English Chess Forum

We are at an interesting point where the ECF is under-pressure to either increase its paid staff or reduce its activities.

Forum regulars know the approach I'd like to take to strategy but occasionally I cannot resist the temptation to repeat myself. I'd like to start with a basic quadrant analysis, dividing things up into:
Must-do
Should-do
Encourage
Discourage

Must-do I would fund from membership income, should-do I would try to fund raise to do - DCMS or sponsors - or would welcome a volunteer to do. Encourage I would leave to other organisations.

In my must-do are:
Ratings
Entering International Events (strongest team is should-do rather than must-do)
Awarding British/ English Titles

I'm interested in what else people would add to must-do

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:09 pm

I'm interested in what else people would add to must-do

We should help more events become FIDE rated for all age categories but especially juniors.

We should increase the number of FIDE arbiters seminars / exam opportunities

We should help more counties develop their junior organisations (in some cases create)

We should create the role of Director of Communications and fund it.

We should fund properly the Directorship of Junior Chess and Education

Pause for thought...

John forgive me with the dull corporate speak, but when you say, for example: "We should help more events become FIDE rated for all age categories but especially juniors." are you saying the ECF must run those events funded by members, it should run those events if it can raise funding, or it should encourage others to run them?

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:09 pm

In my must-do are:
Ratings
Entering International Events (strongest team is should-do rather than must-do)
Awarding British/ English Titles

I'm interested in what else people would add to must-do

I would think running national championships has been a must do for the ECF and the BCF before it. Presumably that's partly covered by awarding titles.

A first principles look at the ECF is not a totally abstract concept. At various times in the recent past, the BCF or ECF may have seemed in danger of financial collapse. If that happened and didn't take the clubs and regional bodies with it, what would be top of the list for a rebooted ECF?

National sporting bodies financially collapsing isn't unknown. It happened in athletics
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/ath ... 36215.html

One previous CEO attempted to ask the question, but didn't seem to acknowledge that there were certain things that had to be done in order to be recognised as a national chess federation.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:28 pm

I would think running national championships has been a must do for the ECF and the BCF before it. Presumably that's partly covered by awarding titles.

I was deliberately stopping short of saying the members should fund the British. It is in my should-do, but I could live with allowing the most prestigious Open in Britain to award the titles if no funding was found.

But I suspect most people would want to fund the British, I am curious.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:09 pm

I'm interested in what else people would add to must-do

Everything that it's obliged to do as a member federation of FIDE. Probably also some things it's able to do as a member federation of FIDE (e.g. attend FIDE meetings, propose things and vote).

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:36 pm

Everything that it's obliged to do as a member federation of FIDE.

Agreed, I missed that. I hope "4. Represent England in FIDE" is enough to summarise, since I don't think the FIDE handbook requires anything particularly onerous that needs listing separately

I also missed "5. Collect Membership Fees", since I am assuming I have membership income to spend on things and "6. Attract funding from sponsors and government" assuming somethings are should-do but not must-do

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:33 pm

I was deliberately stopping short of saying the members should fund the British.

I would suggest that the national federation should ensure that the Championships take place, but that they should be self financing or even targetted to make a profit. If it's utilising office resources, these should be charged back to Championship expenses.

There must now be quite a considerable turnover going from parents to coaches. Why doesn't the ECF seek to tax this in some manner?

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:33 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 7:28 pm

I would think running national championships has been a must do for the ECF and the BCF before it. Presumably that's partly covered by awarding titles.

I was deliberately stopping short of saying the members should fund the British. It is in my should-do, but I could live with allowing the most prestigious Open in Britain to award the titles if no funding was found.

But I suspect most people would want to fund the British, I am curious.

I will go for definitely not with the British, if it needs funding not via sponsorship then the other British chess bodies need to part fund

By contrast, I would go for definitely with the various English championships

I hesitate to raise a discordant note but I'm not sure that the enthusiasm expressed here for international events and the British championships is universally shared among the wider ECF membership, some of whom have zero interest in elite chess and begrudge the use of ECF funds for that purpose. That's not my position but it's a view I've heard expressed. I suggest that goes some way towards the regular resistance to increases in ECF membership fees despite their being, objectively, very modest.

ECF fees are modest. Add on club fees, tournaments, league fees and transport and it mounts up for individuals. Saying that it is far cheaper than what it costs (including equipment) for junior rugby union, cricket and hockey every year. My fault for having three kids !

Still, whether the ECF membership is £10, £100 or £1000 you still need to decide what to spend it on

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 27, 2024 9:20 pm

I hesitate to raise a discordant note but I'm not sure that the enthusiasm expressed here for international events and the British championships is universally shared among the wider ECF membership, some of whom have zero interest in elite chess and begrudge the use of ECF funds for that purpose. That's not my position but it's a view I've heard expressed. I suggest that goes some way towards the regular resistance to increases in ECF membership fees despite their being, objectively, very modest.

Well, as an outsider it is certainly my perception that the ECF’s major discretionary focus is based on what essentially amounts to subsidizing the top 5 players in each age group throughout their playing careers with the emphasis on obtaining more FIDE titles and improved performance on the world stage for England. Which leads to four possibilities:

a. This is true and is a beneficial use of the ECF’s resources.
b. This is true but is not a beneficial use of the ECF’s resources.
c. This is not true but would be a beneficial use of the ECF’s resources.
d. The is not true and wouldn’t be a beneficial use of the ECF’s resources.

Personally, my perception is that it is B. Now, I could easily be wrong. But, ultimately, the onus on the ECF to effectively communicate where their resources are going to and to what end it is beneficial to English chess as a whole for my perspective to be changed.

And, as to the British…well, as a parent count me in as someone who isn’t particularly overjoyed. For the same cost and time commitment my children could get in three tournaments elsewhere. So, I could easily see where the wider ECF membership could feel similarly.

I think that Brian's contribution above is fairly typical of the response I had in mind - and, while I might not agree with it, I think I understand where Brian is coming from. I agree over "the onus (is) on the ECF to effectively communicate where their resources are going" and specifically made the same point at the AGM, whereupon Board members present said they fully agreed but were at something of a loss to know how to communicate with those members who never read ECF information such as - just one example - that contained in Chess Moves. By definition, they aren't present on this forum either.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:39 pm

By definition, they aren't present on this forum either.

The directors aren't present on this forum because they banned themselves from participating. It's unclear to what extent they lurk and if they do whether they take any notice whatsoever about what's said.

I cannot help but feel that the potential chaos surrounding the renewal of membership and its interaction with league seasons has yet to percolote through to club players.