ECF Funding for the British Championship

[Paul Cooksey]

One notable point from the ECF Finance Council was the the discussion of the British. Adam made the point it was unrealistic to run on a break even basis given the rise of venue costs.

The cash subsidy in 2022 was about £16 000 (plus a percentage of office resources, which the ECF don't publish).

The next AGM will propose a new membership scheme. So important to think about how much money the ECF should spend on various things, to work out the level of membership fees needed.

The one certainty in polls is everyone agrees the wrong question asked. So feel free to propose different amounts!

[Roger de Coverly]

The cash subsidy in 2022 was about £16 000 (plus a percentage of office resources, which the ECF don't publish).

Outside of the Championship proper and that only for "professional" players, shouldn't the other sections be self supporting and even target to make a profit to help finance the office? I rather suspect that the entry fees for other sections are already enhanced to boost the prize fund in the Championship. Also in comparison to some local weekend events, arbiters and organisers are paid for their time.

But if you ask what the ECF is for, one of the reasons is to run national championshps.

[Angus French]

The next AGM will propose a new membership scheme. So important to think about how much money the ECF should spend on various things, to work out the level of membership fees needed.

That seems like a non-sequitur to me! Why would a new membership scheme imply a review of or change to expenditure?

Did Adam A give any indication of the size of the increase in venue costs?

Might it be useful to give a breakdown of recent income and expenditure for the championships? This could be extracted from the management accounts spreadsheet provided for Saturday's Finance Council meeting.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why would a new membership scheme imply a review of or change to expenditure?

One of the potential proposals was a merger of Bronze and Silver categories. If it was revenue neutral it would be demanding more from club only players and less from Comgress participants. If you increased Bronze to Silver, that's more money, so what is the planned expenditure? If you reduced Silver to Bronze, that's less income, so what expenditure will be cut?

[Paul Cooksey]

That seems like a non-sequitur to me! Why would a new membership scheme imply a review of or change to expenditure?

I should have explained my train of thought.

I could come up with an ECF Budget which requires a single membership fee of £10, or one which requires a single fee of £100. I think a bronze member would see those two proposals very differently.

The ECF board would probably describe their budgeting as "modest growth", and £10 and £100 as both idiotic for different reasons. But still, I don't think membership should be set at the highest amount the members are willing to tolerate, which is how it tends to get discussed in Council, even going back to game fee days.

In passing, any ECF board members contributing through PMs and not publicly might be amused that I did consider a poll on how much BCC should ask Chess Scotland to contribute but I was trying to keep my question a bit narrower for now.

[LawrenceCooper]

To clarify, when you say ECF funding does this include the Chess Trust & John Robinson Trust?

[Mick Norris]

The cash subsidy in 2022 was about £16 000 (plus a percentage of office resources, which the ECF don't publish).

Outside of the Championship proper and that only for "professional" players, shouldn't the other sections be self supporting and even target to make a profit to help finance the office? I rather suspect that the entry fees for other sections are already enhanced to boost the prize fund in the Championship. Also in comparison to some local weekend events, arbiters and organisers are paid for their time.

But if you ask what the ECF is for, one of the reasons is to run national championshps.

Which would be the English Championship, wouldn't it?

If the British runs at a profit, does the money go to the ECF?

[Roger de Coverly]

If the British runs at a profit, does the money go to the ECF?

Certainly. The ECF pays the bills when it doesn't make a profit. For that matter, quite a bit of the ECF's office expenditure would relate to the Congress.

Historically it was a Congress run by the BCF which featured the British Championship as its cornerstone event. The "English" Championship is a very new venture by comparison although the Seniors version has been running for some years.

[Angus French]

That seems like a non-sequitur to me! Why would a new membership scheme imply a review of or change to expenditure?

I should have explained my train of thought.

I could come up with an ECF Budget which requires a single membership fee of £10, or one which requires a single fee of £100. I think a bronze member would see those two proposals very differently.

The ECF board would probably describe their budgeting as "modest growth", and £10 and £100 as both idiotic for different reasons. But still, I don't think membership should be set at the highest amount the members are willing to tolerate, which is how it tends to get discussed in Council, even going back to game fee days.

In passing, any ECF board members contributing through PMs and not publicly might be amused that I did consider a poll on how much BCC should ask Chess Scotland to contribute but I was trying to keep my question a bit narrower for now.

Ah, I had assumed that the fee for, say, a combined single category of membership would be set such that the amount of income it produced was the same as it would be under the current regime (disregarding the possibility that memberships will be lost or gained due to a higher fee for some and a lower fee for others).

BTW, what about looking for sponsorship to assist with the increased costs? The British did used to be sponsored by Smith and WIlliamson (and Grieveson Grant too?) and I think some local authorities may have offered venues at reduced rates, presumably on the basis that the championships would generate significant extra custom for local businesses.

[Alan Walton]

BTW, what about looking for sponsorship to assist with the increased costs? The British did used to be sponsored by Smith and WIlliamson (and Grieveson Grant too?) and I think some local authorities may have offered venues at reduced rates, presumably on the basis that the championships would generate significant extra custom for local businesses.

I suspect they are looking and enquiring about sponsorship, but it's join an orderly queue with other events.

From what I gather the current climate for venues is extremely challenging, most hotel groups are charging through the roof, and supposedly local authorities are in a position where they don't have to "give away" their venues for nothing, the view is this maybe a temporary blip whilst demand is high post-COVID, and may rebalance itself in the near future, only time will tell and in the meantime chess players may have to accept things will be more expensive to participate

[Mick Norris]

Yes, the Manchester Congress team have approached over 20 venues in the city centre in relation to the Summer Congress, and most of the quotes have been c£2K per day

[Paul Cooksey]

To clarify, when you say ECF funding does this include the Chess Trust & John Robinson Trust?

I meant just the ECF and not the charities. They do make a useful contribution of course, but they expect the ECF to run it and they contribute to improve it.

[Chris Goodall]

If it's true that the Championship prize fund is the reason the annual party can't pay for itself, then get rid of the Championship prize fund.

The monopoly on the title "British Champion" should be a net asset to the ECF. It should generate income by enticing players to compete at a discount to their usual rate. Instead it's a net liability; the ECF have to keep up the façade that holding the title makes one a reasonably big fish in the British chess scene, whereas the professionals would happily skip "The British Championship" for a random Open in Latvia with cheap rooms, so they have to bribe players into competing for it.

[John Reyes]

If it's true that the Championship prize fund is the reason the annual party can't pay for itself, then get rid of the Championship prize fund.

The monopoly on the title "British Champion" should be a net asset to the ECF. It should generate income by enticing players to compete at a discount to their usual rate. Instead it's a net liability; the ECF have to keep up the façade that holding the title makes one a reasonably big fish in the British chess scene, whereas the professionals would happily skip "The British Championship" for a random Open in Latvia with cheap rooms, so they have to bribe players into competing for it.

The British is the Flagship event for the ECF and it is to do with venues cost etc.
i know there been proposals with the championship and people don't see the future.

if anyone got any good ideas. let the ECF know

[Ian Thompson]

The monopoly on the title "British Champion" should be a net asset to the ECF. It should generate income by enticing players to compete at a discount to their usual rate. Instead it's a net liability; the ECF have to keep up the façade that holding the title makes one a reasonably big fish in the British chess scene, whereas the professionals would happily skip "The British Championship" for a random Open in Latvia with cheap rooms, so they have to bribe players into competing for it.

Years ago, winning the British Championship would have most likely got you an invitation to the Hastings Premier. I don't know whether it now gets you anything at the Hastings Masters; I'd guess not. Even longer ago, might it have got you a place in an England team?

I don't recall seeing any publicity from events advertising that last year's surprise winner was playing in an event, so I'd guess organisers don't value having the British Champion playing.

If someone such as Adams won the British Championship it's difficult to see what value that is to organisers when they can already advertise that Britain's long-time no. 1 player is taking part.