The e-mail proposing the motion (the wording of which seemed to prepared by the NSWCA) was couched in terms expressing concern that a player, banned by the NSWCA, had played in the Begonia. The obvious urgency was the request to pass the motion by 1 April. Whether the relevance of that date actually cross the minds of other recipients of the e-mail is not for me to say but it was evident that PR capabilities were in short supply by proposing such a date.
But here is the beauty:
However, it seemingly did not happen. As a result, all the vibes I heard from ACT people, and some interstate visitors, before and during the Deoberl were along the lines of “How stupid can the ACF be?” Not generally directed at any one person but at the body itself.
4 comments:
Pity the average player doesnt get to determine who is on the ACF council.
Did they really think people would just not notice or care about the new banning motion?
Bonham has never answered the obvious question. If the ACF extension motion was NOT expedited for the purpose of GET SWEENEY, then why was it expedited?
Do you know if there is like an equivalent of the DARWIN AWARDS for public relations because if there is I think the ACF should be nominated ...
Anonymous #2 is clearly a chesschat poster basing comments on the debate on chesschat. The motion was only "expedited" marginally as it was expected to be dealt with by Council anyway at a meeting which was scheduled for that weekend. The ACF had already passed a policy supporting the principle of nationwide extension of state bans, despite which an organiser apparently intended to admit a player banned by a state. That the purpose of the expedition was not to target Sweeney is obvious because had the organisers intended to admit any other player banned by a state, eg Ilic, the same action would have been taken. This is why my alleged cat-out-of-bag comment on chesschat, which was actually no such thing, refers to the organisers and not to Sweeney. He is irrelevant.
Post a Comment