Finance Council Meeting

[JustinHorton]

Detailed reporting of where the £ 12,600 was spent is unlikely as it would involve revealing the participation fees for titled players at the British.

Well, it depends what you mean by "detailed". It's obviously possible to provide aggregate figures without providing an individual player-by-play breakdown.

Exactly - we have the receipts for the stuff you would expect, and a figure for appearance fees.

Then may I press you again - how much of the twelve-thousand-six-hundred is actually accounted for in receipts (or similar) and how much is not?

Additionally - I'm a little puzzled by your comment "one is never going to have details of those", referring to "appearance fees". I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the ECF does not know what players received what conditions for appearing in what, if I am not mistaken, is the ECF's event? That it was essentially a private matter between Mr de Mooi and those who received conditions?

[Roger de Coverly]

. I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the ECF does not know what players received what conditions for appearing in what, if I am not mistaken, the ECF's event? That it was essentially a private matter between Mr de Mooi and those who received conditions?

I don't think you are misunderstanding it. The story now is that the ECF/ Darwin £ 12,600 was aggregated with other sources (CJ presumably) and used to finance fees and other support for players. In some cases because of taxation, it's best that the money is regarded as private patronage, rather than the ECF's. It is by no means unknown for players to receive financial support for playing in the British, that isn't arranged by the ECF and where the ECF doesn't know the amounts. What is a bit unusual is that this type of structure being used with money that was still legally the ECF's (assuming it was?).

We're back to the issue as to why all this has taken so long to be revealed.

[JustinHorton]

. I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the ECF does not know what players received what conditions for appearing in what, if I am not mistaken, the ECF's event? That it was essentially a private matter between Mr de Mooi and those who received conditions?

It is by no means unknown for players to receive financial support for playing in the British, that isn't arranged by the ECF and where the ECF doesn't know the amounts. What is a bit unusual is that this type of structure being used with money that was still legally the ECF's (assuming it was?).

Well quite. I mean any private individual might dob another private individual some cash to play in the British (my own rates very reasonable) and it's nobody's business but theirs. But the whole thing being organised on such a basis, with money which was the accounting responsibility of the ECF? Is that really what happened?

[Alex McFarlane]

Adam,

If you are really saying that you are happy that De Mooi broke the ECFs own byelaws on sponsorship agreements then perhaps you should consider your own position within the Federation. No matter what assurances anyone has the simple fact is WE DON'T KNOW.

Why, as co-manager, have I not been made aware of the additional figures you seem to have? Is this good governance?

[Carl Hibbard]

Why am I so reminded of the below replace names and the odd word as needed

Stormtrooper: Let me see your identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] You don't need to see his identification.
Stormtrooper: We don't need to see his identification.
Obi-Wan: These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Stormtrooper: These aren't the droids we're looking for.
Obi-Wan: He can go about his business.
Stormtrooper: You can go about your business.
Obi-Wan: Move along.
Stormtrooper: Move along... move along.

[Paul Cooksey]

Then may I press you again - how much of the twelve-thousand-six-hundred is actually accounted for in receipts (or similar) and how much is not?

I don't get Justin's line of questioning.

We already know that CJ handled the transaction poorly, I'd go as far as incompetently, and that the ECFs governance process failed. How does the answer to Justin's question make things either better or worse? Are the "CJ must resign lobby" looking for a second smoking gun, being unhappy with the one they already have?

If we accept that we can't see the receipts/ cheques written due to the confidentiality of the recipients, I don't see what other proof could be shown. I can't see anyway to interpret the request to see receipts other than as a straight forward challenge to CJ's personal integrity. I suspect some people do think that little of him, but whatever he does I don't see them voting for him in October.

I don't see this going anywhere. From my point of view CJ seems to have acted as the ECF's agent in organising the championship sponsorship. Wrongly and in breach of good governance. But we have John Philpott's statement that it is inconceivable CJ profited personally, and the fact that many GMs participation in the strongest recent championship. What is left to discuss?

[Sean Hewitt]

. I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the ECF does not know what players received what conditions for appearing in what, if I am not mistaken, the ECF's event? That it was essentially a private matter between Mr de Mooi and those who received conditions?

I don't think you are misunderstanding it. The story now is that the ECF/ Darwin £ 12,600 was aggregated with other sources (CJ presumably) and used to finance fees and other support for players. In some cases because of taxation, it's best that the money is regarded as private patronage, rather than the ECF's. It is by no means unknown for players to receive financial support for playing in the British, that isn't arranged by the ECF and where the ECF doesn't know the amounts. What is a bit unusual is that this type of structure being used with money that was still legally the ECF's (assuming it was?).

If this is what happened, I doubt very much that HMRC would be happy with this arrangement given the ECF's legal responsibilities in terms of taxation.

[Roger de Coverly]

If this is what happened, I doubt very much that HMRC would be happy with this arrangement given the ECF's legal responsibilities in terms of taxation.

I mentioned it only because it was a point previously raised by the joint managers. It's generally believed the ECF paid all Sheffield prizes gross, but the managers had a concern if prize money plus fees exceeded the limit for paying gross. I don't know whether this came up at the Council meeting or is no longer an issue. Their problem being that they were out of the loop as far as knowing the fees CJ had paid individual leading players using the Darwin sponsorship.

[JustinHorton]

How does the answer to Justin's question make things either better or worse?

Well we don't know until it is answered, do we?

If we accept that we can't see the receipts/ cheques written due to the confidentiality of the recipients, I don't see what other proof could be shown.

It depends who you classify as "we". If it means you or I, clearly we can't. But if it means "nobody within the ECF" then I would actually like the ECF to confirm, so that everybody knows it, that they don't know what conditions were paid, in their own tournament. I think that's important, and hence would like to know either way. I think it might surprise a lot of ECF members.

Similarly, I think it's important to know how much money is not properly accounted for, and it concerns me that ECF officials are unwilling to say.

Are the "CJ must resign lobby" looking for a second smoking gun, being unhappy with the one they already have?

Is it possible that you're missing a debate about good governance because you're interpreting it as a campaign about personalities?

[JustinHorton]

(Another point, Paul, is one made in my piece today, and that's that if you're serious about clearing up a scandal, you clear it up. You get to the bottom of it. You don't say "why are we asking questions?", you ask all the questions you can until you are sure there are no more to be asked. Nor do you say well, X says it's OK and he should know so everybody else should shut up now.)

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm still not with Justin. Keep asking questions until you get to the truth, sure. But we already know don't we? There was a total governance failure. The chairman of the finance committee produced a damning report, the CEO said he'd implement it without reservation.

I'm not saying "nothing to see". I am saying we've already see it.

I do think there is a personal campaign here, asking CJ to prove things which he could only do by breaching other peoples confidentially, and then dropping heavy hints he may have spent the money inappropriately.

[JustinHorton]

I'm not saying "nothing to see". I am saying we've already see it.

No we don't, because it has a number, which we do not know, and a fact attached, which is yet to be confirmed.

asking CJ to prove things which he could only do by breaching other peoples confidentially

If you go up the thread a few billion pages, you'll find a question from me asking whether players who receive conditions have to sign for them. If they do, then there's no breach of confidentiality, because there's already a document which can be produced. If they don't, if that wasn't the arrangement (and I think it was not) then that's a different story, but one that in itself would be important to know.

But pretending that people are being asked to breach confidentiality isn't true.

and then dropping heavy hints he may have spent the money inappropriately.

Whio has done this? I certainly have not, and if you're claiming otherwise you can show us precisely where.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... asking CJ to prove things which he could only do by breaching other peoples confidentially ....

Paul, are you really saying that you believe the fees the ECF paid people to play in its Championship Tournament should not be revealed to the ECF?

Speaking as somebody who's just had to go through contortions to justify expenditure of £2.70 for which I didn't have a receipt (I work for a national organisation with a turnover that must run into millions) I'd *very much* like to know if the ECF allowed somebody to spend thousands without documentation. It's got nothing to do with the 'someone' - it's got to do with the ECF procedures.

Total governance failure? It does rather seem like it, I must agree. I've not seen anybody from the ECF acknowledge it though. Being fully open about the receipts issue would go some way toward that positive step.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I'm still not with Justin. Keep asking questions until you get to the truth, sure. But we already know don't we? There was a total governance failure. The chairman of the finance committee produced a damning report, the CEO said he'd implement it without reservation.

It is not so clear that he actually has, nor, without asking for further detailed accounts from CJ, how he intends to do so

...

I do think there is a personal campaign here, asking CJ to prove things which he could only do by breaching other peoples confidentially

Their confidentiality would only be breached if they really imagined that no one else in the ECF, not even those potentially responsible for liaising with HMRC, would get to know the amounts. We can dismiss this. Paul, you keep suggesting that Justin wants everyone to know how much each player received and he has really never said that.

.... and then dropping heavy hints he may have spent the money inappropriately.

I don't think Justin has done that either. And there's not much disputing the simple assertion which he has made, which is that WE DON'T KNOW - AND APPARENTLY NO ONE THINKS THAT HE HAS A VERY PRECISE IDEA

[Ernie Lazenby]

There is a bottom line to all this,

T shirt affair and breach of our rules controlling proceedure = A loose cannon = bad for English chess. Any reasonable right thinking individual would have resigned already.