ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:53 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:but the proposed five year budget showed by the end year that 50% of the proposed membership fee increases were being used to support international chess. David Eustace reluctantly conceded this and promised to see if the figures could be rearranged.
Where does the 50% number come from? It looked north of 100% to me.

In any case, I resented the assumption that if Council did not welcome the plan, the solution was to rearrange the numbers to make them look different.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:10 pm

NickFaulks wrote: the solution was to rearrange the numbers to make them look different.
Malcolm in his editorial seemed to be saying that the solution is to rely on unknown future bequests and sponsorship. Some other organisations are reliant on similar sources of funding. How do they word their five year plans?

Or was he? There's also a hint of the line peddled ten years ago that the Robinson bequest was there to be spent. Perhaps so, but part of the Inheritance Tax avoidance on that legacy was to place the funds outside of the direct control of the BCF/ECF.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:19 pm

I was talking about the solution to the problem of getting Council to agree to increased membership fees.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:42 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:but the proposed five year budget showed by the end year that 50% of the proposed membership fee increases were being used to support international chess. David Eustace reluctantly conceded this and promised to see if the figures could be rearranged.
Where does the 50% number come from? It looked north of 100% to me.

In any case, I resented the assumption that if Council did not welcome the plan, the solution was to rearrange the numbers to make them look different.
You shouild have been listening, Nick, when I went set them out to David in the meeting :-)

However, I made the following assumptions were made:


Junior chess funding would come entirely from the John Robinson Trust. I believe this has been formally stated, but in any case the projected junior budget exactly matches proposed drawings from the JRT in all years of the plan.

I took the view that all other expenditure apart from international was 'administrative'.

There was a final year draw down from the PIF1 of £10007 (beautifully precise) in the finsl year which would offset about half of the £20360 rise in the international budget, the other half necessarily coming from membership and game fees. It should be noted that sponsorship income, either actual or projected, nor its use, has been disclosed to Council for confidentiality reasons (though it seems odd to me why a sponsor would not want its generosity to be known).

When I presented my figures I was doing so to challenge the specific assertion that international spending would not be met from membership and game fees. Seeking to be scrupulously accurate, I therefore allocated any other possibly non administrative expenses to membership ahead of international spending so as to be absolutely sure I was not overstating the position. This leaves the following items, that might be regarded as non-administrative, still being paid for out of membership and games fees:

Women's chess: £2000
Chess in prisons; £500


.Edit:

I've been looking at a slightly different question from you Nick:

The figures only concern themselves with increases (ie the planned increase in international spending and the planned increase in fees). The international budget for this year is already £50000 and is all coming out of membership fees. In that sense, you are correct: international chess is in no way meeting the target of coming from sponsorship and in the final year of the projection £60000 out of the shortfall of £70000 will still be coming from membership.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Angus French » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:05 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:There was a final year draw down from the PIF1 of £10007 (beautifully precise) in the finsl year which would offset about half of the £20360 rise in the international budget, the other half necessarily coming from membership and game fees. It should be noted that sponsorship income, either actual or projected, nor its use, has been disclosed to Council for confidentiality reasons (though it seems odd to me why a sponsor would not want its generosity to be known).
But:
a) What about the significant increases in international expenditure *before* the final year - essentially funding for these is coming from membership fee and game fee income, isn't it? I refer the reader to the chart I referenced earlier; and,
b) Will some of the PIF1 money be needed to support the British Championships (I'm not all all clear on this: John Robinson expressed a wish in his will that "his bequest funds the British Chess Championship with £10,000 per annum" but it seems that the Five-year plan has all JRT contributions spent on junior chess and all PIF2 money going to the Chess Trust)?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:18 pm

Michael Farthing wrote: In that sense, you are correct: international chess is in no way meeting the target of coming from sponsorship and in the final year of the projection £60000 out of the shortfall of £70000 will still be coming from membership.
Malcolm's editorial is ambiguous therefore. When he says "basic administration costs", what does this include? For that matter what does a "Development plans for international chess entail". If you set up a new event and spend £ 100,000 on it, perhaps that is "Development". If you want to run it in a second year is that "administration"?

Here's a couple of paragraphs.
The plan proposed, a 'direction of travel', sees basic administration costs in the future covered by membership fees. Development plans for international chess (my portfolio) and junior chess will be supported by the capital funds and future bequests and sponsorship. There will also need to be a budget for women's chess, as in another overdue and positive development, Sarah Longson was elected as Director of Women's Chess.

The plans came in for criticism from a small minority of delegates who, as far as I can see, do not want to spend money on anything, and are content for the ECF to stand still. In the end, after some debate, the plans were overwhelmingly approved.
This is going out to all subscribers to the magazine. It's a perennial problem, but when Malcolm writes, is it as a spokesman for the ECF, or the view of an independent magazine proprietor?

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:20 pm

In answer to Angus (Roger posted while I was typing)

(a) I think your post probably crossed with my edit, Angus. I agree with you

(b) The first page of the proposed budget shows two drawdowns from the JRT. One is the £19607 that I set against the junior budget. There is also another amount of £15000, £12000 of which apparently appears as income in the British Chess Championship account. I haven't traced the other £3000 (but I haven't gone hunting for it either). I think the reason why one appears internally within a specific account and the other does not seems to be that the junior spending is still unapproved.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Angus French » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:30 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:In answer to Angus (Roger posted while I was typing)

(a) I think your post probably crossed with my edit, Angus. I agree with you

(b) The first page of the proposed budget shows two drawdowns from the JRT. One is the £19607 that I set against the junior budget. There is also another amount of £15000, £12000 of which apparently appears as income in the British Chess Championship account. I haven't traced the other £3000 (but I haven't gone hunting for it either). I think the reason why one appears internally within a specific account and the other does not seems to be that the junior spending is still unapproved.
Re (b): I'm pretty sure the £15,000 (JRT non-drawdown money) is for the Junior Academy - the Five-year Plan spreadsheet describes the figure as "Additional Academy costs".

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Angus French » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:37 pm

Malcolm Pein in Chess Magazine (as quoted by RdC) wrote:The plans came in for criticism from a small minority of delegates who, as far as I can see, do not want to spend money on anything, and are content for the ECF to stand still. In the end, after some debate, the plans were overwhelmingly approved.
This is fatuous nonsense. The concerns expressed reflected feedback provided to those who put a lot of effort into consulting their constituents.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:53 pm

Oh I see, Angus. (We've crossed again) Yes, I was looking at the Junior directorate on Budget C, not the five year financial plan. Budget C definitely shows £12000 from JRT going to the British Champs, so why this doesn't appear on the 5 yr plan is anybody's guess, but I see the academy budget does also show a shortfall of £15000 after allowing for £20000 from the JRT and there is a footnote to the plan saying that it is assumed that the JRT will cover the net junior expenditure.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Oct 27, 2016 3:55 pm

Malcolm Pein in Chess Magazine (as quoted by RdC) wrote:In the end, after some debate, the plans were overwhelmingly approved.
I must have missed that. I thought the plans were quite specifically not approved in their current form, and sent back for a rethink. It will be interesting to see what the official minutes report.

On that point, the ECF Board may in future wish to ensure that their own minutes appear before the next edition of Chess Magazine.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:15 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Malcolm Pein in Chess Magazine (as quoted by RdC) wrote:In the end, after some debate, the plans were overwhelmingly approved.
I must have missed that. I thought the plans were quite specifically not approved in their current form, and sent back for a rethink. It will be interesting to see what the official minutes report.

On that point, the ECF Board may in future wish to ensure that their own minutes appear before the next edition of Chess Magazine.

The strategy paper was referred back when it became apparent there were a lot of people wanting to make inputs and that would have taken for ages. Indeed.one delegate suggested a line by line inspection akin to the committee stage of a bill in Parliament. I got the sense that there was also a feeling that the strategy paper was a collection of vague plans rather than a strategy, which was a comment made to me by quite a few silver members - that may just have been me listening to one or two individuals. My own view was that I saw nothing to object to in it, but not much to inspire me!

The proposed budget was passed on a show of hands, convincingly on membership fees (though I wouldn't have said overwhelmingly). More convincingly on using the trust funds and transfers to the chess trust. The votes were specifically taken to provide the Board with guidance. It does not bind future Council meetings. However, I did note that the Board was insistent that the hand count was taken very accurately, even though clear. For future persuasion,perhaps... Sort of, "Well in October Council did say... so you should stick by it".

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Oct 27, 2016 4:40 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:Sort of, "Well in October Council did say... so you should stick by it".
One of the older hands in Birmingham assured me that nothing we were doing there mattered very much. Next year the Board will ask that membership fees be raised, because that's what Boards do, and it will simply come down to whether they can get the votes when it's actual money being discussed rather than a "direction of travel".
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Nick Grey » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:56 pm

I think best to wait for minutes or even Julie's from SCCA viewpoint.
By all means those their put their views here & to the minute taker but that may not be helpful. No reason why draft minutes ought to have been to those that consider them, but publish say another two weeks later.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF October 2016 – Minutes of AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:05 pm

Nick Grey wrote:I think best to wait for minutes or even Julie's from SCCA viewpoint.
For subscribers to his magazine, Malcolm has already written and published them!

The report at the SCCU site has also been published.

http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/bcf.htm