English Chess Forum

More papers have been released at the ECF website

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.doc
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... report.doc
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... s-Plan.doc
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Status.doc
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... apital.doc

Brief highlights

The case against FIDE has already taken place with judgement expected at the end of March.

The new "professional" body would be titled "Chess England" and would be owned by the BCF, yes I repeat that, the British Chess Federation. There's method in that as it's proposed to asset strip (my words) the BCF's Permanent Invested Fund to finance both this and the ECF. Also charitable status could mean abolition of the concept of organisational membership of the ECF and thus the removal of Council in its present form. It could however live on in the form of the BCF, but with non-territorial leagues and Congresses removed. The other source of financing would be a subsidy from the ECF for "amateur" events at the British. Of course the amateur events would in practice be self financing, as with any event without sponsorship, so it leaves a surplus to be creamed off to finance the international team. The issue that international teams supposedly are under the name of the ECF as FIDE affiliate and not Chess England isn't mentioned. What is mentioned, again, is floating the idea that the British becomes a nine round event.

Links to all the documents for the April Council meeting can be found here: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897. Presumably budget documents [edit]and the agenda and voting register, at least[/edit] are to follow.

The CEO's report states:
I shall brief Council on the plans for the online member enrolment and renewal solution and on any further developments at the meeting.
But, if Council is to approve expendure as part of the budget for 2012/13, I'd rather information was provided in advance and in writing.

I'm concerned that there's too much going on. I'd rather the focus was on:
a) the issues and recommendations raised in the report of the Chairman of the Finance Committee; and,
b) ensuring that the implementation of the membership scheme is a success.

The budget documents have now been posted. I realise that the Council papers have been emerging bit by bit during the course of the day and would ask people to be understanding. John Philpott has been performing miracles in completing the formalities and pulling everything together during what is the busiest time of the year for him in his day job. The Agenda will appear later today.

Two papers will not be posted until tomorrow: consultation papers on Governance from me and on Junior Membership from the Director of Junior Chess. These are being finalised (or would be if I wasn't typing this ).

To be clear: my focus is very much on ensuring the successful implementation of the membership scheme and tackling the immediate need for change, as highlighted in the Finance Committee report. The papers being presented to Finance Council are in many cases for consultation, i.e. no proposals are being made at this time. While member organisations are reflecting on these and, I hope, discussing them with their constituents, I can concentrate on the more immediate priorities. By the time the first of the consultation deadlines is reached, I would expect to have completed the necessary work on these other matters.

Angus French wrote: b) ensuring that the implementation of the membership scheme is a success.

The rose tinted spectacles are in place though, it being assumed in one of the scenarios that non members would contribute around £ 50,000 in £ 2 Game Fee to the ECF's coffers. The very obvious scenario that the volume of graded chess, if not chess, drops dramatically has not been considered. For that matter, surely leagues will become adept at optimising Game Fee down to £ 1 per head, if they don't entirely walk away from grading?

Some selected quotations from the budget report.

8. I have assumed that the revised funding proposal will be adopted and that 85% of active players (in effect, those playing three games or more a year) will become direct members. The reason for this is that due to the proposed increases in game fee rate, this model brings in less income than assuming a lower level of take-up of membership but the same level of chess activity. A sensitivity analysis of the impact of different levels of take-up of membership is attached at Appendix B.

The hypothetical membership count is suspect because whilst they haven't made any estimate as to the amount raised by £ 6 per head in "silver" Congresses, they haven't filtered the data for Welsh, Scottish and Foreign players either.

13. Game fee income will be greatly reduced under the new funding structure. I have assumed that the current level of graded chess will remain unchanged. Assuming that the 15% of active chess players who do not buy memberships play an average of three games per annum, they will each generate £9 in revenue for the ECF.

At present, they generate about £ 1.80. Nil seems just as likely as £ 9.


It was claimed last year that introduction of membership would lead to an immediate saving. To which

12. The Board is also looking into introducing an online membership system. Although in the long run, this will lead to administrative efficiencies there will be set-up costs. I have included a one-off provision of £7,500 for introducing the new system. This has been netted off Direct Member receipts in the budget in Annex A.

All these figures are going to be "suspect" because we can't know them for sure beforehand, but we can't know for sure beforehand what will happen with Game Fee either. All we can do is make what we consider reasonable assumptions about the scenario, and publish said assumptions with the budget.

IM Jack Rudd wrote: All we can do is make what we consider reasonable assumptions about the scenario, and publish said assumptions with the budget.

#

Sure, but you've got about 30% of Council opposed to universal membership and the example of the Yorkshire local leagues declining to be ECF members. A presumption that you can increase the cost to less committed players without them or the events in which they play walking away from the ECF is by its very nature optimistic. The fortuitous timing of the renewal of the BCF PIF makes it possible to asset strip those investments in order to keep a national chess organisation or organisations continuing.

Budget Report wrote:11. The impact of multi-year memberships has not been factored into the budget. At the proposed rates, if 10% of members spread evenly across all membership categories choose to buy a three year membership, then the annual reduction in revenue will be £730.

I didn't know that multi-year memberships would be available. They're not covered in the Membership Rates proposals document.

Budget Report wrote:13. Game fee income will be greatly reduced under the new funding structure. I have assumed that the current level of graded chess will remain unchanged. Assuming that the 15% of active chess players who do not buy memberships play an average of three games per annum, they will each generate £9 in revenue for the ECF.

How can non-members playing an average of three games be expected to generate £9 - £3 per non-member per game - in revenue? This surely doesn't fit with: proposed game fee rates of £2 or £1 for standard games and £1 or £0.50 for rapidplay games; and, a proposed pay-to-play fee for Congresses of £6.

The Funding calculations spreadsheet also doesn't consider extant memberships which expire after 1 September 2012. These will either not require renewal or will require renewal at a reduced rate.

Angus French wrote:Links to all the documents for the April Council meeting can be found here: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897. Presumably budget documents [edit]and the agenda and voting register, at least[/edit] are to follow.

Well, I certainly sent the voting register off by the deadline, so there's no problem with that.

There is also the rewrite of the Counties Championship rules. It is currently going through Haddrellisation, which I expect to be complete by the weekend.

Angus French wrote: The Funding calculations spreadsheet also doesn't consider extant memberships which expire after 1 September 2012. These will either not require renewal or will require renewal at a reduced rate.

I seem to think there was a proposal that existing memberships would continue to the end of the period. Whilst this applies to memberships expiring after 1st September, it will also apply to multi year memberships. I would assume, although perhaps I shouldn't, that the existing two or three year membership deal is credited to revenue, one year at a time. Therefore particularly in 2012-13, there should be continuing revenue from the existing scheme. Also any hypothetical on-line renewal system would have to cope with renewals for a period of less than 12 months, in order to coincide with a 1st September to 31st August membership year.

Multi year memberships appear to have returned. Will the same apply to Family memberships?

You know who has now chimed in.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote: All we can do is make what we consider reasonable assumptions about the scenario, and publish said assumptions with the budget.

#

Sure, but you've got about 30% of Council opposed to universal membership and the example of the Yorkshire local leagues declining to be ECF members. A presumption that you can increase the cost to less committed players without them or the events in which they play walking away from the ECF is by its very nature optimistic. The fortuitous timing of the renewal of the BCF PIF makes it possible to asset strip those investments in order to keep a national chess organisation or organisations continuing.

30% opposed doesn't mean anything like 30% will walk away though, otherwise we'd see widespread emigration after every General Election. My guess is that most of the organizations represented in that 30% will grumble a bit at the new rules, but adjust to them and carry on much as before.

Roger de Coverly wrote:You know who has now chimed in.

I clicked the link hoping to see Voldemort's response.

Something else: game fees due for 2012/13 leagues won't be determinable and invoicable until after the leagues have concluded (when the results are submitted for grading) and won't this, in most cases, be after the 2012/13 financial year end? If yes, then the game fee budget figures should be reduced - probably substantially.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:. My guess is that most of the organizations represented in that 30% will grumble a bit at the new rules, but adjust to them and carry on much as before.

They may however plausibly take measures to ensure the amount they, or their players, pay to the ECF is not dramatically more than they pay at present. In its simplest form, Congresses, particularly rapid-play ones, withdraw wholly or partly from grading. There are already ungraded rapid-play events which seem to attract sufficient entries for viability.

12. The Board is also looking into introducing an online membership system. Although in the long run, this will lead to administrative efficiencies there will be set-up costs. I have included a one-off provision of £7,500 for introducing the new system. This has been netted off Direct Member receipts in the budget in Annex A.

Seems a lot to me

Carl Hibbard wrote:

12. The Board is also looking into introducing an online membership system. Although in the long run, this will lead to administrative efficiencies there will be set-up costs. I have included a one-off provision of £7,500 for introducing the new system. This has been netted off Direct Member receipts in the budget in Annex A.

Seems a lot to me

I was thinking £7,500 was low. It'll depend, of course, on what the requirements are...