Finance Council Meeting

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
but that is not correct, because whilst the Darwin sponsorship is missing from the to date accounts, some of the conditions are in there. See my 8.22am post

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew, just explain, to date sponsorship + donations = £8,233. Are you saying that the Darwin sponsorship has not been received yet OR that only £8,233 has been received from Darwin so far and nothing from CJ.

As I said, the relevant column is the one headed "2011/12 Forecast". The "To date" column shows what was originally prepared by the Director of Finance based on the ledger entries at that time. As part of John Philpott's work, a number of corrections were made, and the only relevant figures are as shown in the column in bold.

I am struggling to find a way to make myself more clear. The Darwin monies (£13,000 + VAT) were received and were disbursed and indicated in my earlier post and as shown in the figures. The £8,233 Donations figure is nothing to do with the Darwin sponsorship and is additional to it.

I appreciate that many of the people posting here were not present at Council to hear John's explanation of the paper, but it was made clear that the "to date" figures are superseded by the revised figures set out in the "2011/12 Forecast". The "To date" column is an accurate reflection of the ledger entries at the time of producing the original report, but, as John established, there were material corrections necessary to the ledger to show the correct position.

[Richard Bates]

Richard,
but that is not correct, because whilst the Darwin sponsorship is missing from the to date accounts, some of the conditions are in there. See my 8.22am post

Most of the figures don't make sense if comparing the original figures with the revised ones. However I think it is fairly obvious that £13,000 of sponsorship has been added and 'matching' £12,600 of appearance fees (inc hotel) likewise. Where the other £400 went - who knows?

In general terms clearly the original overall numbers were just a crock of sh*t (albeit based on best available evidence at time of complilation), and trying to reconcile the two just seems a futile exercise. A whole load of stuff obviously didn't go through the British championship account and/or was misclassified within the British Championship account and a lot of corrections have had to be made.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew,
Really, are you really saying that the Darwin sponsorship was received at the time of the British, but that the Director of Finance didn't include it in the to date accounts in April. That seems hard to believe, was any explanation given?

[John Philpott]

Matthew Turner wrote

Andrew is putting forward the forecast accounts as the bona fide accounts. Then there is indeed £13,000 from Darwin and £8,233 from donations (mainly CJ). However, the to date accounts only show £8,233 coming in. Why is another £13,000 suddenly going to appear and where has it been until now?

In the accounting records, the £12,600 paid to CJ had initially been offset against the gross amount of £15,600 received from Darwin: £500 VAT had then been deducted from the difference between these figures to leave a net credit of £2,500 in the sponsorship income account in the ledger.

When the detailed budget document was drawn up, the "to date" and "forecast" columns were identical to each other and included some classifications of ledger accounts that seemed inappropriate and which I corrected in the revised "forecast" column that was presented to the meeting. The £2,500 appeared in the "to date" column as "John Robinson Trust - Junior Coaching", whereas this line should have reported £2,000 out of the £12,000 described as "John Robinson Trust/PIF". The £8,233 donations (£7,500 from CJ and £723 from other sources) were shown in the "to date" column as sponsorship, but have been moved to the bequests/donations column in the "forecast" column.

That will be it from me for the next few hours as my Sunday morning team (Ainslie Wood FC) has an important cup quarter final against Chuckle Brothers FC

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
In the to date figures the donation from CJ is connected to an additional expenditure, under 'other'. In the forecast accounts it appears that the donation just goes to general costs (controllers' expenditue etc.). I do not believe that CJ would have done this. Therefore, I find it very difficult to trust the forecast accounts.

[Andrew Farthing]

The British Championship accounts do not include whatever payments the President may have chosen to make in his personal capacity and from his own pocket to individual players to help ensure the strongest possible entry to the British Championships. Such payments are a private matter.

They may be, but if they remain so, do we have any reason to think they are other than imaginary? And if we don't have a proper accounting of monies that were disbursed on our behalf, how do we know where the private stops and the on-our-behalf begins?

All I will say is that no doubts were expressed by Council members concerning the figures as produced by John Philpott. At the risk of putting words into his mouth, David Welch (who is the person best placed to judge) declared that he was satisfied with the accounts as produced by John.

I accept that you may continue to have doubts despite this, but this will not lead me to disclose details of the payments made to players.

I do not believe that the Darwin Strategic sponsorship would have been obtained without his efforts

What's your reason for saying so?

Conversations with relevant parties and independent reports from another Board member (not the President) of his conversations with relevant parties.

In writing this, I expect to be criticised by some for ignoring the negative

Not as such, but up to now you have ignored the question I put earlier on the thread, to which I would not mind having a clear reply.

I'll have to find it in the thread and see what I can do.

[Richard Bates]

Richard,
In the to date figures the donation from CJ is connected to an additional expenditure, under 'other'. In the forecast accounts it appears that the donation just goes to general costs (controllers' expenditue etc.). I do not believe that CJ would have done this. Therefore, I find it very difficult to trust the forecast accounts.

I don't see how you can draw any conclusions about to what items of classified expenditure CJ's donation was "connected". If you are trying to do so it could just as easily be the prize fund, which was higher than is usual (compare the prize fund this year). The only reason we can link the sponsorship with the appearance fees is because it is known that the terms of the sponsorship specified what it was to be spent on.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew,
Really, are you really saying that the Darwin sponsorship was received at the time of the British, but that the Director of Finance didn't include it in the to date accounts in April. That seems hard to believe, was any explanation given?

I don't think you're going to accept anything less than an item-by-item account of the corrections and adjustments which John Philpott had to make, and I don't consider it appropriate or necessary to ask him to publish this. The figures were presented to the ECF Finance Council, explained by John and all questions answered. There were no doubts expressed at the conclusion of this process.

It is quite evident that the ledger entries which formed the basis of the "To date" figures contained significant inaccuracies, including netting of income and expenditure items (sponsorship and appearance fees) which needed to be corrected.

[JustinHorton]

this will not lead me to disclose details of the payments made to players.

I've not asked you to.

I have to say that 'David Welch says he's satisfied, and that's good enough for me' and 'I had a private chat with somebody who assured me' are not obviously examples of transparency and good practice.

[Paul Buswell]

Paul Buswell wrote

Thanks John: a link to chapter and verse in the ECF's papers would be appreciated

The relevant rules as they now stand can be found in the definition section of the Bye Law No. 1 The Direct Members Bye Laws which can be downloaded from the ECF website either as a standalone document at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -20111.doc or as part of the Rules Handbook at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... t-2011.pdf. The AGM document that proposed the relevant amendments to this Bye Law can be found at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... w-No-1.doc

Thank you John.

Dio I interpret this correctly, that a Club taking out Corporate Vice-Presidency before 31 August 2012 gets one year's continuing exemption from all Game Fee on all its internal Club games? Regardless of the new Membership Scheme's requirements? Or even three years if it went for the 3-year deal? I suspect that for most Clubs the arithmetic wouldn't stack up but for others it might be an option if they have an extensive programme.

PB

[JustinHorton]

I'll have to find it in the thread and see what I can do.

It's hidden away here.

[Andrew Farthing]

As I posted a few days ago:

I'd also be grateful if, subsequent to the meeting on Saturday, anybody were able to state whether any formal letter has been sent to Mr de Mooi in relation to his disbursement of financial support at last year's Championships - and if so whether any reply has been received. (If the answers are yes and no, respectively, it would also be interesting to know what course of action is proposed.)

OK, I've found the question now!

The answers are yes and yes.

As part of the investigations conducted by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, in collaboration with me and John Philpott, the President was of course written to in order to obtain the information needed to produce satisfactory accounts for the 2011 British. This was done by e-mail, as is routine in Board matters, so I don't know whether it's exactly what you meant by "formal letter".

And before you ask - no, I am not going to make public the contents of the reply received. The ECF is not going to reveal any details of its commercial arrangements with individual players.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew Farthing wrote
"It is quite evident that the ledger entries which formed the basis of the "To date" figures contained significant inaccuracies, including netting of income and expenditure items (sponsorship and appearance fees) which needed to be corrected."

This is not a question of 'netting' the forecast accounts improve the finances of the congress, vis-a-vis sponsorship/condition to the order of eight and a half thousand pounds.

To date
sponship + donations = £8,233
appearance fees + other = £13576

deficit = £5343

forecast
sponsorship +donations = £21,233
appearance fees + other = £17,952

surplus = £3281

[Roger de Coverly]

This is not a question of 'netting' the forecast accounts improve the finances of the congress, vis-a-vis sponsorship/condition to the order of eight and a half thousand pounds.

To date
sponship + donations = £8,233
appearance fees + other = £13576

deficit = £5343

forecast
sponsorship +donations = £21,233
appearance fees + other = £17,952

surplus = £3281

It's not just the sponsorship income that's been changed or reclassified. The major change is to add £ 13,000 of Darwin income, net of VAT and take off £ 12,600 paid or deemed paid as fees and expenses to invited players. As well as that the "Other" contained amounts such as £ 2,000 JRT Coaching expense which should have been reported in its own right. The better comparison is of the overall net income / expenditure, since this should reflect what the ECF has left in its bank account to carry forward for Newcastle.