ECF International budget

[Matthew Turner]

When I looked at the Canadian Chess Federation site a number of years ago I noticed they had a what appeared to be a reasonably successful campaign for raising donations for the Olympiad team.
Here is this year's effort

http://chess.ca/2014_Chess_Olympiad

I expect that this campaign will become more prominent as the Olympiad draws nearer. It strikes me that this is relatively simple to do and is exactly the sort of thing a Federation should be engaging in.
Keith's bid for the European Seniors title is exactly the sort of thing that could attract a lot of small donations, so why not feature it on the very top of the ECF website. It might attract a bit more attention than the riveting

Resolutions to be proposed at the 2014 Finance Council meeting

or even NSDCA Android app

[Paul Sanders]

What I actually think they should do is to decide the proper proportions of the budget in principle. What the ECF should be supporting as a matter of fairness and strategic priorities. And this can be done in an open, transparent way without needing to talk about Nigel's fee, etc.

Adding in Junior International representation to the remit of the ECF International effort would seem to me to be a legitimate and wholly progressive move. It would for instance remove the tension between encouraging broad participation and developing GMs (pragmatically, FIDE rated Opens in the UK could be considered International if necessary).

The historical alternative seems to have been selecting a single individual, in a somewhat opaque process, for support; the results of which might indeed be impressive, but it is hard to say that a more transparent approach might not have produced as many accumulated rating points and titles.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

or even NSDCA Android app

Why doesn't someone come up with an app for chess fundraising on the microdonation model? If people can make millions from writing games like Angry Birds or Flappy Bird, there might be room for something like this.

[PeterFarr]

It certainly is difficult to discuss things in straightforward terms when the players' fees (partly raised through compulsory membership) are treated as a state secret. I don't know them either, though have heard rumours, speculations and estimates of 5 K for each of Nigel and Adams, and nearer 1.5-2 K for each of Howell and Gawain. All plus expenses of course.

What I actually think they should do is to decide the proper proportions of the budget in principle. What the ECF should be supporting as a matter of fairness and strategic priorities. And this can be done in an open, transparent way without needing to talk about Nigel's fee, etc. Eg, one might decide

50% mens olympiad team (including everything, coach etc)
25% womens olympiad team (as above)
15% senior chess
5% european club cup
5% miscellaneous international events (University competition abroad?)

It could change from year to year - it might be less than that above for the main international teams in years when the olympiad is held, but more than that above in years when it is the more expensive european team chs.

Anyway, having done that, THEN you decide what the amount of international budget actually is, depending on the money left over from more pressing matters. Then you allocate that cash as above.

THEN if extra money is needed to make any of the above viable, you advertise for sponsorship and now you actually tell people what is needed, and of course people should be free to donate on the condition that their money goes to their preferred cause.

Agree with pretty much all of that. At the moment there is no transparent setting of priorities, and no indication of how much is needed for each team / event.

It struck me as ridiculous that the women's team was originally withdrawn from the European's for lack of funds, without the membership being told what the shortfall was, or invited to contribute. Or for that matter an open debate of whether to fund it from other budgets.

[David Gilbert]

At the moment there is no transparent setting of priorities, and no indication of how much is needed for each team/event.

David Openshaw's report to the AGM in October 2013 set out clear priorities:

the Federation should aim to have the strongest possible England teams competing in the European Team Championships (Open and Women’s), the Olympiads (Open and Women’s) and the World Youth under 16 Chess Olympiad (Open and, when established, Girls). We believe this is in the long term interest of English chess.

The paper also makes it clear that most of the budget comes not from the ECF's coffers but from private donors who want to support the England team. It is accepted that this is not sustainable in the longer term and a solution is required.

[PeterFarr]

At the moment there is no transparent setting of priorities, and no indication of how much is needed for each team/event.

David Openshaw's report to the AGM in October 2013 set out clear priorities:

the Federation should aim to have the strongest possible England teams competing in the European Team Championships (Open and Women’s), the Olympiads (Open and Women’s) and the World Youth under 16 Chess Olympiad (Open and, when established, Girls). We believe this is in the long term interest of English chess.

The paper also makes it clear that most of the budget comes not from the ECF's coffers but from private donors who want to support the England team. It is accepted that this is not sustainable in the longer term and a solution is required.

But this is a wish-list, not a prioritisation.

Also my point is that the ECF isn't being pro-active with the membership in enlisting support; not everybody can be expected to dig into the Directors' reports. Why not do something like the Canadian example that Matthew Turner highlighted.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The bare statement by DO lacks any form of argument or reasoning, if it is meant to explain the allocation of his budget (arguably it doesn't). It does not mention that its idea of supporting the women's team was to send a team without a coach in situ, no doubt one of the very few (if not the only competing nation) to do this. It does not mention that the budget of this year gives no support whatsoever to various other people or teams representing the ECF (even though it could afford modest support, if not everything had to go to the olympiads/European chs; and even though the European chs would require substantial donations on top anyway). It is exactly this kind of back on the envelope thinking which we should want to be improving upon. Thus the above, with the suggestions by Matt and Peter about better advertising the areas of shortfall.

[Stewart Reuben]

The best time to make proposals regarding the ECF International budget was the Finance Council Meeting in April. I understand it is too late for that now. Thus the next opportunity is the AGM in October.

David Openshaw made it perfectly clear where his priorities lay and was re-elected.

I was caught by the European Senior Chess Team Championship and the European Senior Individual first being announced as 60+ and then later 50+ and 65+. It worked out wonderfully of course that Keith won the Individual. We leave for the team championship on Monday. We did not have the funds to mount our strongest team and I saw little merit in trying to raise funds. Thus we have just 9 players going in two teams. I expect the event to be less popular than the 60+ last year. And indeed that attracted 12 players, all paying their own way. There has never been any hope of our winning the ESTCC 60+.

The next of these events is the World Senior Team Championship 50+ and 65+ in Lithuania 13-21 July. We can win the 50+, partly because I expect it to be weaker than the European event. But it isn't cheap as the GMs would expect start money and there are also the travelling costs, accommodation and food. Players who are eligible include Arkell, Hebden, Flear, Plaskett, Speelman all active GMs and the first 3 have expressed interest. There is a problem, it overlaps with the British Championship by a couple of days - but we coped with that last year.
The World Individual 50+, 65+ in Greece is 23 October to 5 November. Obviously Keith should be encouraged to go to that.

I have probably raised some money, but not enough. If anybody would like to make a pledge, they could write to me in confidence [email protected] or write on this forum. That has the advantage that it may attract other people to do the same.

2015 Nigel Short becomes eligible. He has expressed interest in winning the World 50+ Championship. There are also the other 3 events. There is no doubt that, at full strength, we would stand a very good chance indeed.

In my opinion it would be grossly improper to reveal the start money offered to players.

The Friends of Chess also offers support to our stronger players for international chess. Keith received support this year. That organisation is funded by donations and subscriptions.

Why support our leading players? Their success encourages others to play (surely the major purpose of the ECF) and therefore results in income. Seniors it is especially true. There have been several bequests made to be spent on chess over the years. Seniors chess is one of the biggest growth areas in our sport.

Stewart Reuben
ECF Manager of Senior Chess and a previous International Director. Chairman of the Friends of Chess.