out i'll remove it on the weekend.

I reckon Jeo needs to code a "ThreadBareBot" which trawls through all the posts using a sophisticated language/logic algorithm to measure the extent to which a post keeps to the thread topic.

If the post is really close to the topic it might get 0.97 for example whereas if it is way off then it might receive 0.03.

Posts which are gratuitous ++counters get assigned a value of (-1).

Flame posts could get assigned a value of (-10).

:P

Does anyone want to imagine what all our post counts would be like if Jeo actually did this?

:whistle:

eclectic

peanbrain
13-07-2004, 07:44 PM
congratulations for turning this thread into absolute rubbish talking baout your crappy post counts IDIOTS:evil:

Garvinator
13-07-2004, 07:46 PM
congratulations for turning this thread into absolute rubbish talking baout your crappy post counts IDIOTS:evil:
and hence why we moved to a non chess thread until eclectic posted. anyways as George Howard made a new thread relating to updates, we are now over there discussing mt buller events :D

Thunk
13-07-2004, 10:11 PM
If they did in fact change their offer (asd claimed by the guru) perhaps this was in response to changes in promises previously made by the guru. :whistle:


i am not convincEd that thE offEr nEgotiatEd by cordovEr had conditions changEd at thE last minutE by thE sponsor. thErE has to bE a diffErEnt rEason.

And on thE busEs sidE, you can catch onE from thE airport in mElbournE to thE city, and thEn somEthing to mansfiEld, and thEn somEthing to bullEr. should bE a frEquEnt sErvicE in summEr on boxing day or thErEabouts.

:cool: thE HUNK. :cool:

Garvinator
13-07-2004, 10:13 PM
i am not convincEd that thE offEr nEgotiatEd by cordovEr had conditions changEd at thE last minutE by thE sponsor. thErE has to bE a diffErEnt rEason.

And on thE busEs sidE, you can catch onE from thE airport in mElbournE to thE city, and thEn somEthing to mansfiEld, and thEn somEthing to bullEr. should bE a frEquEnt sErvicE in summEr on boxing day or thErEabouts.

:cool: thE HUNK. :cool:
on another thread i have posted the v line timetable spencer street to mansfield.

eclectic
13-07-2004, 11:29 PM
And on thE busEs sidE, you can catch onE from thE airport in mElbournE to thE city, and thEn somEthing to mansfiEld, and thEn somEthing to bullEr. should bE a frEquEnt sErvicE in summEr on boxing day or thErEabouts.

:cool: thE HUNK. :cool:

the buses only run from mansfield to mt buller during the snow season hence the need for the open etc organisers to come up with private busing arrangements

eclectic

ursogr8
16-07-2004, 11:51 PM
This is probably the relevant thread for the GURU to announce that he has resigned from the Chess VICTORIA Executive and as a delegate to the ACF.

Can we anticipate that the Melbourne Chess Club will now press to have one of their workers stand for one or both of these positions?

starter

Trent Parker
17-07-2004, 12:06 AM
fair dinkum. geez he must be peed off then.

eclectic
17-07-2004, 01:18 AM
This is probably the relevant thread for the GURU to announce that he has resigned from the Chess VICTORIA Executive and as a delegate to the ACF.

Can we anticipate that the Melbourne Chess Club will now press to have one of their workers stand for one or both of these positions?

starter

except that it's you doing the announcing :hmm:

nevermind, i expect the guru will be laying low for a while

it will be interesting to see what firegoat et al have to say

:whistle:

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2004, 01:31 AM
This is probably the relevant thread for the GURU to announce that he has resigned from the Chess VICTORIA Executive and as a delegate to the ACF.

Can we anticipate that the Melbourne Chess Club will now press to have one of their workers stand for one or both of these positions?

Are you saying he has in fact resigned, as opposed to projecting or hoping that he will? I think you're saying he's left the building, but it's hard to tell for sure.

ursogr8
17-07-2004, 11:56 AM
except that it's you doing the announcing :hmm:

nevermind, i expect the guru will be laying low for a while

it will be interesting to see what firegoat et al have to say

:whistle:

eclectic

eclectic
Typical of you to have much content in a three line post. You really are a master of the succinct. :clap: :clap: :clap:

> The GURU was backward in announcing Mt B. is OFF.....it was up to the Eddie Maguire in me to do the honours
>> 'announce' is a word with much history......please be careful with its use anywhere near the MCC.
>>> waiting, waiting, waiting on firegoats response
>>>> and CG is ex-CV has been on the bb before. Please pay attention.

starter

ursogr8
17-07-2004, 11:58 AM
Are you saying he has in fact resigned, as opposed to projecting or hoping that he will? I think you're saying he's left the building, but it's hard to tell for sure.

KB

Oblique is my middle name.
I am saying the check is in the mail. (And no, I did not misspell).

starter