The ECF Board: Leakgate

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >but what else does the ECF do that needs to be kept secret from English, British and other chess players? <

That, of course, is, in itself, secret.

I have long thought the British Chess Championships could be floated off as a separate company. It does not sit well as an organisation with English International chess as it does not have comon objectives.

Somebody said about 'rushing into charitable status'. Is it not 5 years since this was first mooted after the charity comission definition was expanded to embrace such as bridge and chess?

Gift aid is an obvious valuable prize. But the resulting splintering of objectives might do greater harm than the benefits.

[Roger de Coverly]

Somebody said about 'rushing into charitable status'.

Where the rush exists is that the international dimensions don't appear to have been properly considered. Why does the amateur body keep the FIDE affiliation when quite obviously FIDE will now, or in the future, involve the amateur body with issues that relate to professional players?

[Stewart Reuben]

I don't understand Roger's question. Does he mean the future amateur body?
FIDE is concerned with all matters of chess, including both amateur and professional. Thus surely all bodies connected with English chess will have a natural connection with FIDE. e.g. Junior chess has strong connections to FIDE.
Whether or not 'international dimenions' have been properly considered, there has been ample time to do so. Arguably it would have been better if there had been a specific much shorter time-table.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't understand Roger's question. Does he mean the future amateur body?

Yes, I mean the proposed future charity. The presumed motivation for the split is that a charity can only have very limited involvement with the financing of professionals. But internationally, no such distinctions are made. So for as long as there are professional or semi professional English players, any interactions with FIDE are likely to involve mixing them and the charity ECF in the same activity.

Taking the Olympiad teams as an example, the invite to participate is in the name of the ECF and as far as I am aware, practical details have to be handled in the name of the ECF. Thus if the ECF sends a team and someone pays for that team, even if in the name of a third party, how does the ECF avoid the "not allowed to pay professionals" issue?

[Alex Holowczak]

Where the rush exists is that the international dimensions don't appear to have been properly considered.

I think there's a difference between:

"The international dimensions don't appear to have been properly considered"

and

"The international dimensions have been properly considered, but haven't been made public knowledge yet"

You believe the first is true. I'll reserve judgement on which of these is true until the planned EGM, but my starting point will be that the second is true.

[Roger de Coverly]

You believe the first is true. I'll reserve judgement on which of these is true until the planned EGM, but my starting point will be that the second is true.

The ECF is expecting to hold an EGM in the near future to approve conversion to charity status. The International question is a reasonable one to ask and if the ECF knows the answers, why the reluctance to publish?

As Stewart observes, it's a secret what the ECF regards as secret, but if the minutes now published on the ECF website of this year's Board meetings are in any way complete, no discussion is recorded on the International dimensions of conversion to charity status. One of the earlier Farthing papers would have made the "professional" body into the FIDE affiliate. This was flipped in the paper that followed without any reasons being given.

The other disclosed but not discussed is the governing structure of the new "professional" body. Do I understand correctly that the idea is to revive the zombie that is the BCF and convert it to a CLG? As it stands at the moment, voting rights of the BCF are in the hands of the Unions, London and Manchester leagues and territorial County Associations, so the ECF will have to ask local county associations for their approval of the plan to asset strip the BCF. Going forward, I don't really see the logic of a body for professional chess having local county associations as its guarantors and voting members.

[Roger de Coverly]

Behind closed doors, Directors should be free to say whatever they like about Charity status without having to consider whether it will become public knowledge. But once it is a policy, I'd expect them all to support it and make the case as clearly as possible.

I doubt this would be disagreed with. But you might expect the Minutes, if to be published, would at least record "There was a discussion about Charitable Status with regard to the FIDE affiliation", or even "There was discussion about Charitable Status".

If nothing else, it informs those who might wish to raise the subject at an AGM or EGM whether they would be covering new or old ground.

(edit) The link to the Minutes on the website has now been removed. (/edit)

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >As Stewart observes, it's a secret what the ECF regards as secret<

I suppose it's the modern way to tell people with an emoticon that you are making a joke, or at least a sardonic comment. I will not be wearing a red nose or doing so.

It is perfectly obvious that both ChessEngland and the English Chess Federation, or whatever name you want to give the the organisations, will both have to deal with FIDE. It is an organiation that represents both amateurs and professionals. Anyway, many people like me, are not simplistically one or the other.

Paul Cooksey >But once it is a policy, I'd expect them all to support it and make the case as clearly as possible.<

Th BCF never practiced Cabinet responsibility and I don't remember it being suggested when I was a member of the ECF Board. Board members are free to express their own opinions. Then democracy rules concerning final decisions.