Cost of congresses

[PeterFarr]

Perhaps because organisers do it because they enjoy it as a leisure activity, just as players enjoy playing. They would no more expect to be paid for it than an amateur player would expect to be paid for playing.

It's to everyone's benefit if everyone does their bit of organising (in all forms, not just congresses) for nothing, so there is an equal amount of give and take. The problem arises when some people want to do the taking, and either not do the giving, or expect to be paid for the giving, so they end up profiting at other people's expense.

Sorry, Ian, but I have to protest strongly. While it's great that there are generous folk willing to put on chess events at cost only, it's a strange prejudice that others shouldn't provide such services for profit.

Well the labourer is worthy of his hire; there's no rule in English chess that says everything has to be amateur. If someone does a good organization job and can turn a few quid then why not - after all there is a lot of work and also some financial risk in running a congress. Just so long as everything is done transparently.

[Francis Fields]

Do people think the issue of transparency should extend to stating on the flyer who is actually running the tournament. As one congress never mentions who this is. Legally, I have heard, this implies you cannot have grounds for suing them if they do not pay the advertised prize money.

[Steve Rooney]

On this thread, I have noticed no sign that people recognise the organiser or arbiter is entitled to make a surplus. In about 1970 I was getting presents for my staff at the Islington Congress in late December. Then I realised that nobody was thinking of getting one for me. So I started to take a fee. In many countries people are puzzled why anybody would work for nothing. Of course it is because they are part of what I call 'the white economy'.

Perhaps because organisers do it because they enjoy it as a leisure activity, just as players enjoy playing. They would no more expect to be paid for it than an amateur player would expect to be paid for playing.

It's to everyone's benefit if everyone does their bit of organising (in all forms, not just congresses) for nothing, so there is an equal amount of give and take. The problem arises when some people want to do the taking, and either not do the giving, or expect to be paid for the giving, so they end up profiting at other people's expense.

Sorry, Ian, but I have to protest strongly. While it's great that there are generous folk willing to put on chess events at cost only, it's a strange prejudice that others shouldn't provide such services for profit.

I am with Brendan on this. I should state at the outset, that our Shropshire congress is run for the benefit of the county association. We certainly aim to make a profit on the event and then plough this back into chess locally as well as invest in the future of the event including acquiring DGT live boards.

However I think a for-profit model is entirely acceptable for chess congresses. Indeed there may well be advantages.

The problem with events being organised by volunteers is they can get tired or unwell and the event collapses unless other willing volunteers can be found. This is what happened to a very nice congress in a neighbouring county. In Shropshire, our congress faced collapse a few years ago and two of us had the time and inclination to take it on, so it survived. We are now looking to expand the team involved to ensure its future succession, although we have no plans to bail out yet.

However, if someone(s) can make a small return from providing a series of good quality events that chess players want to take part in, then jolly good luck to them, and if the return is high enough then they might just keep doing it for a long time. And if they get bored or something else takes their fancy, there may have created a micro business that someone else may continue with.

There are differences in what might be seen as reasonable expectations from 'consumers' between these two models however. If you are running for-profit events then you need to be very good at customer relations and resolve issues quickly and fairly, and you probably shouldn't expect people to do things like donate their entry fee if they have to withdraw - as happens with a not-for-profit or association-led event like ours. If you run it for a profit, then it is more of a business relationship, but that doesn't mean it has to be that different. I love my local bakers and I certainly don't object to them making a profit. Indeed, if they didn't the business wouldn't keep going and I would be forced to buy worse bread in the supermarket.

We really have to stop expecting everything on the cheap in chess, and be sensible about commercial activity. I would love to see a few successful small enterprises running high quality, innovative events.

[Stewart Reuben]

Steve Rooney >I should state at the outset, that our Shropshire congress is run for the benefit of the county association. We certainly aim to make a profit on the event and then plough this back into chess locally as well as invest in the future of the event including acquiring DGT live boards.<

I believe your English in that sentence is wrong. Delete the word 'profit' and replace it by 'surplus' and it is much more precise.

Where an event is run for a profit by a company, it seems to me improper to ask for donations. The First Saturday tournaments in Budapest are run by the organiser as his way of making a living. I like the USCF term that it is a 'not for profit organisation'. The same is true of the ECF. It may make a surplus on an event, but that is ploughed back into the organisation.

I used to receive a fee for organising the British Chess Championships from 1981-1997 whenever it was sponsored. The surplus was then ploughed back into the federation. Much later on it was ploughed back into the congress. That was much fairer. Thus it was always perfectly correct ao ask for donations. They, of course, are not liable to VAT.

[Steve Rooney]

Steve Rooney >I should state at the outset, that our Shropshire congress is run for the benefit of the county association. We certainly aim to make a profit on the event and then plough this back into chess locally as well as invest in the future of the event including acquiring DGT live boards.<

I believe your English in that sentence is wrong. Delete the word 'profit' and replace it by 'surplus' and it is much more precise.

Where an event is run for a profit by a company, it seems to me improper to ask for donations. The First Saturday tournaments in Budapest are run by the organiser as his way of making a living. I like the USCF term that it is a 'not for profit organisation'. The same is true of the ECF. It may make a surplus on an event, but that is ploughed back into the organisation.

I used to receive a fee for organising the British Chess Championships from 1981-1997 whenever it was sponsored. The surplus was then ploughed back into the federation. Much later on it was ploughed back into the congress. That was much fairer. Thus it was always perfectly correct ao ask for donations. They, of course, are not liable to VAT.

A not-for-profit organisation is a different matter; that refers to a body which does not distribute a dividend to owners/shareholders while it may still make profits on its commercial activities. I am an ardent supporter of the not-for-profit and co-operative business sectors, but don't confuse that concept with making a profit (surplus) on commercial activities.

I am not sure about the relevance of the issue of VAT. It becomes a problem only if you are liable for VAT on income and you are not passing it on. You are also able to offset VAT charged on expenditure. A VAT-registered organisation running an event really needs to pass the VAT element on to its customers/players. Perhaps the British Championship already incorporates that in its fee structure?

[Stewart Reuben]

Of course the ECF passes on the VAT to the customers, i.e. the entrants. Some of those entrants are themselves able to reclaim the VAT. e.g. where a school pays the entry fee for a pupil.
Of course the ECF makes reclaims on its VAT expenditure. e.g. the hotel bill for the admin team. Unsurprisingly the VAT the federatton has to pay is less than it can reclaim.
The calculations aren't complex. But have no doubt, the VAT expenditure is greater than the reclaims.
The ECF membership fees also attracts VAT.

[JustinHorton]

Do people think the issue of transparency should extend to stating on the flyer who is actually running the tournament. As one congress never mentions who this is. Legally, I have heard, this implies you cannot have grounds for suing them if they do not pay the advertised prize money.

I very much doubt it.

[Jonathan Bryant]

On this thread, I have noticed no sign that people recognise the organiser or arbiter is entitled to make a surplus.'.

Page 1, posted 2 months ago:-
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 90#p148685

However I think a for-profit model is entirely acceptable for chess congresses. Indeed there may well be advantages.

Indeed. The main one being the congresses wouldn’t otherwise happen. E.g. e2e4 and Adam Raoof’s events (I suspect, anyway).

[David Blower]

Just to state that I myself also have no objection to organisers making a profit on congresses. Indeed they should be encouraged to do so. Brewood Chess Circle also hopes to make a profit (although the correct word is surplus) in order that we can invest in new equipment for our club.

I very much enjoyed Shropshire and hope to attend next year. If the organisers made a surplus in order to fund things for next years congress which was the aim than good on them.

[David Blower]

Do any congresses provide a balance sheet of their congress income and costs? The Brewood committee are looking at running our own congress (very early stages yet.) The first thing that was pointed out is that we plan the finances.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do any congresses provide a balance sheet of their congress income and costs?

Whilst I would expect Congresses, particularly those run by County Associations, to keep track of their income and expenditure, a Google search fails to find any that make such material freely available to casual Internet searchs.

Perhaps you should ask organisers in private, particularly organisers of events similar in size to the event you propose to run?

Stewart Reuben did a book about chess organisation, I think this included a lengthy check list for the Congress organiser.

[Brian Towers]

Stewart Reuben did a book about chess organisation, I think this included a lengthy check list for the Congress organiser.

Don't FIDE have an International Organizer qualification? I would imagine people like Stewart Reuben and Adam Raoof would have done this. How does it compare?

[Adam Raoof]

I am always happy to help. Basic costs in no particular order include the venue (including setting up and packing away time), the prize fund, the cost of a team of arbiters (is it FIDE rated?), expenses for volunteers, printing the entry form and postage, PayPal costs if taking entries online, appearance fees if inviting players, trophies, table hire, scoresheets, hire of equipment, ECF fees and so on. If you have three days make it FIDE rated and a longer time control, if you have two then perhaps not.

[Stewart Reuben]

You can find much of my book 'Chess Organiser's Handbook' on the ECF website. Earlier editions can be obtained from amazon - or me.

I used to publish the entire budget for the British Championships for the BCF. I haven't looked to see how detailed are the accounts for that event displayed on the ECF website.

There is an International Organiser title. Of course, like the IA title, I did neither exam because I originated the FA exam - and the BCF for its arbiter exam. When I was in charge there was no IO exam. I was told only yesterday that the IO exam is rather vacuous.

Whenever you set up an event, you should always decide what your objectives are. The whole process then can following logically from that.

It is not normal to publish details of start money for the players, or fees for the administrators.

[Brian Towers]

You can find much of my book 'Chess Organiser's Handbook' on the ECF website. Earlier editions can be obtained from amazon - or me.

Is this it on the ECF website - http://www.englishchess.org.uk/blogs/th ... -handbook/ ?
There doesn't seem to be much there.

Edit: Ah, no. This seems to be it - http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... n-word.pdf
and http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... n-word.pdf

Looking at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/blogs/ it would seem they still haven't got round to putting up the "Under construction" notice.