English Chess Forum

My name is Julian Clissold I have been involved in Junior and Senior Chess in the Manchester area for the last twenty years. I am currently retired after forty years managing a college.
I am currently Chair of the English Primary School Chess Association and a past President of the Manchester Chess Federation. I am an ECF Coach and Arbiter.
My election statement is/will be available on the ECF website at the same time as other election addresses are published, as papers for the ECF AGM.
I have posted this forum to allow colleagues the opportunity to ask me questions or make comments about my nomination.

I look to the ECF to become the lead and inspiration for chess in England; chess players from the men and women who play in local clubs and leagues through to our International Players should be able to look to the ECF for support and direction. ECF also needs to work with the many partners and colleagues that populate the current chess scene. They are important and significant providers; the ECF should be the cohesion, the inspiration, the leadership and the quality control. It does not need always to be the provider.
That means that out of the ECF we should see well thought through initiatives, firmly based on data and consultation, delivered by the partnership between various chess related organisations. We have to work smarter and we have to work collaboratively.

What do you think is the role of a non-executive Director and how well do you think the incumbents have performed this role?

As I said on Jack Rudd's similar thread, it's impressive that you are willing to answer questions on the Forum.

I'll put the same question to you as I did to Jack: how do you stand on the SCCU motion to reverse the requirement for ECF membership to be a pre-requisite for participation in the National Schools and Neill Cooper's graded schools events?

To Matthew Turner
Matthew's Question:What do you think is the role of a non-executive Director and how well do you think the incumbents have performed this role?Thanks for the question.
Formally the Non Executive Director listens to the Board and advises and guides. I would seek an an active approach where the Non Executive Directors bring a vision for the ECF and a feel for how it should operate. I want to see an ECF that works transparently and collaboratively. We cannot avoid the implications of our financial position, but that does not mean that we should either lose our sense of our core purposes, or make every decision as a commercial decision. We also need to listen more and collaborate more. There are a lot of very smart chess organisations outside the ECF (I am Chair of one of them EPSCA) that are making huge strides in developoing chess provision. ECF should seek to support and work with them. They are not competitors they are colleagues.
Finally I would not feel it appropriate to comment on past incumbemts.

To John Swain
John's Question: I'll put the same question to you as I did to Jack: how do you stand on the SCCU motion to reverse the requirement for ECF membership to be a pre-requisite for participation in the National Schools and Neill Cooper's graded schools events?I believed at the time that was an error and I said so publically. It is a prime example of a commercial decision being made at the expense of what ought to be one of ECF's core purposes. The ECF should have writ large in its mission that it promotes Junior Chess. I believe that the decision failed to understand the character and structure of junior chess, or it's importance to the long term health of chess in England.

JulianClissold wrote: John's Question: I'll put the same question to you as I did to Jack: how do you stand on the SCCU motion to reverse the requirement for ECF membership to be a pre-requisite for participation in the National Schools and Neill Cooper's graded schools events?I believed at the time that was an error and I said so publically. It is a prime example of a commercial decision being made at the expense of what ought to be one of ECF's core purposes. The ECF should have writ large in its mission that it promotes Junior Chess. I believe that the decision failed to understand the character and structure of junior chess, or it's importance to the long term health of chess in England.

What would you say are the essential features of the character and structure of junior chess in this country? How would you say it compares with other Western European nations in this regard?

JulianClissold wrote:
To John Swain
I believed at the time that was an error and I said so publically. It is a prime example of a commercial decision being made at the expense of what ought to be one of ECF's core purposes. The ECF should have writ large in its mission that it promotes Junior Chess. I believe that the decision failed to understand the character and structure of junior chess, or it's importance to the long term health of chess in England.

I couldn't agree more, Julian. Junior chess needs to be encouraged and nurtured. not fleeced. A revenue stream will occur naturally when they become established and hopefully will remain in the game for life. Unfortunately some present incumbents on the Board seem to be short-sighted and only look to the financial bottom-line in the short-term, rather than looking at the bigger picture.

JulianClissold wrote: It is a prime example of a commercial decision being made at the expense of what ought to be one of ECF's core purposes. The ECF should have writ large in its mission that it promotes Junior Chess. I believe that the decision failed to understand the character and structure of junior chess, or it's importance to the long term health of chess in England.

I wouldn't have said the decision was especially commercial particularly since one of the resulting outcomes has been to offer ECF membership for nothing. I would have said it to be ideological in nature, namely a belief in membership regardless of the circumstances. For that matter, it's a belief in an annual per head collection as opposed to per event collection. The EBU has a membership scheme compulsory for those taking part in events under its auspices but payment is made per event rather than per person.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

JulianClissold wrote: It is a prime example of a commercial decision being made at the expense of what ought to be one of ECF's core purposes. The ECF should have writ large in its mission that it promotes Junior Chess. I believe that the decision failed to understand the character and structure of junior chess, or it's importance to the long term health of chess in England.

I wouldn't have said the decision was especially commercial particularly since one of the resulting outcomes has been to offer ECF membership for nothing. I would have said it to be ideological in nature, namely a belief in membership regardless of the circumstances. For that matter, it's a belief in an annual per head collection as opposed to per event collection. The EBU has a membership scheme compulsory for those taking part in events under its auspices but payment is made per event rather than per person.

I think the offer of free silver membership to those juniors who haven't previously been members was only introduced because the Board recognised their blunder and tried to save face. Secondly, offering something free to juniors, many of whom probably wouldn't have joined anyway but who might stay as members subsequently, could be seen as a clever commercial decision.

Jack

This afternoon I was in a school in Bolton with twenty children (9 year olds) who still do not know how to castle (I hope they are a bit better informed now). But they love chess, they cannot get enough of it; some of them would play all day if they could. On Saturday I will be at a Manchester Junior Chess Congress that will have some of those children and some who will represent Manchester and even England. But the former are far and away the majority of our children. They do not want or need grades, they may play in one or two tournaments a year, they may even represent their school. Many of the children who take part in UK Chess Challenge, EPSCA National Schools, ECF Under 11 and Under 19 and other tournaments around the country are in this category. ECF has to find a way of making them feel part of the chess community; get them to commit to being part of that community, without them joining simply on the terms of the ECF Board. I fear that the ECF has ignored the base to the pyramid that is junior chess participation in this country.
The real irony is that the current arrangement is likely to polarise junior membership. Those that have strong ambitions, will join the ECF (about the first twenty of my Manchester Under 11 had already joined the ECF), those who are getting used to the idea of "being a chess player" may just walk away, or worse their schools and clubs will walk away and play in something else that the ECF does not influence.

I was pleased with the Silver Membership idea as a compromise. But it still only speaks to those children who would join anyway. If the National Schools Under 19 , which richard Haderell runs with such enthusiasm, is forced to be ECF members only, some schools who only get to play one round because they are not very strong, may well walk away. (At a recent discussion Richard expressed this very fear). This is also true of the National Schools Under 11's. I repeat these children are the base of the pyramid, they are the majority. This year I presuaded a secondary school in Bolton to enter. They have only had a chess club for twelve months. They met Bolton School in round one and lost, embarrassingly; but they all enjoyed the event and wanted to play again. If I ask them this year and tell them they all have to be ECF members before they can play...well they will be incredulous and will see beyond a one year offer!
Their Head will simply ring round the same local schools and play them independantly of the ECF. ECF will have lost the opportunity to help chess develop in that school; it will have lost sight of its core purpose.

Can I just second everything Julian has said above. While I am a supporter of the membership scheme in principle and have a lot of respect for the ECF board generally; the decision about the Secondary Schools tournament was a horrendously wrong one and it's frustrating in the extreme that the ECF officers who voted for in favour can't see that (although to be fair they have shown a willingness to find a compromise behind the scenes).

It seems we are spoilt for choice for NEDs; my question to Julian would be that if you fail to win election would you be willing to contribute to the ECF in some capacity if a role could be found?

JulianClissold wrote: If the National Schools Under 19 , which richard Haderell runs with such enthusiasm, is forced to be ECF members only, some schools who only get to play one round because they are not very strong, may well walk away.

As a straight factual question, which way did the ECF jump? It's now accepting entries without cautioning potential entrants either that all their players have to be ECF members or that the entire competition is not going to be graded.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: It seems we are spoilt for choice for NEDs; my question to Julian would be that if you fail to win election would you be willing to contribute to the ECF in some capacity if a role could be found?

Hmmm! Manager of Senior Chess? Actually does Julian agree with a proposal to establish a Manager of Senior Chess who will be accountable to the Director of International Chess. Why the Director of International Chess?

Andrew Zigmond wrote:the decision about the Secondary Schools tournament was a horrendously wrong one and it's frustrating in the extreme that the ECF officers who voted for in favour can't see that

There was an element of revenge to it. The ECF CEO who did most to promote the membership scheme was singularly unwilling to come clean on winners and losers from the switch. One of the clear losers would have been Junior organisations and the parents who financed them. This was because the existing per game levy paid to the ECF for Juniors was much lower than the equivalent levy paid for Adults, a differential not replicated in the per head scheme. So whilst for adults, break even was at around 20 games, it would have been much higher for Juniors. As a consequence of this price hike, there was an ambush at the 2012 April meeting which blew up the budget and what had been supposed to be a settled scheme. The decision at the March 2013 Board meeting was pay back for this and was also conveniently not announced to the April 2013 Council meeting.

David Gilbert wrote

Why the Director of International Chess?

Looking in my crystal ball, I would not be in the least surprised if the Chairman of the Governance Committee were to propose an amendment at Council to leave the reporting line of the Manager of Senior Chess up to the Board to decide, should the creation of the post be approved.