In the debates around the 2015 elections the late Martin Regan, reflecting on his stint as Chief Executive, said that his approach was to ask as many players as possible what they wanted from the ECF. He would then tell them how much it would cost and the board would take it from there.Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 2:42 pm
We ought to get back to basics, focus on chess; if we have money to spare, buy boards, and sets, (or even,give hard cash) and distribute to leagues. And, leagues are given freedom to come up schemes to drive local chess iniatives, and at the end of the year, reports can be made back to the ECF, to be reviewed..
There have been suggestions in the past that the ECF should try and separate out their main areas; international, home (amateur) and junior - you could now add women as a separate category and of course there would be overlaps. Some of the advantages are obvious; it would free those wanting to focus on professional chess to bring the right people on board and seek sponsorship etc without being shackled to the amateur side while junior and women are more obviously charitable.
Answering John Upham's question about what should be done with 10 million pounds. I would suggest carving it up into four, split equally around the areas above and obviously each would have different immediate priorities.
As for what I would do if I was able to personally direct the spending;
a) a program of elite tournaments with amateur events attached, possibly rotating around the major cities.
b) grants to form junior clubs but with the proviso that there must be separate sections for players aged 11+ (it's up to individual clubs exactly how the manage it and where and when they make exceptions but we will not attract teenagers to chess if they get lumped in with seven year olds).
c) bespoke clubs for younger adults, in suitable central venues (and perhaps for retired people as well).
d) bursaries for individual players where necessary.