ECF Funding

[Roger de Coverly]

For example, when they see the Lancashire Chess Association and the Blackpool Congress, they send a request for Lancashire's £52. Yet people within chess know instantly that Lancashire doesn't need to pay £52, since Blackpool's Game Fee more than covers it, and it's run by the Lancashire Chess Association.

It took me a while to figure that one out. This presumably relates to the fee that Lancashire would pay to be members of the ECF. Usually a county association runs a county league, but in Lancs case all the leagues are at district level and members of the ECF in their own right.

[Alex Holowczak]

Try University based clubs as a for example. The Overseas students could be exempt on the proposed "ungraded exemption", but what about British or English? On 1st October, how would a County with a University club know who was or wasn't a potential ECF member when the University itself might not know who its players were? If someone was prepared to play both for their University and their "home" club how do you decide who handles the ECF membership?

Roger, I mean it would be easier for the administrators to know what's going on if we switch to Membership from the current system. That's because things easier to understand than the current system include brain surgery and nuclear physics.

I'm well aware of the problems that Universities may well face. To that end, it looks like I will have to vote against membership (despite my personal preference for that), since my vote is to represent that of Universities. It is being discussed at the moment.

For example, when they see the Lancashire Chess Association and the Blackpool Congress, they send a request for Lancashire's £52. Yet people within chess know instantly that Lancashire doesn't need to pay £52, since Blackpool's Game Fee more than covers it, and it's run by the Lancashire Chess Association.

It took me a while to figure that one out. This presumably relates to the fee that Lancashire would pay to be members of the ECF. Usually a county association runs a county league, but in Lancs case all the leagues are at district level and members of the ECF in their own right.

Exactly! How were the Office supposed to know that?

[Andrew Farthing]

I should say that it had been my intention to start a thread on the Funding proposals when they appeared on the website, but I was beaten to the punch! The ECF webmaster was on leave today, so I hadn't expected the documents to be posted until tomorrow.

It's called traffic generation - have to be on the ball here as we generate far more interest than the main ECF web site.

With all due respect to the Forum, my point had nothing to do with the relative popularity of the sites. I simply wasn't expecting the documents to appear until today.

(...) my personal opinion is that 85% is a bit of a fantasy - sorry

You may be right. People from existing MOs might wish to comment on this.

In the end, this all boils down to a simple question: Is the English chess community prepared to fund the ECF?

If the answer to that question is "Yes", option 1 generates the amount that individuals would need to pay. The take-up rate is a variable in the formula. If 85% is way off the mark, the membership subscription for those who do pay has to rise. I gave examples in the paper of the subscriptions for a 75% take-up (£20) and 60% (£25).

If the answer to the question is "No" or perhaps "Yes, but not at that price", the only alternative that I can see is to turn to the list of what the ECF delivers (pp. 5-7 in the paper) and start crossing things out until you reach something that costs little enough that it is covered by what people are prepared to pay. This wouldn't be my preference, but it's a decision for Council.

I know that there will be some who argue that the ECF would be much cheaper if it didn't run an office with paid staff. I tried to address this in my paper:

The ECF is an organisation comprising almost exclusively volunteers – more than 50 in all – along with three paid staff in its office in Battle, Sussex and a small handful of officials, such as the Grading Administrator, who receive an honorarium for the extensive work done on behalf of the ECF. A few of the services described above may be attributed directly to the office staff. More often, the office provides the permanent base of administrative support which makes possible the work of many of the ECF’s unpaid directors and officials. A ratio of 3 paid staff to more than 50 volunteers is very low in comparison with many not-for-profit organisations.

To be blunter, the "We don't need an office" argument is, in my opinion, naive. I don't believe that an organisation can operate on the scale of the ECF without a core of paid staff. Speaking for myself, the time I commit free of charge to the ECF is already substantial - it's been 7-8 hours a day, often seven days a week, for the last couple of months. It is only manageable at all because there is an administrative infrastructure (the office) which deals with a lot of the time-consuming associated work. If it weren't there, is it really plausible that people would be found to take up the burden for free? And that this arrangement would be durable enough to ensure continuity?

[Andrew Farthing]

I may not score better than average on quality (my grade puts me on the median for graded players) but in terms of quantity (135 games last season) I'd like to think that I qualify as a chess-playing CEO.

I should have added the word employed of course to chess-playing. Nevertheless the BCF didn't appoint a CEO until Susan Richards about ten years ago. This is notwithstanding references from the early 1980s that Paul Buswell's General Secretary title meant that he was the paid CEO. When he left, the concept of a CEO left with him. You may of course get the "who's in charge" power struggle at its worst in the Walsh Regan era.

I wouldn't necessarily argue against the notion of a paid CEO - not that I'm seeking payment, I hasten to add - but of course it would add considerably to the cost of the ECF that would have to be funded.

The main difference, apart from the money, between what you'd get with a paid CEO and what you have now is that it would be more likely that the CEO would be based in the office. I concede that it is more challenging to be responsible for something at a distance of 200+ miles.

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger, I mean it would be easier for the administrators to know what's going on if we switch to Membership from the current system. That's because things easier to understand than the current system include brain surgery and nuclear physics.

Who do mean by administrators? It's not easier for counties and leagues, since they would have to be far more rigorous on establishing eligibilities and club membership, to say nothing about defaulting players who commit the crime of playing league chess without being a member of the ECF.

In the Lancashire case, you stand to wonder what the county association actually does, apart from running county teams and having disputes over the existence of Greater Manchester. If Blackpool and the district leagues are ECF members in their own right, then the County should pay extra to be a member and get the extra vote. Presumably Blackpool isn't an ECF member in its own name.

[Roger de Coverly]

The main difference, apart from the money, between what you'd get with a paid CEO and what you have now is that it would be more likely that the CEO would be based in the office. I concede that it is more challenging to be responsible for something at a distance of 200+ miles.

If we look at the BCF's history and go back to the period before there was any Government support (the Heath government started the funding in the early seventies), there was I think just the one full time paid individual usually with the title of General Secretary. The "office" was then based wherever this person lived. It wasn't until the BCF purchased the BCM in the early eighties that the office became located in Hastings using part of the BCM premises.

[Andrew Farthing]

If we look at the BCF's history and go back to the period before there was any Government support (the Heath government started the funding in the early seventies), there was I think just the one full time paid individual usually with the title of General Secretary. The "office" was then based wherever this person lived.

Are there current examples of major chess-playing nations which are able to run their national federation using this model from the early 1970s?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are there current examples of major chess-playing nations which are able to run their national federation using this model from the early 1970s?

I suspect there were rather more players, particularly younger players in the 1970s than there are today. It may come down to establishing what the ECF is doing now that it didn't do in the days when a weekend congress attracted numbers in the hundreds and some congresses exceeded a thousand.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the end, this all boils down to a simple question: Is the English chess community prepared to fund the ECF?

There is another question which you've tangled in with your preferred scheme.

That question is

Should you have to ask the ECF for permission to play club and county chess?

[David Shepherd]

Is the ECF using the VAT flat rate scheme - paying over 8.5% of the gross income (assuming below £150K limit) and if not would it be of benefit?

[Sean Hewitt]

In the end, this all boils down to a simple question: Is the English chess community prepared to fund the ECF?

We already know the answer to this, and it is yes, because they already do. The two key questions are

(i) to what extent (ie how much) and
(ii) is it a per player or per game charge (to put it crudely)

If the answer to that question is "Yes", option 1 generates the amount that individuals would need to pay. The take-up rate is a variable in the formula. If 85% is way off the mark, the membership subscription for those who do pay has to rise. I gave examples in the paper of the subscriptions for a 75% take-up (£20) and 60% (£25).


People from existing MOs might wish to comment on this.

I think that 85% is achievable if County's and leagues get behind it in the way that MO's have. However, that was at a cost of £12 per player. The proposal at £18 is a 50% increase and that is going to be a very difficult sell in my opinion. If a significant minority of players refuse to play, the whole event may chose to disaffiliate rather than alienate that group of players.

If the answer to the question is "No" or perhaps "Yes, but not at that price", the only alternative that I can see is to turn to the list of what the ECF delivers (pp. 5-7 in the paper) and start crossing things out until you reach something that costs little enough that it is covered by what people are prepared to pay. This wouldn't be my preference, but it's a decision for Council.

I think it is unrealistic to expect to balance the books by revenue raising alone. There will have to be a cost cutting exercise along the lines that Andrew outlines otherwise the ECF will lose revenue regardless of which funding mechanism is chosen. That way, the increased revenue ask will be more manageable and therefore more achievable in my opinion.

[Alex Holowczak]

Who do mean by administrators? It's not easier for counties and leagues, since they would have to be far more rigorous on establishing eligibilities and club membership, to say nothing about defaulting players who commit the crime of playing league chess without being a member of the ECF.

According to the people I've heard who run MOs (Sean Hewitt, John Wickham), they think it is. They have experience of both systems, and choose membership. They have the experience of administering both, so I think it's only right we should listen to them. They're far better positioned than you or I to comment.

In the Lancashire case, you stand to wonder what the county association actually does, apart from running county teams and having disputes over the existence of Greater Manchester. If Blackpool and the district leagues are ECF members in their own right, then the County should pay extra to be a member and get the extra vote. Presumably Blackpool isn't an ECF member in its own name.

You're right that Blackpool isn't affiliated to the ECF. As for Lancashire Chess Association's actual activites, that's nothing to do with me. You are right that they could split Blackpool from the Association, and pay Game Fee and the £52 due from their county affiliation, and get an extra vote. This isn't a unique situation to Lancashire though. All County Associations could split their events up - whatever they may be - and get extra votes. For example, Warwickshire could separately affiliate the Warwickshire Open, and pay an extra £52 for an extra vote. Worcestershire could split the Worcestershire County League and Worcestershire Open from the Association's activities, and get an extra vote that way.

The waters are muddied by the situation allowing the concept of having Member Congresses and Member Leagues. It would be simpler either for everything to go through Member Congresses/Leagues, or everything to go through its County Association. At the moment, we have some doing one thing, and some doing the other. The only purpose this serves is to confuse the Office.

[Roger de Coverly]

According to the people I've heard who run MOs (Sean Hewitt, John Wickham), they think it is. They have experience of both systems, and choose membership. They have the experience of administering both, so I think it's only right we should listen to them. They're far better positioned than you or I to comment.

You should remember that I recall the system pre-Game Fee where County Associations both exclusively paid for the BCF and had to do a certain amount of form filling and membership card chasing. All of which was abolished with Game Fee.

Existing MOs aren't a particularly good example unless they practice the permission to play system as well. I don't believe either Leics or Norfolk demand ECF membership as a condition of participation. You could charge leagues on a per head basis instead of per game, you don't need individual membership as well.

In the South East anyway, I don't believe that the extra costs incurred with Game Fee of running additional events is any disincentive to participation. Finding players having the time and inclination to play additionally is the bigger problem.

[Andrew Farthing]

There is another question which you've tangled in with your preferred scheme.

That question is

Should you have to ask the ECF for permission to play club and county chess?

My paper presents two major funding options, with some sub-variants within the second. I expressed no preference. I was asked by Council to prepare proposals on these two choices, and I came up with the best that I could in each instance.

Your question is supplementary to the main point. If it's accepted that the ECF has to be funded by chess players, then the questions about who pays and how much, along with any other consequences or constraints, follow. As requested, I've offered a choice for Council to make.

[Andrew Farthing]

I think that 85% is achievable if County's and leagues get behind it in the way that MO's have. However, that was at a cost of £12 per player. The proposal at £18 is a 50% increase and that is going to be a very difficult sell in my opinion. If a significant minority of players refuse to play, the whole event may chose to disaffiliate rather than alienate that group of players.

I agree that this is a significant risk. This may be an unpopular view, but I think that part of the problem is that chess has been much cheaper in England than in many other comparable countries. The Government subsidy helped; the relatively low expenditure on developing the game and on international activity, sadly, has also contributed. I refer again to Appendix C of the paper and ask people to look at it in the context of an average contribution of just over £11, which is what English players pay now, even after several years of above-inflation increases.

I realise that the proposals are a large increase on the past, and this possibly could not have come at a worse time, given the state of the economy. That said, the contributions under either option are still below the comparable figures in the USA, Canada, France and Ireland and broadly on a par with Scotland.

If the answer to the question is "No" or perhaps "Yes, but not at that price", the only alternative that I can see is to turn to the list of what the ECF delivers (pp. 5-7 in the paper) and start crossing things out until you reach something that costs little enough that it is covered by what people are prepared to pay. This wouldn't be my preference, but it's a decision for Council.

I think it is unrealistic to expect to balance the books by revenue raising alone. There will have to be a cost cutting exercise along the lines that Andrew outlines otherwise the ECF will lose revenue regardless of which funding mechanism is chosen. That way, the increased revenue ask will be more manageable and therefore more achievable in my opinion.

I tend to the view that cutting back what the ECF does would set English chess on an ever-steepening decline (or accelerate the current decline, if you prefer). Regardless of my view, the important point is that we need to hear what activities the majority wants the ECF to stop. Until then, the debate is too abstract to take us forward.