The Board did set a budget and submitted it to Council. The point which I made at the meeting, and which appeared to be accepted, was that the changes decided during the meeting were material enough for the budget as submitted to require reworking. Even had the meeting been able to reach this stage before 5.40, when the Finance Director had to leave, I do not believe that a recalculation on the hoof would have been a serious possibility.Roger de Coverly wrote:It's no great surprise that the ECF is having difficulty setting a budget. It has no real idea of its future income, given that it's conditional on the go/no go decisions of around seven or eight thousand individuals.
I would agree that the changes decided by Council make a material difference to the income assumptions, and this will need to be thought through (urgently).
In general terms, the impact of Council's decisions could be summarised as follows:
(1) Removal of complexity. In process terms, the removal of the different rates depending on the achievement of an 85% threshold of membership makes things clearer and easier.
(2) Addition of new complexity. There are now difference 'pay to play' fees (in non-junior only events) depending on whether the player is an adult or a junior. Also, the proposed simplified game fee structure has been "de-simplified" again.
(3) Increased risk of discouraging new/ungraded players. With the passing of the 85% threshold also went the clause relating to such players not being counted as non-members for the purposes of the threshold if they had not played more than three games.
(4) Increase in the cross-subsidy of junior chess activity by adult players. The game fee rates applicable to junior events are a quarter of the rates applicable to non-junior events. This is a bigger difference than now; currently, Game Fee for junior is half the comparable rate for non-junior events. On the other hand, some have argued that the changes may result in the avoidance of lost income (through juniors not participating in graded competitions under the arrangements as originally proposed) or an increase in junior chess activity. What is undoubtedly true is that the new situation requires completely new assumptions to be made.
(5) Increased polarisation. There is arguably a greater incentive to become an ECF member or remove oneself from the ECF framework entirely. The universal £2 game fee rate for standard play in all non-junior events, even where a high percentage of members exists, will undoubtedly lead to strong reactions. It's possible that it may lead to higher membership take-up in some parts of the country, where it will be considered that the balance of the financial arguments favours membership in a larger majority of cases. It is also possible that the universal £2 rate will lead to a fall in the number of graded games, as Roger has argued, and the assumptions about this will need to be reviewed urgently.
The full implications are difficult to assess. I think reactions across the country will be different from what would have been the case under the proposals as submitted, but I don't know the extent or the direction of the difference.
The guidance given by Council, when asked, was that, if the revised budget indicates lower income than in the original budget, this should be reflected in a reduction in the International Chess budget.
