Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Alex Holowczak]

In the case of tournaments, most of the money goes in the organisers pockets

Don't talk such nonsense. In the case of congresses, virtually all of them are done with the aim of breaking even. Indeed, some may even make a loss, to be balanced out with the ones that make a profit.

Surely ye jest, I have yet to see a tournament that made a loss, at least not any of the ones I have entered. Over subscribed in most cases.

Well, I tend to organise three tournaments per year:
(1) Birmingham Rapidplay - aims to break even (click my signature if you want to enter )
(2) Warwickshire Junior Championship - aims to make a profit, which is then spent on a minibus to go to the ECF County Championships, which are usually held in the south (people who play still pay £10-15 for a seat on it).
(3) British Universities' Championship - aims to make a profit, which is then put towards the cost of sending a team to World Universities' Chess Championship events every two years.

A grand total of £0 from these three events ends up in my bank account, save for expenses I've accrued in the organisation of them.

I know the Worcestershire Open makes a profit every year, which goes to charity.

There are many congresses in the country that do well to break even, and some may not be organised for fear of making a loss in future.

The London Team Rapidplay was organised for April, and the organiser hoped that he might make a small profit for the University chess club it was being held at to buy some equipment. I told him that despite his financial plan being to make a small profit, he wouldn't make one. I was right.

[Simon Dixon]

The website ecforum.org.uk is nothing to do with the ECF. It was once, but the ECF told it to go away. Something about alleged critical comments about the failing Chess in Schools project.

Not how you would expect the ECF to behave, is it.

Tournament Organisers have many more votes on Council than the handful allocated to Direct individual member's representatives.

Says it all, it suggests some protectionism is involved.

[Alex Holowczak]

Tournament Organisers have many more votes on Council than the handful allocated to Direct individual member's representatives.

Says it all, it suggests some protectionism is involved.

On the contrary; those are votes in addition to the votes they can contribute to elsewhere in the register.

Votes for leagues and congresses are awarded per 1000 halfresults they have graded. If you as a player contribute towards those halfresults, then you have a right to express an opinion as to how that tournament casts its votes.

[Simon Dixon]

I know Roger feels strongly about this, but I wonder how relevant this deception is. I did not question it when my 4NCL captain told me the rule.

The ECF got it wrong, or they lied, one of the two. There is no rule in writing or law that states you must join the ECF to play in FIDE rated events.

[Alex Holowczak]

There is no rule in writing or law that states you must join the ECF to play in FIDE rated events.

But the ECF is quite at liberty to create such a rule if it wants to.

[Roger de Coverly]

I know Roger feels strongly about this, but I wonder how relevant this deception is. I did not question it when my 4NCL captain told me the rule.

I never thought for a moment it was anything other than the ECF raising funds. Clearly no-one would ask players in less developed countries to pay similar amounts.

The deception was that the concept of compulsory or universal individual membership had already been proposed and rejected by Council. So there's then a back door approach used to try and force it through using FIDE as the excuse. Even if it had been FIDE's intention (as it might have been at one time) to compel federations to introduce universal individual schemes, the BCF could at least have gone through the motions of asking FIDE whether it could rename Game Fee as event membership and satisfy the FIDE requirement that way. One of the problems was at the time, there were very few internationally rated players on Council so the international players were a minority who were thought unlikely to protest very hard if at all. Indeed there were limited avenues for such a protest other than grumbling in the Birmingham bars and curry houses. Also many were already Direct Members either because they played abroad, wanted Congress discounts or were prepared to support the BCF.

I'm aware the 4NCL tried for a while to avoid the problem by just removing non-members from the rating files. They were eventually told they weren't allowed to do this although I don't know whether this was a BCF or FIDE edict. In the event they didn't pick a fight, instead they just got their games domestically rated for nothing.

[Simon Dixon]

Well, I tend to organise three tournaments per year:
(1) Birmingham Rapidplay - aims to break even (click my signature if you want to enter )
(2) Warwickshire Junior Championship - aims to make a profit, which is then spent on a minibus to go to the ECF County Championships, which are usually held in the south (people who play still pay £10-15 for a seat on it).
(3) British Universities' Championship - aims to make a profit, which is then put towards the cost of sending a team to World Universities' Chess Championship events every two years.

I have played in Birmingham a while back, it was at some hotel or very large pub upstairs. Can't remember the name of the venue, but it was very nice.

[Roger de Coverly]

If you as a player contribute towards those halfresults, then you have a right to express an opinion as to how that tournament casts its votes.

Local leagues and counties hold AGMs at which it's possible to instruct or discuss issues with the ECF delegate. How would you convey views to a Congress and expect the Congress to take any notice? BUCA is a bad example since it's a "special" organisation representing universities and you would expect its delegate to reflect the collective view of chess clubs in these institutions.

[Simon Dixon]

There is no rule in writing or law that states you must join the ECF to play in FIDE rated events.

But the ECF is quite at liberty to create such a rule if it wants to.

Shouldn't it be put to a vote and listed in the ECF rule book for it to be valid?

[Paul Cooksey]

Local leagues and counties hold AGMs at which it's possible to instruct or discuss issues with the ECF delegate. How would you convey views to a Congress and expect the Congress to take any notice?

Email?

[Roger de Coverly]

Email?

I'm sure that's how you might write to them. There's no requirement for the Congress Organiser to take the slightest notice or be required to establish a consensus of views.

[Alex Holowczak]

There's no requirement for the Congress Organiser to take the slightest notice or be required to establish a consensus of views.

I guess, if you don't like the way he's going to vote, your option is simple. Don't enter his congress.

[Paul Cooksey]

Email?

I'm sure that's how you might write to them. There's no requirement for the Congress Organiser to take the slightest notice or be required to establish a consensus of views.

If I cared about the issue enough, the response would influence my participation.

[Roger de Coverly]

I guess, if you don't like the way he's going to vote, your option is simple. Don't enter his congress.

I have no idea how the Bournemouth, Hastings, Kidlington, St Albans' and Cotswold Congresses are going to vote, if at all. They don't normally express their views on the entry form. I might know Berks & Bucks perhaps.

[Paul Cooksey]

I might know Berks & Bucks perhaps.

I do. I emailed the ECF rep a few weeks ago