Ask the CEO

[Carl Hibbard]

Actually Matthew got the question wrong saying £175 which did not help and Phil then squirmed away with a go legal on us option.

[JustinHorton]

I don't suppose he wanted to place on record his explanation as to why he couldn't be bothered to correct himself, or indeed reply at all, when I asked him about the discrepancy. Seven months ago.

[Carl Hibbard]

He skirted around the EU data directive and FIDE a little but that one has a long way to go yet.

[David Sedgwick]

Actually Matthew got the question wrong saying £175 which did not help and Phil then squirmed away with a go legal on us option.

Matthew's slip of the tongue was unfortunate, but I thought the answer was clear enough.

Lawrence has given it above, but I'll repeat it.

The prizes were £750.

Phil had previously said that the ECF had contributed £1000 to the prize fund, but that was incorrect. The actual contribution was £750.

Hence the entire ECF contribution was paid out in prizes and there was no discrepancy.

[Carl Hibbard]

He has to be commended for sitting there and doing his thing though.

[JustinHorton]

Lawrence has given it above, but I'll repeat it.

The prizes were £750.

Phil had previously said that the ECF had contributed £1000 to the prize fund, but that was incorrect. The actual contribution was £750.

Hence the entire ECF contribution was paid out in prizes and there was no discrepancy.

Any luck on this bit?

I don't suppose he wanted to place on record his explanation as to why he couldn't be bothered to correct himself, or indeed reply at all, when I asked him about the discrepancy. Seven months ago.

[LawrenceCooper]

Lawrence has given it above, but I'll repeat it.

The prizes were £750.

Phil had previously said that the ECF had contributed £1000 to the prize fund, but that was incorrect. The actual contribution was £750.

Hence the entire ECF contribution was paid out in prizes and there was no discrepancy.

Any luck on this bit?

I don't suppose he wanted to place on record his explanation as to why he couldn't be bothered to correct himself, or indeed reply at all, when I asked him about the discrepancy. Seven months ago.

Not unless it was mentioned when his voice was too faint to be heard.

[David Sedgwick]

Any luck on this bit?

I don't suppose he wanted to place on record his explanation as to why he couldn't be bothered to correct himself, or indeed reply at all, when I asked him about the discrepancy. Seven months ago.

Sorry - I hadn't seen that post from you when I replied earlier.

No, there was no explanation as to why it had taken so long for the record to be corrected. A much earlier acknowledgment of the error would have made things simpler and easier for all concerned - and allowed time for another question.

[David Sedgwick]

He skirted around the EU data directive and FIDE a little but that one has a long way to go yet.

He has to be commended for sitting there and doing his thing though.

He had either read the agenda for the FIDE Congress or been well briefed on it. I was impressed about that.

[Mick Norris]

Questions for the CEO are possible via Facebook or Twitter at 8pm according to the main site page.

Some minutes have appeared as if by miracle today

From which under AOB from the 29 May 2015 board meeting:

The Board expressed its disquiet at the lack of diversity in the shortlist for Player of the Year.
Directors believed that on balance, it was better on this occasion to support the Awards
Committee’s process.

[Mick Norris]

He skirted around the EU data directive and FIDE a little but that one has a long way to go yet.

He has to be commended for sitting there and doing his thing though.

He had either read the agenda for the FIDE Congress or been well briefed on it. I was impressed about that.

When I spoke to Phil before and during the MCF AGM, he seemed pretty knowledgeable about a number of issues, albeit we don't agree about some of them

Is there going to be a summary of yesterday evening's session?

[JustinHorton]

Phil then squirmed away with a go legal on us option.

Yes, having now seen it on YouTube I can't say I'm enormously impressed with that.

[Sean Hewitt]

Actually Matthew got the question wrong saying £175 which did not help and Phil then squirmed away with a go legal on us option.

Matthew's slip of the tongue was unfortunate, but I thought the answer was clear enough.

Lawrence has given it above, but I'll repeat it.

The prizes were £750.

Phil had previously said that the ECF had contributed £1000 to the prize fund, but that was incorrect. The actual contribution was £750.

Hence the entire ECF contribution was paid out in prizes and there was no discrepancy.

I'm grateful for bringing this question and answer to my attention.

Having watched the YouTube club that is indeed what Phil said, but I'm afraid that what Phil said was not true. The actual ECF contribution to the 2014 English Seniors Championships was zero.

e2e4 Chess received an underwrite from a personal sponsor on 11 January 2014 to support the event in the event of receiving fewer than 48 entries. That underwrite was based on a formula and was capped at a maximum contribution of £1000. The event received 12 entries. e2e4 supplied accounts as agreed and drew down all of that £1000 support on 14 April 2014. That amount was paid to e2e4 Chess some days later via the ECF, but did not come from ECF funds.

I hope that clarifies matters.

[Roger de Coverly]

e2e4 supplied accounts as agreed and drew down all of that £1000 support on 14 April 2014.

So £ 1000 was paid as support and £ 750 was paid in prizes.

[Sean Hewitt]

e2e4 supplied accounts as agreed and drew down all of that £1000 support on 14 April 2014.

So £ 1000 was paid as support and £ 750 was paid in prizes.

There were 12 entires. The event received private support of £1000. The event paid out £750 in prizes. The event lost money.

It may surprise you to learn that chess tournaments cost money to run.