The Funding of the English Chess Federation vote

[Roger de Coverly]

As far as I know, the ECF only sends out the bare minimum it's required to.

It does now, but it took years to catch up with the idea that reports etc. could be downloaded from the website, possibly as recently as the Farthing review.

Again from the SCCU archive
http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0405/bcf.htm

7) Council Papers Electronically? A bit of a byway. It was a formal proposal on the Agenda, but probably no one expected it to be passed and it wasn't even put. The Strategic Planning Director had proposed that in future, Strategic Planning papers should go on the website for download rather than being circulated by post (but they would still be available by post on request). When asked why just Strategic Planning, he said because it was his proposal and he was the Strategic Planning Director. People said "democracy" again, and Council didn't want to know.
Webmaster's remark. This proposal wasn't silly, and I'd vote for it if you said ALL the papers. The BCF Office sends out about 250 copies of everything. I don't know how much 60 or 70 sheets of A4, mostly double-sided, costs them in paper and printing and postage. Not to say time. But the average attendance at meetings is less than 50 and I'd love to know what happens to the other 200-plus copies.

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White >You say there are complications having several charities but there are likewise complications of apportionment of expenses if you have an all in one setup.<

We already have several junior chess charities.
John Robinson
BCFYCT
Chess Educational Trust
I don't know whether the original Dupree Trust for the Portsmouth Area still functions.
There are others, some of which are moribund. There is a small pot of the Ian Wells Trust, about £700. This isn't being accessed because of the requirement to consult the father, Ken Wells and he has gone missing.
My concern is that there is inadequate coordination of effort.
It is very frustrating that the 2006 Charities Act is taking so long to result in any adult chess charities. The Friends of Chess has purely philanthropic goals and thus would be an ideal vehicle.
Stewart Reuben



,

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree that that's a more pertinent question. I think people value having the games online quickly. I guess if people are there producing the games quickly, there's no harm in having them bound and sold after the event as a souvenir, which is what happens now.

A paper copy is made available on a daily basis, free to players in the British Championships. These days it's more valuable to the participants to have a pgn download available early in the morning before the round. The paper copy does add the bulletin team's opinion (or Andrew Martin's) as to whether a game is worth looking at. You try to avoid the symbol for "not really trying" which tends to be attached to short draws.

To this day, the only games available in pgn form from Canterbury are the eleven rounds of the British and the first four of the Major Open.

[Adam Raoof]

It's not rocket science, is it?

This is rocket science;

Rocket Science.JPG

[Alex Holowczak]

I agree that that's a more pertinent question. I think people value having the games online quickly. I guess if people are there producing the games quickly, there's no harm in having them bound and sold after the event as a souvenir, which is what happens now.

A paper copy is made available on a daily basis, free to players in the British Championships. These days it's more valuable to the participants to have a pgn download available early in the morning before the round. The paper copy does add the bulletin team's opinion (or Andrew Martin's) as to whether a game is worth looking at. You try to avoid the symbol for "not really trying" which tends to be attached to short draws.

Indeed it is. I was there last year remember, so this doesn't need explaining to me.

As far as I know, the ECF only sends out the bare minimum it's required to.

It does now (...)

That's alright then. Problem solved.

[E Michael White]

We already have several junior chess charities.John RobinsonBCFYCTChess Educational TrustI don't know whether the original Dupree Trust for the Portsmouth Area still functions.There are others, some of which are moribund. There is a small pot of the Ian Wells Trust, about £700. This isn't being accessed because of the requirement to consult the father, Ken Wells and he has gone missing.My concern is that there is inadequate coordination of effort.It is very frustrating that the 2006 Charities Act is taking so long to result in any adult chess charities. The Friends of Chess has purely philanthropic goals and thus would be an ideal vehicle.Stewart Reuben

Well maybe so but their only advantage is tax relief on income, capital gains and VAT. To be of real benefit you need a carefully crafted setup which allows gift aid on members subscriptions and the British to be turned into a fundraising/exhibition so that some of the entry fees can also gain gift aid from members ECF subscriptions. It may be that the various ECF boards had insufficient knowledge of charity operations. We really need board members who possess this knowledge and are connected enough to be able to encourage sponsors or gift donors to the British prize fund.

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White >We really need board members who posess this knowledge<
We don't need a bigger Board. What we need is access to people who have expertise. This we have, but there seem to have been several obstacles in the way of setting up adult mind sports charities. It is very frustrating. One Brdige club has been successful in doing so.
I totally agree with you the main value of charitable status would be gift aid. But the John Robinson Trust was set up to avoid inheritance tax of about £250,000. The money could have been put in one of the older junior trusts.
As Marketing Director I also agree with you that we need competent people to encourage sponsors and philanthropists.
It might be financially advantageous to separate off the British Championship from the rest of the congress. Alternatively it may be better to sell off the rights to the event to a commercial company, with appropriate safeguards.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew farthing wrote
"The facts:

- The £4000 in the ECF budget is in addition to any JRT contribution, so it cannot be discounted as you suggest.
- We have obtained a grant of £5,000 from the JRT to fund part of the Junior Chess budget, not the full £7,000. (I'm not sure that I understand why the income source in this transitional year in terms of funding changes the fact that this is expenditure on promoting chess.)
- The International budget could be reduced by up to £5,000, but if this is the case, the contribution from the Permanent Investment Fund would be reduced by the same amount. You are double-counting.
- The amount requested from the PIF is £5,000 or £10,000 (depending on the identification of sponsorship to enable the strongest possible team to play in the European Championships), not £15,000. This change was made at Finance Council.

Your conclusion is simply wrong."

Andrew,
Lets imagine the ECF went puff and simply disappeared overnight. The John Robinson Trust and BCF PIF would still exist and could still fund chess. Take the British Championships, I think the JRT puts in £12k, lets imagine that in the absence of the ECF it could be taken on by a commercial operation. I imagine Sean Hewitt would be happy to run a British Championships with £10k from the JRT, so there would be an additional £2k for junior chess.
I am not clear what is happening with the Junior budget. The ECF is requesting is £5,000 from the JRT. However, it is unclear whether this is the total amount or whether this is in addition to grants that the ECF has received in previous years, which would take the JRT contribution to £7k, or more?
Lets see what happens with the International budget and the PIF. Have the trustees authorised a transfer of funds yet?

[IM Jack Rudd]

I am querying whether the bulletin is required at all, considering the expense.

The British Championship is a title norm event. Inputting the games from it is a FIDE requirement.

[Richard Bates]

I am querying whether the bulletin is required at all, considering the expense.

The British Championship is a title norm event. Inputting the games from it is a FIDE requirement.

I would query the point of the bulletin when it isn't very good. Apparently it sells well among juniors. Maybe the budget for it in the past was much higher, but there is no doubt that the bulletins of 15-20 years ago walked all over what appears to be the standard production of the modern day.

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe the budget for it in the past was much higher, but there is no doubt that the bulletins of 15-20 years ago walked all over what appears to be the standard production of the modern day.

I wouldn't have said so, not in coverage and content anyway. Only my first round game from Norwich in 1994 made the bulletin and even that was wrong but in length and result. The inputter failed to notice the second scoresheet and truncated the game to move 60, assuming the time trouble induced double repetition was the final result.

[Richard Bates]

Maybe the budget for it in the past was much higher, but there is no doubt that the bulletins of 15-20 years ago walked all over what appears to be the standard production of the modern day.

I wouldn't have said so, not in coverage and content anyway. Only my first round game from Norwich in 1994 made the bulletin and even that was wrong but in length and result. The inputter failed to notice the second scoresheet and truncated the game to move 60, assuming the time trouble induced double repetition was the final result.

It is possible that the modern bulletin prioritises the inclusion of every game, but then in the modern day I would think that is of rather superfluous value. But i find the claim about content surprising. I'm not particularly convinced by the symbols, and from memory of Canterbury the "annotations" were rather dominated by database downloads. Maybe the old bulletins from the early nineties i've still got were good years...

[Roger de Coverly]

But i find the claim about content surprising. .

Even in 1994, the bulletin had more value (to me anyway) as a download. So not containing all the games and truncating others with an incorrect result is a negative for content, whatever the quality of the annotations.