Public Statements

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
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 8:21 pm

Mike Truran wrote: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.
I don't really know how the ECF managed to mess up a long established system so it couldn't itemise who its revenue was coming from, if that's what it did. But the Gareth Caller comment seems to imply that an Easter Congress would have had its Game Fee included in 2009-10 accounts, but not in the 2010-11 accounts unless the payment came in by 30th April 2011. This rather naturally distorts the year on year comparisons.

The money presumably reappeared in the 2011-12 year, but then you have to consider whether to apply bad debts to the Easter 2012 events.

John Philpott

Re: Public Statements

Post by John Philpott » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:34 pm

Mike Truran wrote
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.
I don't think that it was quite as stark as that. My take was that Gareth wanted to be prudent, which is perfectly reasonable, but took this to an inappropriate extreme. I have an impression, which I hope to be able to confirm shortly, that despite the words a modest debtor was included in the 2010/11 accounts, but that this was less than I think could reasonably have been justified. This is now water under the bridge, but an essential part of the work currently being undertaken to finalise the 2011/12 accounts is in my view to come up with a realistic quantification of the Game Fee debtor at 30 April 2012.

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 8:47 pm

John Philpott wrote: My take was that Gareth wanted to be prudent, which is perfectly reasonable, but took this to an inappropriate extreme. I have an impression, which I hope to be able to confirm shortly, that despite the words a modest debtor was included in the 2010/11 accounts, but that this was less than I think could reasonably have been justified.
So what was basically a debate amongst accountants over accruals and bad debts was presented as the issue that Congresses were underpaying Game Fee to the ECF with the political message that Game Fee should be scrapped as unworkable.

Angus French
Posts: 1703
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Angus French » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:11 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:So what was basically a debate amongst accountants over accruals and bad debts was presented as the issue that Congresses were underpaying Game Fee to the ECF with the political message that Game Fee should be scrapped as unworkable.
I don't recall it being an issue in the game fee/ membership debate.

I think everyone assumed it was a finance issue, although I think there was some suspicion it related to an issue in the office, rather than with the FD taking caution to an "inappropriate extreme". Strong language for bean counters :)
Certainly I think it was influence. Game fee was deemed too complex and one of the motivations for a membership system was a perception that it would be simpler.

I don't know if it's true or not but I heard that the FD was particularly keen on replacing game fee.

E Michael White
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by E Michael White » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:16 pm

This thread is most encouraging, as finance may be the one area where council appointed appropriately qualified people. With so many accountants in this discussion the right approach will no doubt be agreed. All we need is for the non accountants to leave the thread.

Continuing this theme the mathematicians/information theoreticians should set up a grading thread and boot out the statisticians, a discipline not very useful in the ECF system. Then those in the legal profession should set up a thread and boot out the out the governance team. The charity experts should have their own thread too; come on guys we know it will be a first going for gift aid on members’ subscriptions in a mind sport but stick your necks out and set it up. What does that leave ? ah yes IT systems. Well let’s have a thread for all those IT specialists who can set up secure payment systems, which don’t display your CVV code on input and for appropriately qualified QA specialists.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4055
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Public Statements

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:26 pm

E Michael White wrote:This thread is most encouraging, as finance may be the one area where council appointed appropriately qualified people. With so many accountants in this discussion the right approach will no doubt be agreed. All we need is for the non accountants to leave the thread.

Continuing this theme the mathematicians/information theoreticians should set up a grading thread and boot out the statisticians, a discipline not very useful in the ECF system. Then those in the legal profession should set up a thread and boot out the out the governance team. The charity experts should have their own thread too; come on guys we know it will be a first going for gift aid on members’ subscriptions in a mind sport but stick your necks out and set it up. What does that leave ? ah yes IT systems. Well let’s have a thread for all those IT specialists who can set up secure payment systems, which don’t display your CVV code on input and for appropriately qualified QA specialists.
I note that one thing you haven't suggested is that arbiting issues should be left to arbiters.

E Michael White
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Public Statements

Post by E Michael White » Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:30 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:I note that one thing you haven't suggested is that arbiting issues should be left to arbiters.
au contraire I have always thought that arbiting should be left to good arbiters; rule writing no, choosing pairing methods no, swamping appeal committes no. Have I missed anything out ?

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

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:04 am

Angus French wrote:. Game fee was deemed too complex and one of the motivations for a membership system was a perception that it would be simpler.
The net result of all the compromises necessary to get a 70% vote is a set up that's almost equivalent in terms of Game Fee processing and possibly more complex in terms of membership processing. The reason it is more complex is the need to have upgrades from one membership class to another during the membership year.

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

Re: Public Statements

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:31 am

Angus French wrote: I don't know if it's true or not but I heard that the FD was particularly keen on replacing game fee.
There was a lack of objective reporting. I found it particularly objectionable that the ex-CEO claimed that replacing Game Fee with membership would lead to reduced costs in the first year of the revised scheme. This seemed to ignore the obvious points of both the development and transaction costs of replacing collection from 300 organisations with collection from 10,000 individuals. After that, I had little trust in anything he said.

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: Public Statements

Post by Peter D Williams » Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:22 pm

Krishna Shiatis wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote: Indeed I have. The people I called muppets and a prat were muppets, and a prat, respectively.
Still Sean, you write derogatory comments. Justify it to yourself however you will, but it does not change what you are doing.

I can not believe that you are demanding apologies when you are doing exactly what you are accusing others (unfairly) of doing.
Sean Hewitt wrote: I failed and rather than sit back, do nothing, and bitch on the forum I did something about.
Um, interesting interpretation. You told everyone to vote for 'none of the above' rather than vote for Roger (because he disagreed with you - how dare he???) Effectively Sean you are 'bitching' about Roger on the forum.

Roger, whom I might add is standing for being President when no one else (currently) is. You are being mean to a potential President - yet that sits perfectly well with you.
Sean Hewitt wrote: It is discussions like this that will prevent ECF Directors from posting here I'm afraid. At this rate, soon all you'll have is me. You have been warned :-)
Yet more threats. Still attempting to censor anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Edit: Thank you Rob and Paul sorry meant to write President not CEO - it is late for me
Fully agree with your comments Krishna about Sean.I still be here as well Sean :wink: As if calling some one a Muppet will make them go away.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:49 pm

Peter D Williams wrote:Fully agree with your comments Krishna about Sean.
Not surprising really. Neither of you like it when anyone disagrees with you.
Peter D Williams wrote:I still be here as well Sean :wink: As if calling some one a Muppet will make them go away.
If only it was as simple as that. :lol:

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: Public Statements

Post by Peter D Williams » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:01 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Peter D Williams wrote:Fully agree with your comments Krishna about Sean.
Not surprising really. Neither of you like it when anyone disagrees with you.
Peter D Williams wrote:I still be here as well Sean :wink: As if calling some one a Muppet will make them go away.
If only it was as simple as that. :lol:
I say its you who does not like it when some one disagrees with you :wink: I be here watching your comments hopefully one day your get a gold star from me :D
Now for a joke waiter waiter i can not eat this food get me the manger sorry sir he wont eat it to!
Last edited by Peter D Williams on Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2190
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Public Statements

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Oct 21, 2012 7:03 pm

Peter D Williams wrote:I be here watching your comments hopefully one day your get a gold star from me :D
I'm hope my comments never descend to that level. :lol:

Post Reply