Agm Papers C16.16 Charitable Status

[Michele Clack]

A very clear paper by Andrew Farthing. I think it would be an excellent idea to take this forward. I particularly like the idea of splitting off the Professional parts of Chess into a new Company. This would make it much more responsive to professional players. An all individual members charitable section would do the same for amateur players. I think the whole thing would be much less unwieldy than the current structure.

The only area where it might be a bit problematical I would have thought might be the British Chess championships, with ordinary players feeling a bit out of the loop perhaps. If it was up to me I would be tempted to follow the Irish example and outsource it to someone like E2E4. That might get round that sort of problem.

It would be interesting to hear from Paul C on this.

[Roger de Coverly]

A very clear paper by Andrew Farthing. I think it would be an excellent idea to take this forward.

That paper was presented for the April Finance council meeting. The meeting ran out of time to discuss it. The forum hasn't been particularly interested in discussing it either.

I don't see how it can work. The existing (amateur/charity) ECF would remain the FIDE affiliate and thus receive the invite for participation in international team events and other international competitions. Quite how it subcontracts that to a professional ECF without being involved in paying the players would remain to be seen.

[Roger de Coverly]

There's now an update for the October meeting at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Status.pdf

It does not address the issue as to how FIDE affiliation would work.

[Roger de Coverly]

My understanding is charitable status requires an element of donation, which seems to me incompatible with the view everyone should get their money's worth from the ECF.

The ECF's two major costs are international chess (excluded from the charity) and the cost of running the Office. As local chess activities make little or no direct use of Office facilities (grading is mostly outside the Office), you have to conclude that the Office exists to sustain itself and support the Directors. From that viewpoint, there's never going to be any money's worth.

[Angus French]

It does seem premature to assume charitable status will go through, when we have candidates for the board talking about giving the grassroots what it wants. My understanding is charitable status requires an element of donation, which seems to me incompatible with the view everyone should get their money's worth from the ECF.

If membership subscriptions are eligible for gift aid...

[Roger de Coverly]

If membership subscriptions are eligible for gift aid...

It goes round in circles and the current papers don't resolve the issue.

If you are required to be an ECF member to play in competitive chess, then there's no element of giving about it. Not all leagues require everyone to be a member, but some do, or place a cap on the number of games a non-member is eligible to play. That part of membership representing the difference between Platinum and Gold is clear enough, but there's no gift anywhere else. That said, the ECF may have been able to use sleight of hand to make membership payments eligible. Details are awaited.

[E Michael White]

Unless the ECF do something ridiculous it should be a walk in the park to obtain charitable status and go for gift aid on membership contributions.

Chess has special status in that it was mentioned during the HoC debate on the Charities Act and is clear from the reports in Hansard that the will of parliament was for chess to be considered a sport for the purposes of the Charities Act. If it came to a challenge which it won’t, the charity commission and the courts would need to have regard for this fact.

I personally think it would be worth regarding the British Championship as a fund raising event for the charitable part and employing the best professionals to take part with sponsors supplying the professional 1st prize. It would also be worth trying a higher level of membership, for those who play every year, with free or partially free entry to a British section.

It needs a culture change to regard grading as a very minor benefit; the value is approx £1 per year if Richard Harrell’s stipend is averaged over games played. The grading list could also be regarded as a charity progress report showing games played, which wouldn’t then be included in the 25% rule.

The FIDE delegate could be part of either section or a third joint umbrella section so I don’t see an issue.

[Sean Hewitt]

It needs a culture change to regard grading as a very minor benefit; the value is approx £1 per year if Richard Harrell’s stipend is averaged over games played.

Tut tut. That's the cost of producing the grading list, not the value of it. Rookie mistake.

[Roger de Coverly]

The FIDE delegate could be part of either section or a third joint umbrella section so I don’t see an issue.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... status.pdf

The Company’s Objects (“the Objects”) are specifically restricted to the following:
2.1 The advancement of amateur sport by promoting the study and practice of chess in all its forms, principally, but not exclusively, for the benefit of the residents of England;
2.2 The advancement of education by promoting the development of young people through the teaching and practice of chess.

As far as I understand it, the invitation to participate in FIDE events will go to the national affiliate. How does a charity ECF then send teams, or for that matter individuals where the players expect a participation fee or non-amateur prize money is available? It's not "amateur sport".

For what it's worth,"the Objects" would appear to exclude complaining about FIDE internal procedures.

[Roger de Coverly]

It needs a culture change to regard grading as a very minor benefit; the value is approx £1 per year if Richard Harrell’s stipend is averaged over games played.

In terms of costs, isn't it something on the lines of
For every £ 12 of membership money, about £ 1 pays for grading and about £ 2 for the international teams, the balance being spent on ECF communication and publicity (the website), collecting the £ 12 and the internal governance of the ECF ( assistance to directors). There's also a bit spent on supporting administration for activities such as the British Championship Congress.

[E Michael White]

Tut tut. That's the cost of producing the grading list, not the value of it. Rookie mistake.

Sean H, Many of your recent posts remind me of the 2 Ronnies Mastermind sketch - answering the previous question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0C59pI_ypQ. However your variant seems to be reading a different ruleset/legislation and answering a different point from that posed.

For example your writings on the grading system are based on conventional statistics without considering the transformation mathematics of the underlying process and you recently referred to the ICO guidelines on another post, when a more appropriate reference would be the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

However turning to your statement about charity member’s allowable benefits; the HMRC guidelines allow for certain situations where the charity must use an average cost of production for benefits rather than some estimated retail value. The ECF should aim to work in a manner, or show, that this situation applies.

It is doubtful whether members receive any benefit from having a grade; a player cannot sell his grade for money and a grade cannot be bought as a diary could and also a player with a grade of say 225 is barred from playing in certain events, which is hardly an added value. Those who benefit most from the grading system are arbiters and organisers, who use grades for event limits and pairings. It almost suggests that arbiters and organisers should be in a separate not for profit federation which calculates grades. Charging the 100 or so arbiters say £50 per year would fund R Hadrell’s stipend.

[Sean Hewitt]

For example your writings on the grading system are based on conventional statistics without considering the transformation mathematics of the underlying process

My writings were for the layman. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You and others predicted the collapse of the grading system. You said the grades of GMs would sky rocket as they banked free points from inflated bunnies. I and others said this would not happen. I'll leave it to others to surmise which reality we are in.

you recently referred to the ICO guidelines on another post, when a more appropriate reference would be the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

The ICO deals with collection and use of data. The complaint was of spam email. I linked to the appropriate ICO page dealing with that exact topic for which the man asking the question thanked me. QED.

However turning to your statement about charity member’s allowable benefits;

Do show me a post where I've mentioned "charity member’s allowable benefits". I think you've caught Pardoe's disease.

It is doubtful whether members receive any benefit from having a grade; a player cannot sell his grade for money and a grade cannot be bought as a diary could and also a player with a grade of say 225 is barred from playing in certain events, which is hardly an added value.

As my old Dad used to say, something is worth only what someone else is prepared to pay for it. Wise words.

[Richard Bates]

Can Leagues be members of a "Charitable" ECF if they don't disallow the paying of Professional players?

[Roger de Coverly]

Can Leagues be members of a "Charitable" ECF if they don't disallow the paying of Professional players?

Is this not one of many problems that will arise if the charity is to remain the FIDE affiliate? Title applications for professional players perhaps?

There are a number of unanswered questions. The draft on the ECF website maintains existing membership and voting structures, meaning that the 4NCL and the London League, to name the obvious two, remain ECF members.

[David Pardoe]

One concern I have about this `split` is the further defragmentation and dilution of chess into even more insignificant factions that end up commanding no serious interest from any quarter....the beginning of the end perhaps.
Consider the new bodies..
How many members would the `professional` wing command...might it be 1,000 perhaps?
If so, where are they going to raise there funding from... Are corporate bodies really going to want to sponsor such a small organisation. And would this body have its own separate administration. A structure similar to the current ECF perhaps?
What about all the funds currently floating around for the benefit of chess...like the Robinson Fund. And others currently run by various administrative `committee` bodies. Who would have access to these..
And what of the new, restructured ECF `amateur` body? What would it stand for? Would it become even more `meaningless`, and would it attract even less volunteers to run it and attend meetings, etc.
Would the international aspect become meaningless/irrelevant to the amateur body, along with the major international tournaments that go with it.....which are a source of considerable interest to amateur players currently. Would our future ECF AGMs become even more mundane, with almost nothing left to discuss, that isnt already covered by other bodies. Now that Membership has become a `taboo` subject, banned from discussion....and directors encouraged to `keep silent` on the Forum. Will we move to a new communist style state....
Would anyone be interested when it lost some of its `crown jewels` to the Professional club....?
And where do members stand...what defines a `professional` and an amateur?
Could a professional play in amateur tournaments, and vice versa....
Would various tournaments fall into the `Professional` and `Amateur` camps, or somewhere inbetween?
Where would events like 4NCL & e2e4, and Hastings fit into the picture. Not to mention the `London Classic`, etc....
I`m concerned that this defragmentation will result in total confusion and a descending malaise....and a fatally weakened chess infrastructure.

And we have this debate going on about Charitable status, and whether chess is a sport. Chess really doesnt fall into either of these categories in many people`s eye`s. They are simply being manipulated to try to obtain funding and grants that bodies like chess, which aught to be treated as `not for profit` social and cultural organisations, and given full access to the approapriate grants and benefits and reliefs, for which they currently seek.
Have we considered fully what the costs and benefits are and set these objectively against the potential negative aspects...and the alternatives. I hope our various county, league & other chess bodies get a full chance to discuss and debate these issues and report back to the ECF, who, I hope will enter into a meaningful dialogue with the UK chess community before we burn yet more of our boats.