Originally Posted by
Ken Craft
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.
Originally Posted by
Peter McKillop
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.
Originally Posted by
Hal Bond
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