Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft View Post
    Not blackmail at all, Chris. A simple statement that decisions have consequences. The Federation lost a substantial donation from me last Olympiad over the manner in which selection for the National Team took place. The Olympiad before (2008) I made large donation.

    Keeping your sponsors happy is an important part of managing a national sporting federation.
    What you do with your money is up to you, but as soon as you start saying things like "do this or else" - especially when not backed up by the rules - amounts to blackmail. At least for the 2010 Olympiad your reasoning was related to what the donation was for, unlike this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    What the hell is this b.s.?? Now we have a supposedly responsible governor of the CFC: ...

    Enough of this crap! I think the CFC owes Ms. Jin an apology for Barron's behaviour. The apology can be accompanied by an approval for Ms. Jin's daughter to play in the WYCC.
    Michael Barron is not on the Executive, and he does not represent the views of the CFC, any more than you or I do - he is but one vote amongst 60. If any apologies are owed, it would be by him, not by the CFC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hal Bond View Post
    when you list the pros and cons of this case, remember that several other families abided by the decision to ignore the PanAms, and played instead in the CYCC. What do we say to them if we change our tune now?
    I still have seen no satisfactory answer to this point way back on Page 2.


    NOW PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE!

    I haven't been able to keep both eyes on this thread up to now but it's starting to get a bit ugly. Any further personal attacks, threats, or potentially libelous comments will result in official forum warning points.

    The point is to discuss the decision(s) of the CFC, and its future direction, NOT the character of the people involved.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    3

    Post Opinions

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikhail Egorov View Post
    Hi Valer,

    You do have some valid points, but after weighting pros and cons I still stand by this appeal.

    Quote from Mr. Barron post: 'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to, Pan-Am due to the fact that the dates of Pan-Am appeared to be in conflict with CYCC' .

    The new motion was manipulated by Mr. Barron to get back at Pan-American organizers, after new motion was passed. CFC hand was successfully tested here in EXECUTIVE decision.

    What is the point, if new motion can manipulated, after it was passed?

    With his EXECUTIVE actions, he jeopardized it, by NOT allowing more Canadian players to participate at WYCC.

    If, tournaments were organized on different dates, we would not be having discussion now.

    Mr. Barron was youth coordinator at that time. He acted in personal interest, and not in matter of principal or not in matter of developing chess in Canada! Please do correct me, if I am wrong here.

    The damage was already done by Mr. Barron. I am not even brining his public insults into this. The least thing CFC can do is fulfill this small request and allow following 3 strong juniors to join WYCC team.

    Regards,

    Mikhail
    Hi Mkhail,

    All of us can have our own opinions and beliefs. Bottom line is Vlad's point: none of us (including Mr. Baron) had/ have anything to gain from it.

    CFC can act in its best interest if international tournaments coincide with such important events like CYCC. Strictly speaking CYCC promotes chess in Canada far more than PanAm!...

    No, I do not think this motion was manipulated by anyone. We act for the benefit of chess in this country. Those families were aware of the situation and risks (not being accepted to join team Canada @ WYCC). It is like being mated in 1 and still asking the opponent to take back his move and continue the game...

    I am sorry you took Mr. Baron's opinions as insults; maybe they've been a bit extreme, but from that to insults is a long way. Of course you are entitled to take them as you wish. However I would suggest more cooperation and understanding; some of us have had to deal with a lot of discussions in the past few years leading nowhere, or in the personal interest of certain parents and their kids. In the end a lot of our good intentions were highjacked and nothing was solved.

    I do not agree at all with Peter McKillop's opinion those families have already been penalized by losing the WYCC bursaries. Those families simply DO NOT qualify for WYCC to begin with; bursaries don't even enter the discussion...

    If every parent is capable to bully CFC for their own benefit, the result is going to be total chaos in this country. Do not think anyone wants that...

    Regards,
    Valer Eugen Demian
    FIDE CM & Instructor, ICCF IM
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ches...593013634?mt=8

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Thornhill, Ontario
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikhail Egorov View Post
    Pan-Am is an annual international event, and is 2nd strongest young players can complete after WYCC. One year ago, before new motion was passed, our juniors could compete in both. NOW they are forced to chose ONE. This is “jeopardizing”.
    Mikhail
    You made me to do a little work ...

    This is wording of section 1012 prior to the new motion. It is quite small and very clear:
    1012.Participation in the World Event:
    The winner of the event [CYCC] shall be eligible to participate in the appropriate world event. If the winner is unable to participate, the second place finisher shall be invited to go in his place. If the second place finisher also declines, the highest finisher in the tournament who is willing to participate in the world event, shall be selected. The CFC Board of Directors shall use an appropriate tie breaking method to break ties if required to determine the order of finish.
    How exactly under these rules "our juniors could compete in both"?

    Now, when you have both "old" and "new" rules in front of you, it will be easier to express your opinion on whether our motion was improvement over old rules or not.

  4. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    ...
    Michael Barron is not on the Executive, and he does not represent the views of the CFC, any more than you or I do - he is but one vote amongst 60. If any apologies are owed, it would be by him, not by the CFC. ...
    Yes, I know he's not on the executive but, as a governor, he does represent the CFC. And yes, I agree that Mr. Barron should apologize to Ms. Jin, too.

  5. #75

    Default Let's get the facts first, directly from the 3 affected families

    Quote Originally Posted by Valer Eugen Demian View Post
    ... just because 3 families changed their minds and now are crying wolf...
    I have been appointed as Head of Delegation for this year's WYCC team, so I have a vested interest in leading both the strongest and the most fairly selected team under existing rules. It's unfortunate that there is so much controversy and acrimony over what should be a positive event - we already have approximately 40 confirmed players on the Canadian team, by far the largest contingent ever!

    I think we need to first confirm the scope of what is in dispute. To be fair to the families involved, I'm not even aware that we have definitively established yet that each of the 3 families changed their minds. Would it be possible to get confirmation (e.g. a posting on this forum; or an email to me as Head of Delegation, or to Patrick McDonald as Youth Coordinator, if they would prefer to remain private) from one parent of each of the 3 children in question about whether they want their child to go to the WYCC? I'm not aware of formal WYCC application forms received on behalf of any of these 3 children. I have not seen any direct posting by either of Jiaxin's parents that they want Jiaxin to go to the WYCC, and their rationale. Similarly, I have also not seen any indication from the parents of Jackie Peng or Dezheng Kong, nor from anyone else, that they want Jackie or Dezheng to go to the WYCC.

  6. #76

    Default

    Odd how all the discussion stopped the moment someone asked for the facts.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I'm pretty sure the discussion has run its course... anything more would just be repetition at this point. Unless Michael Von Keitz wants to jump in.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter McKillop View Post
    Odd how all the discussion stopped the moment someone asked for the facts.
    It would be nice if the facts were actually posted though. A lot of people seem to have very strong views on this (notwithstanding the absence of all the specifics). Unfortunately, the questions asked upthread don't seem to be answered by any of the major characters in this play.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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