MCC just cant win... - OzChess

**Grant Szuveges** · 11-24-2011, 11:40 PM

For events such as the Vic Open, clubs put in bids and CV gives events to BHCC instead of MCC...

Then for other events such as the Vic Teams Championship Final (organised by MCC people), there is not even a bidding process - Leonid Sandler just gives the final to BHCC anyway...

Does he actually have the right to do this???

We cant win when we do put a big in and we still cant win when there is no bidding process... What on earth has CVs president got against MCC???

**Firegoat7** · 11-24-2011, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges

For events such as the Vic Open, clubs put in bids and CV gives events to BHCC instead of MCC...

Then for other events such as the Vic Teams Championship Final (organised by MCC people), there is not even a bidding process - Leonid Sandler just gives the final to BHCC anyway...

Does he actually have the right to do this???

We cant win when we do put a big in and we still cant win when there is no bidding process... What on earth has CVs president got against MCC???

I don't think Leonid Sandler has anything against MCC Grant.

However, I do think that ChessVictoria, as an institution has two themes running through its executive.

1) They are generally anti David Cordover.
2) Box Hill CC still has the dominating power on the executive.

Personally I would be more concerned that the ACF president brokered a deal with Box Hill CCs former president to test the dgt boards for the Geelong Australian championship without notifying any other club. It may not look like such a big thing, but it pretty much shows that MCC is always being left out of the equation. Gary Wastell simply has to go as ACF President. When he was Chessvictoria President he was anti MCC. His ghost still haunts Chess Victoria to this very day.

**ChessGuru** · 11-25-2011, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

1) They are generally anti David Cordover.
2) Box Hill CC still has the dominating power on the executive.

Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover) and CV V-P has long-time grudge against DC (again because of competing commercial interests). The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ...

Box Hill still wields power because they have a large membership of kids who play chess which is good for a business to advertise to, or a coach to find students (and one of the few clubs who pay good money to coaches - the VP again). Also, up until last year, they held 10-15 votes out of about 30 at the CV AGM...and for many years before that held all the executive positions on CV as well.

BHCC is also anti-Cordover because of the long-time strong VP influence at BHCC - it is only natural that those with common enemies are now friends.

As far as the last 10 years of CV is concerned BHCC *is* chess in Victoria - no other clubs even exist.

You can't blame them for allocating resources, events etc to BHCC...they aren't awarding stuff to BH over anyone else....it's just that the idea of another club doing something wouldn't even enter their minds.

**Grant Szuveges** · 11-25-2011, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover)

What did he do to warrant being sacked?

**Grant Szuveges** · 11-25-2011, 05:09 PM

The whole problem with CV (from the MCC point of view) is that MCC are simply not getting their fair share from CV whilst BHCC/CJCC are getting way too much of a share.

Good luck to BHCC/CJCC - they are just trying to make a living to feed their children - its not their fault that CV are irresponsible when it comes to dividing up events. But does the following really sound like a fair distribution of events:

MCC has 160 members (and gets 5 votes at the CV agm)
BHCC/CJCC have 120 members between them (and get 6 votes at the CV agm - 3 votes each)

MCC has the Vic Blitz Champs and the CV agm

BHCC/CJCC has the opening round of the Vic Teams Champs

BHCC/CJCC has the final round of the Vic Teams Champs

(maybe MCC should boycott this event?)

Both clubs get some rounds of the Vic Championship

BHCC/CJCC got the Vic Open

BHCC/CJCC get the Vic Junior and other junior events

So, if you take away the Vic Champs (which are approx equal to both clubs), then all MCC gets is the Vic Blitz/CV agm on the same day. BHCC/CJCC get the opening and closing nights of the Vic Teams champs, the Vic Open and the Vic Junior.

Does this sound like a fair share of the pie? It doesnt seem fair to me at all.

When I started out as the MCC president, one thing that I was really looking forward to was working with the committees and executives of other chess clubs and chess organisations - including CV. Yet in those 3 years, CV have just kept finding new ways to alienate MCC...

MCC allows other chess organisations to use our premesis FOR FREE. Unlike BHCC/CJCC we do not charge a single cent in rent to any other chess organisation. For example the JETS program (run by the AJCL/ACF) is using MCC next year for free.

Yet despite the fact that we offer a free premesis, CV still refuses to give us events such as the Vic Junior etc...

In 2008 CV were paying BHCC $3000 for the rent of their premesis - fortunately they stopped doing that - but one prominent BHCC "elder statesman" still blames MCC for BHCC losing this CV rent deal...

I dont know what BHCC charges CV for rent for events such as the Vic Junior, the Vic Open, the Vic Teams Champs etc - but if they were run at MCC, then CV would not be paying a cent in rent... At MCC we would rather put this money into the event and into the prize money - so that it ends up in the pockets of chess players eventually... I would be keen to hear what BHCC makes in profit from CV paying them rent for events...

One reason that MCC dont charge other chess organisations rent for using the premesis is because we believe that "if it is good for chess, then it is good for MCC/BHCC" - we dont have an attitude that "if it is good for MCC/BHCC then it is good for chess"...

The one thing that I will say that MCC are lucky about though, is that while compared to BHCC/CJCC we get very little, compared to the other clubs we are doing quite well - the other clubs get very little at all - in fact they get almost nothing...

Can people now see what it feels like from the MCC point of view???

A fair distribution of events would be to give BHCC the opening round of the Vic Teams champs and give MCC the final round of it. It would also involve evenly distributing other CV events to other clubs which want them...

MCC dont want to hog all of CVs events - we only want what we believe is our fair share. Remember we are the oldest chess club in the Southern Hemisphere, been open for 145 years and have by far the biggest membership amongst Victorian chess clubs...

**flavid dude** · 11-25-2011, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges

What did he do to warrant being sacked?

Be very careful as to what you say on this forum about this subject unless you are absolutely sure of the facts. What is well known is that a case brought by Leonid Sandler against Chess Kids (Or possibly David Cordover was settled outside the court immediately prior to the case being heard. As to the terms of the settlement you would need to ask either Leonid Sandler or David Cordover (c.k.a. the chess guru).

**Grant Szuveges** · 11-25-2011, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by flavid dude

Be very careful as to what you say on this forum about this subject unless you are absolutely sure of the facts. What is well known is that a case brought by Leonid Sandler against Chess Kids (Or possibly David Cordover was settled outside the court immediately prior to the case being heard. As to the terms of the settlement you would need to ask either Leonid Sandler or David Cordover (c.k.a. the chess guru).

All I have done is ask a question - nothing wrong with that... Neither of them have to answer it if they dont want to...

**Firegoat7** · 11-25-2011, 10:19 PM

Hi,

People knock The Sandman because of his unorthodox style, but I reckon he is the best ChessVictoria President by a country mile. He doesn't really play favorites in my opinion and he does do a lot of very good work that goes unnoticed. I just wish there could be a little bit of give and take and a more mature response when dealing with David Cordover. Obviously, there is a pretty bad history between the two.

**Grant Szuveges** · 11-28-2011, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover) and CV V-P has long-time grudge against DC (again because of competing commercial interests). The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ...

David I dont agree with this:

1. The rest of the committee are not employed by the VP. Kerry Stead does not work for the VP. Trevor Stanning does not work for the VP. Only David Hacche works for Chess Ideas.

2. The VP is only a quarter owner of Chess Ideas. Therefore David Hacche theoretically works for him, but its not like the VP is his ONLY boss.

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I cant possibly agree with this.

**Firegoat7** · 12-15-2011, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ...

I think this should be retracted because to the best of my knowledge Trevor Stanning is not an employee of Daryl Johansen.

11-24-2011, 11:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	MCC just cant win... For events such as the Vic Open, clubs put in bids and CV gives events to BHCC instead of MCC... Then for other events such as the Vic Teams Championship Final (organised by MCC people), there is not even a bidding process - Leonid Sandler just gives the final to BHCC anyway... Does he actually have the right to do this??? We cant win when we do put a big in and we still cant win when there is no bidding process... What on earth has CVs president got against MCC??? __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

11-24-2011, 11:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges For events such as the Vic Open, clubs put in bids and CV gives events to BHCC instead of MCC... Then for other events such as the Vic Teams Championship Final (organised by MCC people), there is not even a bidding process - Leonid Sandler just gives the final to BHCC anyway... Does he actually have the right to do this??? We cant win when we do put a big in and we still cant win when there is no bidding process... What on earth has CVs president got against MCC??? I don't think Leonid Sandler has anything against MCC Grant. However, I do think that ChessVictoria, as an institution has two themes running through its executive. 1) They are generally anti David Cordover. 2) Box Hill CC still has the dominating power on the executive. Personally I would be more concerned that the ACF president brokered a deal with Box Hill CCs former president to test the dgt boards for the Geelong Australian championship without notifying any other club. It may not look like such a big thing, but it pretty much shows that MCC is always being left out of the equation. Gary Wastell simply has to go as ACF President. When he was Chessvictoria President he was anti MCC. His ghost still haunts Chess Victoria to this very day. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

11-25-2011, 10:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 1) They are generally anti David Cordover. 2) Box Hill CC still has the dominating power on the executive. Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover) and CV V-P has long-time grudge against DC (again because of competing commercial interests). The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ... Box Hill still wields power because they have a large membership of kids who play chess which is good for a business to advertise to, or a coach to find students (and one of the few clubs who pay good money to coaches - the VP again). Also, up until last year, they held 10-15 votes out of about 30 at the CV AGM...and for many years before that held all the executive positions on CV as well. BHCC is also anti-Cordover because of the long-time strong VP influence at BHCC - it is only natural that those with common enemies are now friends. As far as the last 10 years of CV is concerned BHCC is chess in Victoria - no other clubs even exist. You can't blame them for allocating resources, events etc to BHCC...they aren't awarding stuff to BH over anyone else....it's just that the idea of another club doing something wouldn't even enter their minds.

11-25-2011, 03:07 PM	#4 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	Originally Posted by ChessGuru Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover) What did he do to warrant being sacked? __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

11-25-2011, 05:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	The whole problem with CV (from the MCC point of view) is that MCC are simply not getting their fair share from CV whilst BHCC/CJCC are getting way too much of a share. Good luck to BHCC/CJCC - they are just trying to make a living to feed their children - its not their fault that CV are irresponsible when it comes to dividing up events. But does the following really sound like a fair distribution of events: MCC has 160 members (and gets 5 votes at the CV agm) BHCC/CJCC have 120 members between them (and get 6 votes at the CV agm - 3 votes each) MCC has the Vic Blitz Champs and the CV agm BHCC/CJCC has the opening round of the Vic Teams Champs BHCC/CJCC has the final round of the Vic Teams Champs (maybe MCC should boycott this event?) Both clubs get some rounds of the Vic Championship BHCC/CJCC got the Vic Open BHCC/CJCC get the Vic Junior and other junior events So, if you take away the Vic Champs (which are approx equal to both clubs), then all MCC gets is the Vic Blitz/CV agm on the same day. BHCC/CJCC get the opening and closing nights of the Vic Teams champs, the Vic Open and the Vic Junior. Does this sound like a fair share of the pie? It doesnt seem fair to me at all. When I started out as the MCC president, one thing that I was really looking forward to was working with the committees and executives of other chess clubs and chess organisations - including CV. Yet in those 3 years, CV have just kept finding new ways to alienate MCC... MCC allows other chess organisations to use our premesis FOR FREE. Unlike BHCC/CJCC we do not charge a single cent in rent to any other chess organisation. For example the JETS program (run by the AJCL/ACF) is using MCC next year for free. Yet despite the fact that we offer a free premesis, CV still refuses to give us events such as the Vic Junior etc... In 2008 CV were paying BHCC $3000 for the rent of their premesis - fortunately they stopped doing that - but one prominent BHCC "elder statesman" still blames MCC for BHCC losing this CV rent deal... I dont know what BHCC charges CV for rent for events such as the Vic Junior, the Vic Open, the Vic Teams Champs etc - but if they were run at MCC, then CV would not be paying a cent in rent... At MCC we would rather put this money into the event and into the prize money - so that it ends up in the pockets of chess players eventually... I would be keen to hear what BHCC makes in profit from CV paying them rent for events... One reason that MCC dont charge other chess organisations rent for using the premesis is because we believe that "if it is good for chess, then it is good for MCC/BHCC" - we dont have an attitude that "if it is good for MCC/BHCC then it is good for chess"... The one thing that I will say that MCC are lucky about though, is that while compared to BHCC/CJCC we get very little, compared to the other clubs we are doing quite well - the other clubs get very little at all - in fact they get almost nothing... Can people now see what it feels like from the MCC point of view??? A fair distribution of events would be to give BHCC the opening round of the Vic Teams champs and give MCC the final round of it. It would also involve evenly distributing other CV events to other clubs which want them... MCC dont want to hog all of CVs events - we only want what we believe is our fair share. Remember we are the oldest chess club in the Southern Hemisphere, been open for 145 years and have by far the biggest membership amongst Victorian chess clubs... __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

11-25-2011, 05:25 PM	#6 (permalink)
flavid dude Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 336	Careful Grant. Originally Posted by Grant Szuveges What did he do to warrant being sacked? Be very careful as to what you say on this forum about this subject unless you are absolutely sure of the facts. What is well known is that a case brought by Leonid Sandler against Chess Kids (Or possibly David Cordover was settled outside the court immediately prior to the case being heard. As to the terms of the settlement you would need to ask either Leonid Sandler or David Cordover (c.k.a. the chess guru). __________________ Box Hill Chess Club -website http://www.boxhillchess.org.au/ Canterbury Junior Chess Club -website [url]http://canterburychess.org.au/index.php

11-25-2011, 07:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	Originally Posted by flavid dude Be very careful as to what you say on this forum about this subject unless you are absolutely sure of the facts. What is well known is that a case brought by Leonid Sandler against Chess Kids (Or possibly David Cordover was settled outside the court immediately prior to the case being heard. As to the terms of the settlement you would need to ask either Leonid Sandler or David Cordover (c.k.a. the chess guru). All I have done is ask a question - nothing wrong with that... Neither of them have to answer it if they dont want to... __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

11-25-2011, 10:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Hi, People knock The Sandman because of his unorthodox style, but I reckon he is the best ChessVictoria President by a country mile. He doesn't really play favorites in my opinion and he does do a lot of very good work that goes unnoticed. I just wish there could be a little bit of give and take and a more mature response when dealing with David Cordover. Obviously, there is a pretty bad history between the two. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

11-28-2011, 03:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
Grant Szuveges Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,003	Originally Posted by ChessGuru Understandable...the CV President is an embittered ex-employee of Cordover (who first got honourably involved with CV just after being fired by Cordover) and CV V-P has long-time grudge against DC (again because of competing commercial interests). The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ... David I dont agree with this: 1. The rest of the committee are not employed by the VP. Kerry Stead does not work for the VP. Trevor Stanning does not work for the VP. Only David Hacche works for Chess Ideas. 2. The VP is only a quarter owner of Chess Ideas. Therefore David Hacche theoretically works for him, but its not like the VP is his ONLY boss. I agree with the general sentiment of your post, but I cant possibly agree with this. __________________ People who have nothing to hide post using their real names...

12-15-2011, 09:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 2,044 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by ChessGuru The rest of the committee are employees of the VP ... I think this should be retracted because to the best of my knowledge Trevor Stanning is not an employee of Daryl Johansen. __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: