English Chess Forum

So the proposal is:
1. Chess England (non-charitable, "lean")
- International Teams
- British Championship
2. ECF (Charitable)
- Everything else

It occurs to me the Junior Directorship is increasingly big and independent, and has its own income through the JRT. As a conceit, I'm going to assume this is a separate charitable organisation. England Junior Chess.

So ignoring back office, what we have left as the ECF:
- Grading
- IRO
- National Competitions (County + Club)

Anything else? I guess marketing is predominately a role of Chess England, who will be trying to raise sponsorship. I think everyone here knows I favour a lean ECF with voluntary membership. I'm trying to make it fit the new model.

In terms of ECF, it remains the FIDE affiliate, so entries to international events and international junior events would need to go through the ECF.

In terms of something else, there's also "senior" chess but this is mostly international as far as direct ECF involvement is concerned.

The question which needs to be asked is why the "amateur/charity" ECF feels the need to retain the FIDE affiliation, instead of passing it on to Chess England. If there were ever an opportunity to regain government financial support for chess, it would be confusing to have two or three bodies fighting for funds. Against that, it would clarify what the funding was for.

The ECF will also be the body which deals with arbiters, coaching, junior chess and will have the representation function (i.e. representing the views of English players) within FIDE. Since it will be the body with individual membership, it is the appropriate body to do that.

Mike Gunn wrote:will have the representation function (i.e. representing the views of English players) within FIDE. Since it will be the body with individual membership, it is the appropriate body to do that.

Can I recall any occasion whatsoever when the FIDE rep, whoever it may be, felt the need to consult at an individual level? Certainly not the current incumbent, who saw no need to even inform Council that the ECF was taking legal action against FIDE, let alone ask for its consent.

Never mind the FIDE rep, it's noted that the members of the Board had become aware of the legal action this time last year. Were they sworn to secrecy or confidentiality? If not, why did none of them consider it worthy of mention at either the Finance Council or the AGM?

I take the point successive FIDE reps may have not felt the need to consult with the members. But still, on an organisation level, the FIDE Delegates gives a report to Council, flawed as it may be, and is elected by Council.

Looking at Mike's other responsibilities arbiters, coaching, junior chess. It does seem appropriate that the ECF sets standards for arbiters, even if they have an independent body. This might dovetail nicely with the setting of standards for tournaments. (It seems to me rated tournaments could reasonably be required to have an ECF qualified arbiter present).

I think coaching is almost a sub-function of junior chess. I don't see much demand for adult amateur coaching, beyond the ECF maintaining contact details and competencies. I assume this is ok in an amateur organisation, since the aim is to support the amateur rather than the professional coach. Although the ECF does use bold for exclusively charitable in its documents.

So I still don't completely get what the amateur ECF is doing beyond grading and the county championship. Essentially what is left to the ECF is Home Chess, which excepting grading, runs without a budget.

Paul, have you forgotten about membership administration (which Mike mentioned) - or would you abolish that?
Also the ECF provide assistance to chess players and event organisers - through the website and in other ways.

Angus French wrote:Paul, have you forgotten about membership administration (which Mike mentioned) - or would you abolish that?

An organisation which charges for membership in order pay an office to charge for membership is, in my view, somewhat pointless, however important it may seem to its directors.

There's the issue of communicating about chess to the outside world and those interested in participating. Paul suggested that Chess England could pick up the marketing of chess, although it's probably a joint venture between the charity and the professional body. Does that take you back into having non-charitable aims?

Angus French wrote:Paul, have you forgotten about membership administration (which Mike mentioned) - or would you abolish that?

No, but I don't think membership administration is a aim either now or in the future. It is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Previously the ECF has argued that the best way to promote amateur chess is through successful professional chess. But if the restructuring prevents that, not clear to me what the ECF plans to spend its net income on.

Angus French wrote:Also the ECF provide assistance to chess players and event organisers - through the website and in other ways.

I'm interested what Angus has in mind. I'm trying to analyse rather than critique at this stage.

Paul Cooksey wrote: But if the restructuring prevents that, not clear to me what the ECF plans to spend its net income on.

Removal of international chess removes the spending on international chess. Much of the remaining net expenditure is on the ECF office. Some of that, would be work done for Chess England which can presumably be charged out, or given as an implicit subsidy. I don't know how much expense would be attributed to international chess. Setting aside grading, local organisations see little or no benefit from the expenditure on the ECF's office. It would be different if it did fixtures, league tables, local accounts or helped collect Congress entry fees.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Removal of international chess removes the spending on international chess. Much of the remaining net expenditure is on the ECF office. Some of that, would be work done for Chess England which can presumably be charged out, or given as an implicit subsidy. I don't know how much expense would be attributed to international chess. Setting aside grading, local organisations see little or no benefit from the expenditure on the ECF's office. It would be different if it did fixtures, league tables, local accounts or helped collect Congress entry fees.

With apologies to Roger, I think I was a bit unclear on my terms. When I said net income, I was thinking of the amount left to spend after the office collects. I think before we work out how big the back office needs to be, we first need to work out what the front office is doing.

I take the point the office could provide other services, but I don't see a proposal to add new services in the consultation. So still unclear to me what the new form ECF plans to do.

"The ECF doing local accounts"

I have read about the ECF doing its own national accounts on another thread. It does not fill me with confidence.

Paul Cooksey wrote:. When I said net income, I was thinking of the amount left to spend after the office collects. I think before we work out how big the back office needs to be, we first need to work out what the front office is doing.

Based on current activity, with the exception of grading, junior, international junior, international and sometimes the British, there isn't really anything the ECF spends significant money on which isn't part of the costs at Battle. Most of the junior expenditure is either through the JRT or amounts put through the ECF books, but actually contributed and spent by parents of players.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Based on current activity, with the exception of grading, junior, international junior, international and sometimes the British, there isn't really anything the ECF spends significant money on which isn't part of the costs at Battle. Most of the junior expenditure is either through the JRT or amounts put through the ECF books, but actually contributed and spent by parents of players.

I get the point about the office being the the thing that the ECF spends most of its money on. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. It may be the best way to deliver the ECF's aims. But I think we need clarity on the aims of the new form ECF, before we can say if an office is the best way to deliver them.

I don't see a significant role for the office in grading or organising the county championship, because it does not do those things today. I can't see a role for the office in defining the standards for events, arbiters or coaches. Again this is work for volunteers from within chess, rather than professional administration.

I'm not sure what the role of the ECF website is today. If it is to attract new players, it belongs in the new ECF. If it is to attract sponsors it belongs in Chess England. As far as I can see, neither of these things are its main aim. It is more about the internal workings of the ECF. If so, like all other back office functions, I think it needs to be justified as supporting an aim. But I have not yet understood that aim.

I found these notes useful. Sections 2.19 and particularly 2.21 do explain why the ECF group was constrained in the ways its proposal suggest.

I note the Grand Prix remains in the aims of the amateur ECF in the strategic plan. Not clear if this is the Grand Prix in its current reduced form, or also a Grand Prix likely to increase the chances of GMs participating in domestic competition.

I've written in favour of a Grand Prix that is attractive to GMs before. It fits my vision of what the ECF should do, supporting independently run events and creating a focus for publicity. If it is disallowed by charity status, that is disappointing.

I have two observations about the office.

Angus' point is well made. For example the web site provides a lot of hidden benefits to congresses, especially as the Calendar acts as a kind of clearing house for congresses publishing their details and entry forms. We saw the benefit of this with the Warwickshire Open this year where for the first time we did not run a mail shot through surface mail. We didn't even run a mail shot through email, as we only had 25 email addresses for participants from the 2011 event. The County didn't even publish its Championship on its own website, because our Webmaster isn't maintaining the site at the moment. On the day the final entry was only seven less than last year, and we received more entries by email than we had previously. I am convinced the ECF Calendar made the difference, and we had a successful event again. This is just one of many examples where there is a tendency to take the services of the office for granted. My view is that the Calendar is increasingly a central function for most congresses.

My second point is quite simply that we need to remember the office is only staffed by three people. Given the range of functions it has to cover, the Federation sails pretty close to the wind with a resource level like that. I have dipped into the Forum from time to time and seen acrimonious discussions about whether the ECF Office should exist at all, running alongside expectations that an office of ten would find it hard to meet. As the Federation considers the proposed restructuring it will need to be very careful about how all that impacts on the Office if we are not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I speak as someone who for the best part of 20 years has been a regular visitor to the Office, first in the 1990's in the work I did relating to grading, and then in the next decade as Manager of ICT. The volume of incoming phone calls was formidable, and the staff were always very busy dealing with the next set of tasks, ... as if someone had organised a "just-in-time" schedule on a production line.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of running the Office once the Federation has split into two organisations will be keeping arrangements sufficiently watertight between the ECF and Chess England, so that HMRC and the Charity Commissioners can remain satisfied that all is well from their point of view. The recent report from the chairman of the Finance Committee should give us all pause for thought on that one.