ECF Office

[John Townsend]

If the E.C.F. and/or its office ceased to exist, then, presumably, we could avoid most or all of the various proposed new E.C.F. charges, which might otherwise cause some difficulties, and which not everyone would wish to pay.

[Justin Hadi]

In my view, it's just ill-thought-out speculation which has been done before. Also, Management Services costs have been significantly reduced in recent years.

Though not by as much as the loss in the DCMS grant. Do you have any suggestions for reducing costs?

[Angus French]

In my view, it's just ill-thought-out speculation which has been done before. Also, Management Services costs have been significantly reduced in recent years.

Though not by as much as the loss in the DCMS grant. Do you have any suggestions for reducing costs?

No, I think attempting to increase revenue is the right way to go (but, if the choice was down to me, I wouldn't do it through compulsory membership).

[Sean Hewitt]

No, I'd try to increase revenue.

In what way would you seek to do that?

We've already heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from a vocal minority in respect of the board seeking to increase revenue in the wake of the loss of the DCMS grant although, thankfully, the majority have seen the necessity of those actions.

[Roger de Coverly]

No, I'd try to increase revenue.

Which, unless you can find a commercial, sponsorship or governmental source of income, just means asking chess players or chess organisations to pay more towards the ECF.

[Mike Truran]

We've already heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth from a vocal minority in respect of the board seeking to increase revenue in the wake of the loss of the DCMS grant

Which, unless you can find a commercial, sponsorship or governmental source of income, just means asking chess players or chess organisations to pay more towards the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

thankfully, the majority have seen the necessity of those actions.

For the majority of ECF Council and other active players then
(a) if they are already ECF members at the £ 27 rate or above
and
(b) they play a lot of club, league or county chess
and
(c) their leagues, counties and clubs pass on savings in Game Fee
then their personal chess expenditure is reduced rather than increased as a consequence of the ECF's actions. Instead it's the more marginal players who are being expected to pay more, both to finance these cuts and to raise money for the ECF's shortfalls.

[Roger de Coverly]

No, I think attempting to increase revenue is the right way to go (but, if the choice was down to me, I wouldn't do it through compulsory membership).

I'd be inclined to suggest some form of per event charging, even if 100% of the participants were either ECF members or non-ENG players. Is it really sensible that a heavily sponsored event such as Gibraltar should pay less (or indeed nothing) to maintain the ECF, than a Saturday afternoon junior rapidplay?

[Paul Cooksey]

ARGH!

[Angus French]

No, I'd try to increase revenue.

In what way would you seek to do that?

If the choice were mine, I’d have kept the current mixed system and increased the fees. I’d also have:
1. Sorted out the procedures for game fee collection and reconciliation with results submissions to ensure that the collection rate could be measured and was close to 100%;
2. Introduced membership discounts based on the number of games played in the preceding year;
3. Sought to improve the benefits of membership by other means – for example, by trying to negotiate a deal with the UK book publishers to provide book discounts to ECF members (in such a way as to provide increased sales for the publishers).

[Paul Cooksey]

ARGH!

I can't believe that an attempt to discuss ECF expenditure has been hijacked already.

I'm confused by Angus' position. He seems to be saying the ECF Council need not examine its expenditure, even at a really high level like by director. Which suggests a high level of trust in the competency of the ECF Board. But he goes on to suggest they might not have not considered some basic things to increase revenue, which suggest a very low level of competency by the Board.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the choice were mine, I’d have kept the current mixed system and increased the fees. I’d also have:

You could add
(4) restrict the benefits of MOs to the local area and perhaps one or two local Congresses. Perhaps retitle it as Corporate Vice Presidency to bring it in line with CCF and Hastings clubs.

So, being topical, you would only get a discount at Great Yarmouth if you are a "national" or Norfolk member.

[Angus French]

ARGH!

I can't believe that an attempt to discuss ECF expenditure has been hijacked already.

I'm confused by Angus' position. He seems to be saying the ECF Council need not examine its expenditure, even at a really high level like by director. Which suggests a high level of trust in the competency of the ECF Board. But he goes on to suggest they might not have not considered some basic things to increase revenue, which suggest a very low level of competency by the Board.

Paul, you've attempted to infer far too much.

[Roger de Coverly]

He seems to be saying the ECF Council need not examine its expenditure,

The problem with discussing expenditure is that with a handful of exceptions, Council and the wider chess public know the "what" but not the "why".

The "why" of spending money on the International team or the British Championships is to get the strongest players.

On the office expenditure, the various reviews examined the jobs done in the office, but not really the "why" and "who for". Also the review suggested that an Office was essential to enable the directors to function. But again, all of them equally, or some more than others?

[Paul Cooksey]

The problem with discussing expenditure is that with a handful of exceptions, Council and the wider chess public know the "what" but not the "why".

I disagree. I don't think anyone has visibility of what the ECF spends most of its money on, because it is hidden in one pot called "the office". The office is a means to an end, not an end in itself