CHESS CENTRE LIMITED

[Carl Hibbard]

BTW Maybe Carl can transfer this thread into ECF matters now that I have discovered that Chess Centre Limited is registered at the ECF office.

Exceuse my ignorance on this issue perhaps I should have taken more interest in the past but recent events have caused me to look at the bigger picture.I am sure many of you know the answers so please enlighten me.

It's moved, apologies to the "hidden" users if I shifted it whilst you were actually reading it

[Roger de Coverly]

What are the origins of the Chess centre Limited

If I've read my British chess histories correctly, there was a project in the 1930's to open a "National Chess Centre". This was supported by John Lewis ( both the person and the company). As it was based in Oxford Street, it failed to survive the Luftwaffe. The histories report that it was reinstated after the war but closed in the 1950's. The Chess Centre Limited was something to do with the corporate and legal structure of this Centre. After that, it was sometimes useful for the BCF as an unincorporated body to have a limited company at its disposal to conduct activities in its behalf.

Who currently owns it

In 2003, the CCL limited was an asset of the BCF Permanent Invested Fund (PIF). This is a trust which according to the 2003 yearbook "investments are held by trustees under a deed dated 1929 which is perpetuated by supplementary deeds every 21 years (next renewal 2013).

Part of the business of the recent council meeting seems to have to been to request the Trustees to transfer ownership of the CCL to the ECF.

Who are the directors.

I believe they are the same as the Trustees of the BCF PIF. I'm not 100% sure who they are but I'd imagine the usual suspects - Walsh, Anderton etc. I think Ray Edwards is one as well.


Without having to go to companies house does anyone know what the company is worth

Another part of the debate at the council meeting was whether the assets of CCL should be transferred to the PIF before the Company is handed over to the ECF. So if this had happened, CCL would be an almost worthless shell. Before that it was worth about 31 thou (in 2003).

Is this the company that Martin Regan wanted brought into the ECF?

That's what the report on the SCCU site says. It also suggests that the measure was approved. I believe the point is so that the ECF can split into commercial and non-commercial arms should it wish to pursue charitable status for the non-commercial arm. It's difficult to see this measure as any more than routine housekeeping in anticipation of pursuit of charitable status at a later date.

If this was the resignation conflict of interest, it could only be that Martin thought he should control the background BCF legacy funds. The Trustees of these funds perhaps took the opinion that their legal and in some cases charitable status required them to form a view about the use of these assets which might conflict with whatever project the CEO wished to spend money on. To quote the rest of the footnote about the PIF

... the income is paid to the Federation and the trustees may make distributions of capital in exceptional circumstances of urgent need provided the money is for the benefit of "the objects" of the federation, but only on the authority of a resolution of Council.

Sources of information
BCF/ECF yearbooks
meeting reports on SCCU website

[Roger de Coverly]

Progressing a litle further then; Am I right in saying that Mr Walsh and co have absolute control of Chess Centre Limited?

You may recall that a few years ago, the BCF decided that it should become the ECF. The method used was to set up a new company limited by guarantee ( that's the white form where everybody promises the ECF a pound if it folds). So there's both an ECF and a BCF in existence. The ECF yearbook is now silent on the assets of the BCF whereas the older BCF yearbooks detail the assets of the Permanent Invested Fund.

I think the board of the BCF is the same as the board of the ECF but the Trustees of the Permanent Invested Fund of the BCF are slightly different people. You might even do something similar in Cleveland if you wanted to ringfence the "chess set" fund.

Given there's a million or so allegedly in the various BCF legacy funds, it would help the chess community to understand the finances of the ECF better if there were a few words about them in the ECF yearbook.

You mentioned 'Council' and its this part of the ECF structure that troubles me for it does seem to be a system that can be sent in a particular direction at the behest of an individual(s)

There's logic to a system where game fee (or the MO equivalent) gives voting rights. The payers of game fee are the paymasters and have a case for an opinion on how it's spent. As far as leagues and counties go, there's an element of democracy in that the policy towards ECF issues can be discussed and voted on at local AGMs. Congresses have no democratic structure, but organisers may get feedback from participants. There are bodies like the British Chess Problem Society also represented on council - if they only ever send a proxy there's a case for removing their voting rights.

Sometimes change take place slowly in British chess. The abolition of adjudications and adjournments has been a campaign for the last 40 years and yet they still persist in some leagues. The "undemocratic" congresses were able to abolish them overnight whereas the OMOV of county associations has delayed change.

[David Robertson]

Sometimes change take place slowly in British chess.

The finest piece of understatement since General Haig described the Battle of the Somme as "tough-going"

For vast aeons of time, change doesn't take place at all - unless you count decay as change. Of the many, many problems of ECF structure, one of the more egregious is the representation rights awarded to congresses. This allows Council to be dominated by a motley crew of unaccountable and unelected arbiters and administrators, with nary a credible chessplayer in sight. Small wonder the politics of the parish pump dominate. These guys make decisions in committee with the same foresight they make them over the board - myopically.

David Robertson
Atticus CC

[Roger de Coverly]

Also if we have people holding shares does this company pay out dividends and who to

Whilst I'm sure the former CEO knows the full story, I had imagined from observation of the accounts over a number of years that any dividends paid by the Chess Centre Limited went to its 100% owner, the Trustees of the Permanent Investment Fund. If named individuals hold shares, then that would be in their capacity as Trustees.

The 2004 yearbook shows as an asset of the PIF

Unquoted - shares in The Chess Centre Ltd with value of £31,447 and annual income of £250.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thats interesting so how many votes does a congress director or arbiter get at Council - this one is starting to help make the bigger picture clearer than it was an hour ago.

At least one - after that I think it depends on how much you pay the ECF in game fee. So if you run a monthly rapidplay with 100 entrants a time, then you can accumulate several votes.

Peter Sowray's various comments have more on this.

[Charles W. Wood]

Thats interesting so how many votes does a congress director or arbiter get at Council - this one is starting to help make the bigger picture clearer than it was an hour ago.

At least one - after that I think it depends on how much you pay the ECF in game fee. So if you run a monthly rapidplay with 100 entrants a time, then you can accumulate several votes.

Peter Sowray's various comments have more on this.

So my non chess playing wife can get some votes and go to council and vote as shee sees fit. (She wouldn't go though) but thats block voting for you. I think I'll end up with three this year, plus some when we make the Renaissance Academy a corporate member (i think). Then we can proxy them to anyone who could have a policy of making all chess players stand on one leg when playing. I don't like that, the worst part is that I have to trust someone to look out for my voting rights on issues I may have strong opinion on but my proxy voter has a differing opinion. hmmmm not good.

[Dr Andrew Cula]

Then we can proxy them to anyone who could have a policy of making all chess players stand on one leg when playing.

Cue 40 years of arguing over which leg.

[Charles W. Wood]

Then we can proxy them to anyone who could have a policy of making all chess players stand on one leg when playing.

Cue 40 years of arguing over which leg.

I am roaring laughing, One camp arguing that standing on the left leg gives an fair and balanced advantage, and one camp arguing that the right one is done internationally and we should do the same.

[Steve Henderson]

So my non chess playing wife can get some votes and go to council and vote as she sees fit. (She wouldn't go though) but thats block voting for you.

I think it would be better to send the wife's , girlfriends etc to vote on our behalf
They would probably make a better job of it, the ECF would be turned around in no time at all

[Sean Hewitt]

Thats interesting so how many votes does a congress director or arbiter get at Council - this one is starting to help make the bigger picture clearer than it was an hour ago.

At least one - after that I think it depends on how much you pay the ECF in game fee. So if you run a monthly rapidplay with 100 entrants a time, then you can accumulate several votes.

Peter Sowray's various comments have more on this.

So my non chess playing wife can get some votes and go to council and vote as shee sees fit. (She wouldn't go though) but thats block voting for you. I think I'll end up with three this year, plus some when we make the Renaissance Academy a corporate member (i think). Then we can proxy them to anyone who could have a policy of making all chess players stand on one leg when playing. I don't like that, the worst part is that I have to trust someone to look out for my voting rights on issues I may have strong opinion on but my proxy voter has a differing opinion. hmmmm not good.

Your last paragraph Charles sums it up exactly and thats why we are where we are.

That's true, but not for the reasons you think. You and Charles still don't understand how proxies work, and that's a problem.

A delegate can essestially do two things. Firstly, he can give his votes to another delegate (who could be the president, the ceo or indeed anyone else). That person can then cast those votes as if they were their own.

Or, he can give a qualified proxy to the chairman of the meeting. That means you tell the chairman how you want him to vote on any particular issue, and he has to follow your wishes. Essentially, it's the same as a postal vote.

So if you have a strong opinion you can instruct the chairman to vote the way you want him to. If you trust someone implicitly, you can give him carte blanche to listen to the debate and vote accordingly. Or (radically) you could attend the meeting and vote yourself!!

Personally, I dont like proxies. OMOV has its merits, but it has downsides too. I would eliminate open ended proxies (aka block votes) but allow qualified proxies (if such a move is allowed - if not, I would ban proxies completely).

That way, only organisations that feel strongly enough to attend get to vote.

On the subject of congresses, I agree that they should not be able to buy votes via game fee. But whilst the ECF funds itself that way, this is probably an inevitable consequence.

[Charles W. Wood]

I understood proxies totally then, If another issue crops up at the meeting and an amendant is made and my votes are with someone else they could vote against my best interests (in my case it would be any good junior development) or I give then to the chair and miss the vote that might just make a difference. I get it. Its just not fair. Be there or miss out.

[Nigel Wright]

I say just get rid of proxies completely then. It doesn't happen in General Elections (oops, I forgot to vote...) so why should it happen here?

[Nigel Wright]

Are my last two questions too hot to handle? they seem quite reasonable to me and an answer would be good.

Ernie, I want these questions answering too, but you're not leaving enough time between posts for people to answer. Patience is a virtue...

[John Philpott]

Ernie/Nigel

It is some time since I saw the accounts for Chess Centre Limited. Figures have normally in the past been provided as part of the papers for BCF Council meetings for the information of delegates. [For those who are unaware, the BCF still holds an Annual Council Meeting immediately before the ECF AGM, but this has a restricted attendance as under that organisation's revised Constitution, the Constituent Units and County Associations are members but the Leagues, Congresses and Other Organisations are not]. Based on the 2005 accounts and the figures for 2005/6 reported by Robert Richmond in his paper to the April Finance Council meeting, I would comment in response to the two questions.

1. Given that the annual expenses of Chess Centre Ltd are less than £100, there is no scope for any material sum to be going to the directors.

2. No dividends were paid - the dividends showing up in the profit and loss account are a receipt on Chess Centre Ltd's investments rather than a payment. If a dividend were to be paid, this would accrue in principle to the trustees of the Permanent Invested Fund in whose name the shares in Chess Centre Ltd are registered. However, the Permanent Invested Fund income has in the past been paid over to the BCF, and in 2006/7 was paid over to the ECF: it is included in the ECF accounts under the heading "General Funding".

I think that recent posters have been a little harsh on proxies. My personal view is that while what used to be a postal vote under BCF, but which became a directed proxy under ECF, is certainly better than non-attendance, a proxy was a preferable alternative because of the flexibility that it offered if amendments were proposed at the meeting. I suspect that the difference in perception comes from the fact that there are distinct categories of proxies, and that these should not all necessary be tarred with the same brush. I regard non-directed proxies as falling into three categories.

1. An "establishment" proxy given to the Chairman of the meeting, which more often than not will provide an endorsement of the status quo.

2. An "organisation" proxy - the officer of a particular organisation who happens to be the representative member but who is not attending a meeting gives a proxy to another officer of the same organisation who is attending in another capacity and who is equally equipped to represent that organisation's view.

3. A "personal" proxy, given to an individual who the proxy giver trusts. I have been giver and receiver of such proxies on a number of occasions. Typically the receiver will be asked to vote in a particular way on specific resolutions but given discretion otherwise. This leads from time to time to an individual casting votes both for and against a particular resolution.

I can understand why 1 may be seen as creating an undesirable block vote, but I do not have a problem with 2 or 3. Part of the difficulty is that from the outside it may be impossible to tell which variety of proxy is being given in a particular case. The Friends of Chess, of which I am the Secretary and representative member, was critcised on another forum for given a proxy at a particular Council meeting to Gerry Walsh. The criticism doubtless assumed that this was an establishment proxy: the reality was that at the time Gerry was the Chairman of the Friends of Chess, and if the Secretary could not attend it was entirely natural that the organisation's views should be represented by its Chairman. Now that Stewart Reuben has taken over as Chairman of the Friends, Stewart gets this proxy.