"SavetheUKCC" petition

[JustinHorton]

[One of the comments I often make in this sort of circumstance is "do you realise you could earn more driving a bus". Alternatively I have no doubt a man of Mr Basman's consider intellect could command a salary of say £50000 per annum

Doing what?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Let's say UKCC wasn't about chess but darts or any other activity HMRC classifies as a sport. Mr Basman's tax situation would probably be very different

This is utter cobblers.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Clearly it has enormous benefits for chess but not for the entrepreneur who runs it - expecting someone to work for free is quite simply unfair.

I would also like to thank and praise Alan for his contributions - which have been the very opposite of utter cobblers.


I have absolutely no problem at all with chess events being run on a commercial/for profit basis. I’ve never really understood the objection to this. So if Bazza was indeed earning £20,000 pa (or whatever the true figure is) prior VAT ruling that’s fine by me.

Worth pointing out, though, that the business model for UKCC seems to involve other people working for free on its behalf. That may or may not be unfair it all depends on various factors.

The whole event appears to have been simply uncommercial and ill conceived ....

Are you familiar with the Kids Company story Alan? There’s much about the UKCC / Basman business that reminds me of that fiasco.

[Michael Farthing]

Still waiting for chapter and verse.

As someone with personal control of any number of votes on the ECF Council, did you not see the potential election material referred to by Mick Norris?
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 18#p187218

This is still innuendo as far as most of us are concerned who are not in Roger's inner circle of nudge-nudge behind the scenes secret documents.

Publish these secret documents of potential election material that you have access to so that we can all be aware of the skullduggery and disgraceful activities that you are innuendoing about. Publish and be damned!

[Roger de Coverly]

Publish these secret documents of potential election material that you have access to so that we can all be aware of the skullduggery and disgraceful activities that you are innuendoing about. Publish and be damned!

It's a document that presumably was sent to members of ECF Council. It's up to the original author to stand by the comments therein. I suspect Carl would almost immediately remove it as some of the allegations are on the borders of being defamatory and there is no way of knowing whether they are true.

It doesn't show the Board as constituted until last year's elections in a particularly good light.

[NickFaulks]

It's a document that presumably was sent to members of ECF Council. ...
It doesn't show the Board as constituted until last year's elections in a particularly good light.

Am I the only person who has no idea of what is being discussed?

Way off topic, needless to say.

[Roger de Coverly]

Am I the only person who has no idea of what is being discussed?

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 60#p188289

[Michael Flatt]

With regard to the UK Chess Challenge, it is interesting to follow the discussion here of a hostile 'rescue', deposing the current leader and parachuting in a management team of experts.

It has taken 20 years for critics to see the much respected organiser stumble and for his competition come under threat.

We should be more supportive and tolerant of individuals who have with courage to innovate and do things differently.

[JustinHorton]

Or possibly, we should be a lot less supportive and intolerant of individuals who screw up their own events by refusing to carry out their normal obligations and then expected to be hailed as knights in shining armour.

[Ian Thompson]

HMRC's view on people who fail to pay the tax that is due from them - "Every penny of tax that people evade deprives our public services of essential funding and we are focused on collecting all tax that is due." (Jane Ellision, financial secretary to the Treasury, quoted here).

[John McKenna]

Yeah but, no but...

The number of businesses whose assets were seized by HM Revenue & Customs.(HMRC) in 2015/16 stood at 1,592 up a staggering 145 per cent on the prior year of 649 seizures.
The increase reflects the fact that the amount of tax overdue increased from £15m to £42m between the period, according to research by online alternative business finance matchmaker Funding Options.
"With the sharp rise in asset seizing it's clear that HMRC is cracking down on those businesses with overdue tax bills," said Funding Options' chief executive.
Despite the increase tax authorities stressed that the majority of businesses pay on time and confiscating assets makes up less than one per cent of calls for payment of overdue tax.
"We have a very strong track record for supporting businesses with cashflow problems by agreeing time to pay... Asset seizure is a very last resort," said an HMRC spokesperson. (City AM 12 Sept. 2016)

Truth is, the deficit is the reason for the recent urge to collect in as much in taxes as possible.

I recall HMRC being labelled nearly not fit for purpose not too long ago.

Suddenly they're pretending that they're Robin Hood.

Don't believe it - they're the Sheriff's men in disguise.

[JustinHorton]

So who is Robin Hood in this?

[John McKenna]

Jeremy Corbyn is the name he's going under these days.

If he becomes PM chess will be given exemption from all taxes and Michael Basman will be pardoned immediately.

[Nick Burrows]

Jeremy Corbyn is the name he's going under these days.

If he becomes PM chess will be given exemption from all taxes and Michael Basman will be pardoned immediately.

Yes, and all chess players will be given a basic income to allow for full immersion in study

[Alan Kennedy]

With regard to the UK Chess Challenge, it is interesting to follow the discussion here of a hostile 'rescue', deposing the current leader and parachuting in a management team of experts.

It has taken 20 years for critics to see the much respected organiser stumble and for his competition come under threat.

We should be more supportive and tolerant of individuals who have with courage to innovate and do things differently.

Oh dear Michael you still are not listening. It is not clear who you are referring to as “the critics”and when we should have acted. I for one have never criticised the UK chess challenge until after it went bankrupt and then my cricisism has been very limited. I simply did not have any information to make a judgement prior to the bankruptcy. My sons greatly enjoyed playing in the tournament and I have gone on record previously as saying chess organisation is a thankless task and those who undertake it deserve all the thanks and recognition they can get. The same applies to Mr Basman. For the avoidance of doubt, I am also not making comment on what should happen - one cannot do that until one knows all the facts. I am giving general advice and asking questions about issues that are common to these situations. I do not know whether Mr Basman and his team are addressing the issues - only he knows that.

Regarding your comment about “deposing the current leader” the current UKCC leader already been deposed by the trustee in bankruptcy – you are simply too late.

To take the discussion forward, let us first look at the possibility that Michael Basman carries on trading as UK chess challenge. I foresee difficulties with the following issues and relationships.

1 The venues

The main difficulty is that as a bankrupt he has to disclose his bankruptcy if he takes more than £500 of credit from anyone. I do not know the detail of how the school hire is organised but I remember my son playing in the gigafinal at a sports centre and I am guessing that cost more than £500 to hire. Therefore form is signed to the time Mr Basman hands over the cash he is being granted credit and needs to make the disclosure. Is a local council likely to agree a rental with an undischarged bankrupt? I do not think so!

2 the suppliers of the fluffy bunnies

I do not know whether Mr Basman has handed over the stock of toys to the trustee (the trustee might have viewed it as an onerous asset and not wanted it) but it would appear to me that he may have to pay in advance for the stock. Is this going to be funded out of entry fees received - that would work but appears to me that it might be challenging particularly if Mr Basman relies on the UK chess challenge for his income. So I would question if Mr Basman has the resources to fund the operation without undue risk.

3 HMRC

Under paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 11 to the VAT Act 1994 HMRC can require a security deposit from any trader if they consider it necessary for the protection of the revenue. From my experience this usually amounts to the VAT net of input tax on about 4 months of turnover - in Mr Basmans case about £10,000 - if he does not provide this he commits a criminal offence. Whether HMRC will request a security deposit is unknown (I would) but it may be that they will be concerned given Mr Basmans previous non compliance. There is a similar provision for Paye.

If Mr Basman does not register for VAT I do not think the security can be charged as the rules only apply to taxable persons. He still has a liability to register until he convinces HMRC he is eligible for deregistration. I would not advise him to evade further vat - next time the bankruptcy will be for a lot longer than a year and the risk he is prosecuted for cheating the public revenue increases dramatically.

4 his premises

I understand that previously the UK chess traded from his garage. The problem is Mr Basman no longer has a garage - it is owned by his trustee

5 the entrants

there may be some entrants who just do not like the idea of paying entry fees in advance to a bankrupt and therefore if the turnover goes down and what was already a financially fragile business becomes unsustainable

6 the sponsors

sponsors want to be certain they will receive good publicity from a wide number of people. That is not now certain so therefore sponsorship must be also be uncertain.

7 Mike Basman himself

It is my no means certain the UK chess challenge provides Mr Basman enough income to live off. Given the time it occupies, this point would need to be addressed. To repeat an earlier post it is simply unfair that the parents of the children expect Mr Basman to provide his time for free.

There is always the possibility of a generous sponsor being involved but if the above points are not resolved I doubt a sponsor would want to support UKCC and in any event would want some distance from Mike Basman and the operation of the scheme. For example suppose the sponsor wants to increase prices to cover vat and Mr Basman does not want to increase prices “because the schools cant afford it”. Conflict would follow and the whole enterprise is likely to collapse again. I suggest it is therefore the above points you therefore need to address if you want to support Mr Basman not attacking “his critics” on the grounds of what appears to be sentiment.

It is my usual practice in such circumstances to advise the trader to have a plan that deals with all eventualities including the issues above. If Mr Basman wants the UKCC to survive – he or someone else needs to come up with a plan and quickly (I suggest well before December). The plan also needs to address the issue of public confidence in the UKCC ie making sure it is well founded and sustainable because at the moment that public confidence is disappearing very fast. I suggest the plan also needs to address the question what is the purpose of the UKCC. Is the plan is to provide Mr Basman with an income (how much income does he need - and if not how will UKCC be run) or provide 000s of children with a chess tournament (in which case who will run it given it did not provide Mr Basman with an income in the past)

I hope all of this makes sense and is helpful - it is a complex situation and if I have not communicated the issues properly apologies. Perhaps Michael you have some ideas on how the UKCC should be rescued - if so please share them with us. Alan