DCMS Grant : contingency plans?

[Carl Hibbard]

What part of the ECF does this particular grant get allocated to?

[John Upham]

AFAIK, the DCMS grant is allocated to the part of the ECF which then uses it to pay the salaries of the Office staff.

There were suggestions of attempting to paper over the cracks by transferring funds from JRT or CCL. However, it was pointed out that the DCMS would not be satisfied by this. They want a plan for sustainable recovery plus a DoF in post. I believe that that require time scale for the creation of the plan was three weeks from the date of the AGM.

It was suggested that the income from CoM would feature heavily in the recovery plan.

[Carl Hibbard]

AFAIK, the DCMS grant is allocated to the part of the ECF which then uses it to pay the salaries of the Office staff.

There were suggestions of attempting to paper over the cracks by transferring funds from JRT or CCL. However, it was pointed out that the DCMS would not be satisfied by this. They want a plan for sustainable recovery plus a DoF in post. I believe that that require time scale for the creation of the plan was three weeks from the date of the AGM.

It was suggested that the income from CoM would feature heavily in the recovery plan.

That relies heavily on the number of sets and the publicity from that doesn't it?

[Paul Buswell]

Thank you John....

I presume ECF will look at paying for a Director rather than lose the grant in its entirety? Not a commercial rate which would use too much of the grant, but at least a dashed good honorarium to make someone think about it.

PB

[Laurie Roberts]

Perhaps this might act as an opportunity to re-evaluate how we fund chess and how it is run.

Chess players get very excitable about the game fee which is absurdly cheap in comparison to most other activities that take place over 3 hours. It could be doubled and would still be very cheap indeed. That combined with a £5 annual subscription from all players must help the finances.

I realise an annual subscription might drive the odd person out of the game but - really - is 42 pence a month annual subscription really so much to ask? I don't know many people who would refuse to pay an extra £5 annual subscription and maybe an extra 10 pence or 20 pence per graded game.

Yes, the player who turns up at your club might wait a month or so before deciding to 'commit' to playing in matches. But in steady state it would be fine. Most sports have annual subscriptions

being chess players, people would grumble about it of course.

But it might sort the problem out?

[Matthew Turner]

Laurie,
Chipping in a few quid will not solve the problem and will not satisfy the government. We have to address the fact that the Office is costing £116,000 per year. Not easy, but I am afraid it must be done.

[Alex Holowczak]

We have to address the fact that the Office is costing £116,000 per year. Not easy, but I am afraid it must be done.

What is done in the office that, for example, cannot be done at home with a computer and a phone line?

[Laurie Roberts]

If the problem is that expenditure exceeds income, then raising the annual income to exceed expenditure does solve the problem doesn't it?

Of course, just throwing money at an inefficient office isn't a satisfactory answer. But making an office more efficient and increasing income is.

I have to say, I have no knowledge or experience of whether the office is efficient or not. But if it is inefficient then it should be made more efficient.

But raising income does help

If we paid £5 a year subscription, that'd be an extra £50k a year based on 10k players? And increasing game fee by 20p a game must raise a fair bit too?

[Matthew Turner]

Laurie,
The ECF has about 1,000 members, so I'm not sure where you get the idea of 10,000 players paying an extra £5 from. There is no evidence (as far as I know) that raising the Game Fee by 20p would raise any more revenue. The government pay us money to organise chess and I doubt that they want to see ad hoc solutions to the current financial difficulties. I suspect having a balanced budget might not be enough for the government, they will also want to see core chess activity protected. I think we are a long way from finding a solution.

[Simon Brown]

It sounds to me as if the ECF may be technically insolvent now, without the grant, though I haven't seen the figures, clearly. I suggest the directors of ECF find out very quickly if it is true, because the consequences of trading while insolvent are unpleasant.

[Laurie Roberts]

I would charge an annual subscription to everybody who wants a game of chess graded; i.e. it would be compulsory to be a member of the ECF if you wanted to play graded chess (just like you have to be a member of the ASA to compete in swimming, the archery association to compete in archery etc) Thats around 10k people.

Of course raising game fee by 20p would help. That would be a rise of 40% on existing game fee

[Matthew Turner]

Laurie,
You are obviously more knowledgeable on the Laffer Curve than I am.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would charge an annual subscription to everybody who wants a game of chess graded;

That's the system in the USA. The consequence is that their chess is almost exclusively tournament based and what little league chess takes place (in big cities like New York) is usually ungraded.

I notice you apply a game fee principle to players in your London league team

If you'd like to join us and play some games in the London League, please send me a message via this forum. There is no annual membership fee - we just ask players to pay £2.50 on match night.

[Laurie Roberts]

We do and it works well.

But my point re: the ECF is a more general point that the ECF could charge more for playing chess whether by increased game fee, fixed membership fee, or a combination of both and that might help ensure a balanced budget (alongside cutting unecessary costs)

Personally, I envisage a mixture of both fixed and variable costs for playing chess would be best but I'd be perfectly happy to have no membership fee and even double game fee if that helped ensure the viability.

[Roger de Coverly]

It sounds to me as if the ECF may be technically insolvent now, without the grant, though I haven't seen the figures, clearly. I suggest the directors of ECF find out very quickly if it is true, because the consequences of trading while insolvent are unpleasant.

I'm sure there are lots of accountants and lawyers who will correct this if I'm wrong but is it not the case that a normal commercial company can continue trading even if it has negative net worth provided it can borrow to meet its expenditure or can raise fresh capital. The papers for the Council meeting spoke of borrowing the "dormant" cash in CCL.

The Regan manifesto of three years ago made much of the ECF's million in assets which could be invested in (or spent on) English chess. Most of that money is still around, the problem is that it isn't and never was sufficiently under the ECF's control to be reported on the ECF's balance sheet.