DCMS Grant : contingency plans?

[benedgell]

Copied across from the ECF website:-

"We have been advised by the DCMS that the most likely outcome of the Government’s spending review is that the ECF will receive no further funding from the DCMS after the current financial year, i.e. this year’s £45,000 will be the last contribution which we receive.

It should be stressed that no definite decisions on future funding have been taken. The timetable is tied to the Government’s spending review and we shall not have a firm decision until the DCMS itself learns how it is affected by the review. That said, the DCMS wanted to give as much warning as possible of the likely outcome. The DCMS is facing strong pressure firstly to cut its own administration costs and to reduce its programme spend as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

The Board received this news after its meeting at which the Council paperwork was finalised. Consequently, the potential impact of the loss of the grant has not been addressed in the Council paperwork, but will be discussed as part of the agenda. The principal effect is that we no longer have the cushion of a 2- or 3-year phased reduction (which seemed to be the most probable scenario until now) and will have to take steps more urgently. This is likely to have implications for the range and scope of the ECF’s activities and for those who fund the ECF through Game Fee and Membership.
- Chris Majer, CEO"

[John Upham]

I trust no-one is surprised by this "news".

It is time to plan for the virtual office now!

I started this thread more than one year ago.

[Alex Holowczak]

I should also say that £45,000 is a very tiny amount, less than small change, in HMG spending and will have no impact at all on reducing the deficit. I believe its an excuse to distance itself from a game they see no political mileage in, a game that seemed to be well supported by some of the opposition MP's when in power! Its called politics.

That's nonsense.

I don't think chess is the only thing losing out here. There are bound to be lots of other sports facing similar hits. Indeed, jobs at the DCMS may also be lost because they'll have less to administer.

[Roger de Coverly]

Indeed, jobs at the DCMS may also be lost because they'll have less to administer.

That may well be part of it. Instead of just handing over £ 15,000 a quarter with the simple message "spend it on chess", they (the DCMS civil servants) insisted on receiving a business plan and presumably reading it and having meetings about it with the ECF. All of which must cost staff time and thus money.

I imagine the Government will still be spending millions supporting athletes in relatively obscure sports as part of the national ego trip of winning medals at the 2012 Olympics.

[Alex Holowczak]

Indeed, jobs at the DCMS may also be lost because they'll have less to administer.

That may well be part of it. Instead of just handing over £ 15,000 a quarter with the simple message "spend it on chess", they (the DCMS civil servants) insisted on receiving a business plan and presumably reading it and having meetings about it with the ECF. All of which must cost staff time and thus money.

I think that's sensible though, they need to know how the money is being spent, just to be sure that it isn't going into the ECF accounts, and then ending up in the pockets of its Directors.

I imagine the Government will still be spending millions supporting athletes in relatively obscure sports as part of the national ego trip of winning medals at the 2012 Olympics.

I'm not sure any events at the Olympic Games can be described as "relatively obscure". The most obscure is probably Modern Pentathlon, but that was created specifically for the Olympics. Aside from that, there are sports we're not very interested in, but are popular worldwide. E.g. Wrestling and Handball.

[Matthew Turner]

It is rather unfortunate that this announcement has come out after the council papers have been finalised. The ECF council will have to push forward some extreme measures without much consideration.
I hope it is an oversight that there is no-one listed as being nominated as Finance Director.

[Alex Holowczak]

I hope it is an oversight that there is no-one listed as being nominated as Finance Director.

It is; the position has been missed altogether off the Council paper you can download from the website.

[John Philpott]

Matthew Turner wrote

I hope it is an oversight that there is no-one listed as being nominated as Finance Director.

Yes, this is an oversight, and one which is attributable to me in drawing up the list of nominations received. Gareth Caller is standing for re-election as Finance Director and has been nominated by Mike Gunn as representative member of the Southern Counties Chess Union. I will get the webmaster to correct this. Apologies to all, particularly Gareth.

[Andrew Farthing]

It is time to plan for the virtual office now!

There's no doubt this is going to result in some difficult decisions and although I absolutely believe changes are needed in the federation we should remember when we talk about the office people's jobs are involved and for them it is probably a very worrying time. I have not changed my stance on this just recognised that people are involved who do their very best in difficult circumstances. They are not at fault just the system.

Thank you for posting this reminder, Ernie.

The likelihood of the DCMS grant disappearing was the central planning assumption in the office review which I conducted, so the Board has been considering how the ECF could survive if left to its own resources in the medium term. A paper summarising the key conclusions from the review, including an Appendix with some of the supporting details, has now been posted on the ECF website as item C13.12 on the Council papers page http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897.

As the statement on the ECF homepage says:

The principal effect is that we no longer have the cushion of a 2- or 3-year phased reduction (which seemed to be the most probable scenario until now) and will have to take steps more urgently. This is likely to have implications for the range and scope of the ECF’s activities and for those who fund the ECF through Game Fee and Membership.

If, as seems very likely, 2010/11 is the last year in which we receive DCMS support, it will be serious, but mainly because it forces a faster pace of change than we had hoped. This is a challenge, but - I hope and believe - a manageable one.

There are bound to be lots of other sports facing similar hits.

It doesn't help, but it may be of interest to know that the fact that officially chess is NOT a "sport" was cited by the DCMS as a factor in the likely cessation of the grant. Of course, the need for substantial cuts is the principal reason.

[John Upham]

The only short term way, I can see in covering the funding gap is:

Martin,

What would be your plan to resource the services currently provided by ECF Office staff?

[E Michael White]

1. Merge the PIF with the JRT.

Martin - Re 1:
a) What form do you see the resulting merged vehicle take and the tax consequences ?
b) Another junior charity ?
c) What do you see as the advantages of doing 1 as opposed to doing just 2 to 4 ?

I cant see why 3 and 4 werent done years ago. However 2 might be frowned upon by the charities commission if its thought the JRT were then just a sham to obtain in effect charitable status for the ECFs funds.

I'm neither an accountant nor a lawyer.

[John Philpott]

John Philpott wrote (in relation to the inadvertent omission of the Finance Director from the list of nominations received)

I will get the webmaster to correct this.

The webmaster has duly done so. The appearance of this document on the website was only intended to be temporary. It will be removed once the agenda, which lists all the candidates and identifies who has nominated them, is published on Wednesday.

[Roger de Coverly]

The PIF trustees have already indicated that it might make sense to merge the two.

Strange - the BCF's PIF is the long term capital of British/English chess built up over a century. It would be wrong to encumber it with only being able to spend on junior activities. With the benefit of hindsight, it might have been better to take the tax hit and incorporate the Robinson legacy directly into the ECF's funds. At least that way, the ECF wouldn't be facing immediate insolvency because of the withdrawal of the DCMS grant.

[John Philpott]

Roger de Coverly wrote

Strange - the BCF's PIF is the long term capital of British/English chess built up over a century.

There are actually two distinct parts of the PIF.

(1) The original PIF which is as Roger described it.

(2) What might be termed the John Robinson PIF, representing the element of the John Robinson bequest which passed to the BCF (which was inside the inheritance tax threshold) instead of being diverted to the John Robinson Youth Chess Trust under the Deed of Arrangement.

The two are shown separately in the BCF's accounts (two years' worth of which will form part of the Council papers). I can see a case for reuniting (2) with the rest of the John Robinson money, but much less of an argument for taking (1) outside the BCF.

[Alex Holowczak]

Is there a reason why the BCF has roughly £200,000 in its accounts and the ECF only has £40,000 or so? Why can't the money be transferred from the BCF to the ECF?

(N.B. My understanding of the role of the BCF in relation to the ECF is limited.)