Alex Holowczak wrote:Roger de Coverly wrote:However you define membership, whether by organisation or individual, directors are spending other people's money. It's very possible that other people will demand a say in how their money is spent. If you are a director or manager of a national organisation dependent on fund raising from participants, it's an issue you have to live with, however annoying it might be.
The other people will of course get a say in how their money is spent. They get to vote for or against the candidates for Board positions. I would imagine this is how the vast majority of companies in the world work.
An example of this is the British Darts Organisation. They have an ECF-like structure, in that counties affiliate to it. In 1993, the top professionals left the BDO to seek fame and fortune in what became the PDC, which had no such structure. Twenty(ish) years later, the PDC professionals have about twice as much money per event to play for as their BDO equivalents, twice as many events to play in, and far more lucrative sponsorship and television deals. The standard of play in the PDC is also about 5 points per three darts higher than the BDO in the top 64 of the rankings.
Barry Hearn was the catalyst of the PDC. He's become the catalyst behind the recent revival in snooker's fortunes. By changing it to allow him more power to do his job (without consulting via intermediate bodies), the sponsors have increased, the number of rankings events have trebled, and the game is far more global than it was even three years ago.
If you want to run a governing body successfully, Steve Giddins is right that the current structure does not allow for it to happen.
When this topic crops up, I expect to see this argument wheeled out ad nauseum. Darts, Snooker and Bowls all made great advances because of television coverage and sponsorship followed that. The key with all these games is that they are all visual, the rules are easily understood in a matter of seconds and consequently they lent themselves easily to prime-time coverage. Chess will never be able to follow suit as it is cerebral, complicated and non-visual. I have sat through dozens of ECF Board meetings as successive Marketing Directors have tried and failed to come up with any meaningful sponsorship or television coverage. In addition to this, Snooker and Darts at least have a large helping of "celebrity" players always willing to play to the gallery; compare and contrast with any top chess players. There is absolutely no way that Barry Hearn, Alan Sugar et al are going to either sponsor chess or step in as a Chief Executive.
When chess was on television, what did we get? The great Raymondo wheeled out, like an upmarket John McCririck, with some lesser mortals to expound and sometimes explain the games. Can you think of anyone less likely to encourage people to play chess?
The ECF has rightly (or wrongly) elected CJ de Mooi as its President. As we can see from these forums, the risks of this appointment have proved manifold. The Federation has a stark choice - either to elect a "name" such as CJ or Steve "Boring" Davis as President or go back to the situation where someone from within the chess hierarchy is appointed and they suffer the fate of Gerry Walsh and others.
This piece was entitled "My Resignation" by Alex McFarlane and has now encompassed "My Resignation" by Andrew Farthing and before the next EGM will probably include several more of the same. I have commented previously of the dearth of people actually willing to take on responsibility within the ECF; this thread and others like it will hardly encourage people to come forward to act as volunteers.
In an ideal Alex Holowczak world, the ECF would have an income of millions and be run by a chief executive and board with sweeping powers to modernise, invest and make decisions. Unfortunately as Andrew Farthing's posts have shown nothing could be further from the truth. The USA has been blessed with Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Stevie Wonder, as we can see the ECF has no cash, no hope and no wonder!
It seems an age since we were promised openess and transparency. Surely those attending a finance meeting are able to ask relevant querstions and get proper answers.
(promosing things and then doing another- going Awol at a difficult time- failing to provide leadership.)