The role of the ECF Office

[Andrew Farthing]

In response to the questions raised from time to time on this forum, I've arranged for a document to be posted on the ECF website listing the activities for which the office team is responsible.

The document can be found via the link at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=28.

I hope that this is of interest. For my part, I should like to record my appreciation for the hard work of the small team in the ECF office, a sentiment which I know is shared by everyone on the ECF Board.

Andrew Farthing

[IM Jack Rudd]

Thanks for that, Andrew.

ETA: is there any particular reason why it's put up as a document? It would be easier to deal with if it were just posted directly on the web page.

[Andrew Farthing]

ETA: is there any particular reason why it's put up as a document? It would be easier to deal with if it were just posted directly on the web page.

The original file was a Word document. I didn't specify any other format, so it's probably my fault! This interweb stuff is still pretty new to me...

[Sean Hewitt]

hmmmm.............

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew,
I am not sure that you 'get it'. Most of the functions identified are non-jobs, they do not promote chess in any way, but simply exist to perpetuate the Office. Indeed, producing this very list is an example of completely unproductive work. Perhaps, you could contemplate the question, What would be the impact on Chess if the ECF Office did not exist?

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew,
I am not sure that you 'get it'. Most of the functions identified are non-jobs, they do not promote chess in any way, but simply exist to perpetuate the Office. Indeed, producing this very list is an example of completely unproductive work. Perhaps, you could contemplate the question, What would be the impact on Chess if the ECF Office did not exist?

Matthew,

I suppose it's possible that you actually believe that an organisation such as the ECF could run without administrative support of this nature, but in the real world organisations above a certain size cannot operate on thin air. Look at any business, charity or non-profit-making body of comparable size and you'll see that tasks like these are necessary and, in the vast majority of cases, people are paid to do them.

To my mind, therefore, your question really boils down to, "What would be the impact on chess if the ECF didn't exist?" I'm not aware of any chess-playing countries which get by without a national federation, but I could be wrong.

If English chessplayers believe that they should have a voice in world chess (the debate prior to the FIDE Delegate election seems to suggest that they do), that we should have national events such as the British Championships, national representation in individual and team competitions, investment in junior development, support for chess activity (arbiters, etc.) and so on, then a national federation is essential.

Paid administrative staff are part and parcel of running the federation. I don't believe for a second that the ECF could run on a 'virtual' organisational model (as has been suggested elsewhere in this forum) using nothing but unpaid volunteers. The difficulty in filling existing voluntary roles should be evidence enough for this, without having to make a case for being able to find more volunteers to provide this kind of support.

I'm sure that this won't have convinced you, but the description of what the ECF office does is now available so that others can judge for themselves.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew,
I am sure the ECF requires an administrative function. However, when the administrative function takes up all it's resources then there is really no point it existing. The Office exists to perpetuate the Office.
I doubt very much that you would be able to find any national chess organistaion or indeed any other sporting organisation where such a high proportion of their income was spent on administration.

[Richard Bates]

Surely that is only really relevant if the administration costs are materially above those incurred by comparable organisations?

If they are not, and if you accept an administration function is necessary, then the only way you are going to improve their size as a proportion of income is by, well, increasing the amount of income.

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
If you say that the Office operates at it's minimum possible size, then this is indeed a point of view. However, in any functioning organisation the Office would be working to increase revenue so that it could carry out it's primary objective of promoting chess. The ECF Office's primary objective is to run an Office and promoting chess gets in the way. In the current situation there is absolutely no point in having an Office (I doubt any chess players would notice if it disappeared). That does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't have an Office or even that we should spend less on it. However, we have to find a way that the Office can function to promote Chess and that is the point that ECF Officials just do not seem to grasp.

[JohnPaines]

The ECF Office's primary objective is to run an Office

I would be interested to hear which items on Andrew's list you feel demonstrate this.

However, we have to find a way that the Office can function to promote Chess and that is the point that ECF Officials just do not seem to grasp.

The approach adopted by the other volunteer-driven organisation I'm involved with is to employ a full-time Marketing Manager and Communications Manager (for both internal and external communications) in the office, whereas ECF relies on a volunteer Marketing Manager and Publicity Officer. The other approach would be all very well for ECF provided we could afford it, which at present we can't.


http://twitter.com/ecfchess

[Andrew Farthing]

I am sure the ECF requires an administrative function. However, when the administrative function takes up all its resources then there is really no point it existing. The Office exists to perpetuate the Office.
I doubt very much that you would be able to find any national chess organistaion or indeed any other sporting organisation where such a high proportion of their income was spent on administration.

I don't understand what basis there can be for the statement that "the administrative function takes up all its [the ECF's] resources". Taking the figures published in the latest ECF Yearbook, total ECF income in the year to 20/4/08 was £319,394. The office costs ("Management services") totalled £119,742, i.e. slightly over a third of the ECF's total annual resources. This hardly equals "all".

I don't share your view that this is an unusually high proportion. I chair a charity (in income terms about 30% bigger than the ECF), in which we do everything we can to keep central office costs to a minimum because we want to maximise the funds available for our core charitable services. Nevertheless, the percentage of total income spent on administration is the same as in the ECF.

[JohnPaines]

I don't share your view that this is an unusually high proportion. I chair a charity (in income terms about 30% bigger than the ECF), in which we do everything we can to keep central office costs to a minimum because we want to maximise the funds available for our core charitable services. Nevertheless, the percentage of total income spent on administration is the same as in the ECF.

British Mensa: 2008 income £885,924; 2008 admin spend £365,609.

[John Upham]

Andrew et al.,

Has there been (or will there be) a detailed study of a plan to virtualise the office?

What would the immediate saving on premises costs be?

Are there any members who would be devastated if the yearbook was only maintained on the web site?

Who would think their Christmas was not really Christmas after all if they did not receive an ECF diary? (There are piles of unsold ones from previous years in the Office if anyone is very keen.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Who would think their Christmas was not really Christmas after all if they did not receive an ECF diary? (There are piles of unsold ones from previous years in the Office if anyone is very keen.)

I quite like having a portable light powered hand held device with an ink based stylus particularly one which is arranged by chess season rather than calendar year. I don't see much continued point to a paper based Chess Moves though. I'm not even sure a PDF only version is of that much interest although there's a need to archive results and event reports.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't understand what basis there can be for the statement that "the administrative function takes up all its [the ECF's] resources".

I'd imagine that Matthew has been looking at the management accounts as presented on the ECF website at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/index.ph ... &Itemid=28

He will have noted that in the year to April 2009, the ECF raised net income of £ 61,196 from "General Funding", a net income of £ 54,859 from "Game Fee" and £ 36,414 from "Direct Members" making a total of £ 152,469. He might have noted that this is only about half the ECF's turnover, but most of the balance was items like British Championship entry fees, International and Junior event sponsorship and parental contributions to junior travel and accommodation costs. By their very nature, these incomes are directly tied to a corresponding expense and not available for general expenses. He will then have noticed that the net expenditure on "Management Services was £ 106,895 so that was two thirds of the income already spoken for.

Net expenditure on "International" was £ 18,314 and on junior £16,346, so the chess related outgoings are smaller than those spent on the office. Matthew's "all" is an exaggeration, but "most" is justified.