Public Statements

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
John Cox
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by John Cox » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:25 am

>The Board develop proposals, hopefully sensible ones, and put them to the Council for ratification.

Well, as far as I can tell, the Board has a policy on membership, which may or may not be sensible, and put it to council for ratification. The new membership director is presumably going to carry it out.

I can't stress too strongly how uninterested I am in what that policy might actually be, let alone what it should be, but I have the impression that you have some strong views about it and are rather reluctant to accept the fact that it's been decided upon for at least the next little while, and that this is colouring your notion that candidates should foster some kind of further debate about it.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:36 am

John Cox wrote: Well, as far as I can tell, the Board has a policy on membership, which may or may not be sensible, and put it to council for ratification. The new membership director is presumably going to carry it out.
That wasn't clear from Adam's limited statements on the issue which could have been interpreted as demanding a more stringent approach with a higher basic price. The ECF Board managed to cobble together a 70% vote in favour in 2011 by offering some considerable watering down of the effects of a hard line approach. It's a question again of holding the ECF Board to account. Their scheme does not have universal support, if it's holding together, it's because the notion of a "compulsory grading scheme" is still supported.

John Cox
Posts: 322
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by John Cox » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:55 pm

>It's a question again of holding the ECF Board to account.

Rubbish. It's a question of whether a fantasy of yours to the effect that one prospective new director might have a secret ambition to disregard a clear mandate from council in the future actually had any basis in reality.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:14 pm

John Cox wrote: Rubbish. It's a question of whether a fantasy of yours to the effect that one prospective new director might have a secret ambition to disregard a clear mandate from council in the future actually had any basis in reality.
In the absence of a public statement, who knows. But AR himself stated that he would vote against RE as a result of RE's perceived opposition to the membership scheme. This is despite RE's candidate statement advocating a review and simplification, not abolition.

AR also stated that he wanted a budget to spend more money on "ChessMoves". So, yes the ECF can spend more money on a pdf reprint of its website, but it would still have to recoup the costs from members. In an OMOV election, I wouldn't have voted for him.

The new Director of Finance has on the face of it inherited a ghastly mess. Not only is the current and historic financial position unknown, but he also has the consequences of optimistic projections of Game Fee income to live with.

David Gilbert
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am

Re: Public Statements

Post by David Gilbert » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:16 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: .... but he also has the consequences of optimistic projections of Game Fee income to live with.
[/quote]

The ECF's estimate of income was based on a best guess of high take-up of membership - 6950 adults and 1920 juniors with zero income from Platinum members - and 2,500 adult and 700 junior non-members, each playing on average 4.5 games graded games, contributing£28,800 in game fee. Is that so wildly optimistic? If so, what does a realistic figure look like?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:51 pm

David Gilbert wrote: and 2,500 adult and 700 junior non-members, each playing on average 4.5 games graded games, contributing£28,800 in game fee. Is that so wildly optimistic? If so, what does a realistic figure look like?
If you take into account rule changes which forbid or restrict non-members taking part in Leagues, the estimates for both the headcount and the average game count could seem far too high, thus making the Game Fee estimate too high as well. A problem for the ECF will be that it doesn't invoice for this until September 2013, which even on the new accounting year is after the year end. It's going to attempt to collect some of it in December 2012, but it should be cautious about considering as revenue because it could be reversed in September 2013.

On the September 2012 grading download, there were 266 players with one game, 458 with two, 732 with three, 1080 with four and 2245 with five. I could imagine that some of the four and five game people would be Congress entrants for whom the likely payment is £ 6 for "Silver" events and nil for international ones.

I'm not sure that's an investigation yet carried out. How does the membership sign up correlate with grading category?

John Philpott

Re: Public Statements

Post by John Philpott » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:51 pm

Roger De Coverly wrote
A problem for the ECF will be that it doesn't invoice for this until September 2013, which even on the new accounting year is after the year end
I am unclear why this is a problem. The amount of the invoices raised less VAT will simply give rise to a debtor in the 2012/13 accounts.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:43 pm

John Philpott wrote:The amount of the invoices raised less VAT will simply give rise to a debtor in the 2012/13 accounts.
If you send out a bill on or after 1st September 2013, can you still include it the 2012-13 accounts? The previous Finance Director only included Game Fee in the accounts when received, according to minutes of the 2011 meetings. So if that practice is continued, the income won't be visible in the 2012-13 period.

David Gilbert
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:03 am

Re: Public Statements

Post by David Gilbert » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:47 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
John Philpott wrote:The amount of the invoices raised less VAT will simply give rise to a debtor in the 2012/13 accounts.
If you send out a bill on or after 1st September 2013, can you still include it the 2012-13 accounts? The previous Finance Director only included Game Fee in the accounts when received, according to minutes of the 2011 meetings. So if that practice is continued, the income won't be visible in the 2012-13 period.

Can you put these through as accruals?

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Mike Truran » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:49 pm

That is the correct treatment under accruals (as opposed to receipts and payments) accounting.

dr. debtors
cr. income receivable

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Public Statements

Post by Alan Kennedy » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:27 pm

Mike Truran wrote:That is the correct treatment under accruals (as opposed to receipts and payments) accounting.

dr. debtors
cr. income receivable
As a fellow accountant I think we should have a thread specially devoted to the double entry associated with the ECF accounting system. It could go on for years! PS have you seen this video? http://bit.ly/Wo7AnY

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:50 pm

Alan Kennedy wrote: As a fellow accountant I think we should have a thread specially devoted to the double entry associated with the ECF accounting system.
Around this time last year, there was an issue with the 2010-11 Accounts, the problem being that the Game Fee income in respect of Congresses appeared to have collapsed.

Presenting Game Fee as a discredited system might gain support for the CEO's membership proposals. The ECF seemed unable to establish which Congresses were apparently underpaying or not paying Game Fee. This was despite the games from these Congresses being graded without issues and the voting entitlements established.

In the minutes of the 2012 Finance meeting I observe the comment
GC replied that he had decided not to recognise game fees until received which is a change from previous years’ principle.
This would seem to be a switch from an accruals concept to a cash concept. The effect when you make the change is to reduce income temporarily. This coincided with a late Easter as well.

Accounting principles are in the hands of the Finance director who would be able to switch back to an accruals approach.

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: Public Statements

Post by Alan Kennedy » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:55 pm

Roger - did you watch the video. Comments please!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19078
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:06 pm

Alan Kennedy wrote:Roger - did you watch the video. Comments please!
It's the one about " I wanted to be a lion tamer, not a chartered accountant" ? Seen it before, probably in 1969.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Mike Truran » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:10 pm

This would seem to be a switch from an accruals concept to a cash concept.
Not strictly the case. What was decided as I recall (and John will no doubt correct me if I am in error) was that there was sufficient uncertainty around collectability that there should be an equal and opposite bad and doubtful debt provision. What should have happened was that the gross effect of the transactions should have been put through the accounts rather than in effect netting them off. The effect on the bottom line would have been the same either way - which isn't to say that the correct accounting treatment should not have been adopted.

Post Reply