ECF International budget

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

ECF International budget

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:54 pm

While the lunatics are taking over the threads on the most serious ECF matters, I thought I'd start a new one, revisiting the issue of how the international budget is spent. It is prompted by Keith Arkell's request to forumites for support for the European Senior competition under "General Chat", having failed to secure any funding from the ECF.

As David Openshaw made clear last year, he sees it as his mission to spend every penny of his international budget on the international teams in Oly,piad and European Chs (divided between the open and the women teams, so far as one can tell, by about 90:10, even at the risk of not sending a women's team at all). So there is nothing whatsoever for the other aspects of English chess which come under the international umbrella, such as Clubs nominated by the ECF for the European Club Cup or any senior event (team or individual). I did raise this rather narrow vision with him last year, only to be told that the decisions had already been made but he could reconsider in the future. There was no particular justification offered for the decision he had already made (other than lack of funding overall, which still does not explain the particular priorities) and one can only suppose that it was inspired by an entirely unrealistic assessment that our best mens' team might win medals at the European Chs (in the event, they did about as well as they always do, and came nowhere near). But even if the optimism about the mens' team had been justified, it should still need to be argued why all the money has to go to that team and nothing to anything else.

I myself have not pursued this debate because the 4NCL has in the meantime promised to support clubs entering the ECC, and that is my personal field of concern. But the one-sided policy of ECF international expenditure still remains a matter of broader concern. What are the powers that be in English senior chess doing about this?

User avatar
Ihor Lewyk
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:50 am

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Ihor Lewyk » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:44 pm

A very good point indeed.
England's most succesful generation with umpteen Olympiad and European medals to their name are about to hit the senior competitions. For example I believe Nigel Short will be 50 next year.
Indeed the players who came into chess through the Fischer / Spassky match are all fast approaching 50. look around in leagues and congresses and you will see that a high number of players fit in this bracket.

At the NCCU AGM last year there was a lot of discussion about introducing new senior competitions, both in team and individual events to cater for what we believe will be growing numbers of these players.

If this takes off perhaps it can be copied at a national level in the national club, counties and even congresses. Maybe a small rake from entry fees of these can go towards a pot of money to assist the funding of our senior international representatives.

There would need to have some qualifying rules for this so as to avoid the likes of me being able to apply for assistance. Unless of course I earned it through a qualifying competition.

John McKenna

Re: ECF International budget

Post by John McKenna » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:57 pm

Jonathan, why ask only what the ECF can do - why not broaden the search (as Keith himself has tried to do elsewhere on this forum).

If Keith or any other top player made a personal request for donations - for a specific purpose - at a tournament I was attending I'd be likely, depending on the exact nature of the request - to make a contrib.
Being a senior now I'd like to see Keith go to the 50+ EU Individuals, for example.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:47 pm

John,

by all means support Keith if you want to do so. That is your business. But the ECF actually has responsibility for funding English chess as it can within its means; and the means are currently taken (with some compulsion) from active chess players (including senior chess players, and players who pay vast sums of their own money to represent ECF in European Club Cup, etc). That is why I call specifically for a debate on ECF priorities. They have seemed lopsided for quite some time now, and were probably so when Loz was International Director as well.

John McKenna

Re: ECF International budget

Post by John McKenna » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:05 pm

Jonathan, I think I agree with all that you and Ihor have written above.
I do not wish to distract people from the thrust of your argument. It is simply that I thought it better to post here. Maybe I should not have posted but instead posted a slightly different version in Keith's personal appeal thread, as I originally intended.
(Have to go now but may rectify that later if you think I am leading the debate (inadvertently) astray.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:17 pm

John McKenna wrote:If Keith or any other top player made a personal request for donations - for a specific purpose - at a tournament I was attending I'd be likely, depending on the exact nature of the request - to make a contrib.
Not sure I understand this: Keith made the request here clear and loud, is your contribution on his way then?

David Sedgwick
Posts: 5249
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: ECF International budget

Post by David Sedgwick » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:32 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
John McKenna wrote:If Keith or any other top player made a personal request for donations - for a specific purpose - at a tournament I was attending I'd be likely, depending on the exact nature of the request - to make a contrib.
Not sure I understand this: Keith made the request here clear and loud, is your contribution on his way then?
In fairness to John, yes his contribution is.
John McKenna (in the other thread) wrote:I'd better put money where my mouth is and pledge the same amount - £50.
(I'll PM Keith and promise not to misuse any personal info he divulges to me.)

John McKenna

Re: ECF International budget

Post by John McKenna » Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:43 pm

I am sure that Paolo was just checking that I was not offering surreptitious advice.
(No hard feelings, Paolo, I always appreciate your contributions even if I sometimes disagree in an annoying way.)

David, thank you for your intercession on my behalf.

I salute you and your fellow arbiters - even though I may not always agree with your decisions I will accept them.

[In The Day the Earth Stood Still - or when the clocks stopped ticking - the alien visitor Mr. Klaatu explained that to keep the peace they had "created a race of robots" - policemen to enforce that peace. I am sorry to say that one day our arbiters will all be replaced by 'arbots' (can't wait to see certain players arguing the toss with machines). Until that day, long may our human arbiters continue to try to ensure fair play.]

Edit: I have PM'd Keith Arkell but have not had a reply yet - I'll keep people informed but not in this thread.
.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:09 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote: But the ECF actually has responsibility for funding English chess as it can within its means; and the means are currently taken (with some compulsion) from active chess players (including senior chess players, and players who pay vast sums of their own money to represent ECF in European Club Cup, etc). That is why I call specifically for a debate on ECF priorities. They have seemed lopsided for quite some time now, and were probably so when Loz was International Director as well.
The ECF already demands compulsory membership for taking part in FIDE rated events and at a higher cost as well. I'd imagine the surcharge is nowhere near enough to finance even the existing International expenditure. A logical place to raise additional money to be ring fenced for broader International support would be to reimpose fees for FIDE rating and even load them to take a cut for the ECF. Those who speak for the 4NCL and e2e4 are adamantly against any form of pay-as-you-go charging even though rating fees or equivalent are an integral part of the financing of both FIDE and many national Federations.

We should perhaps recall that part of the DCMS grant and the various financing dating from the early 1970s was to support English activity in international chess.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1186
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:43 pm

John McKenna wrote:I am sure that Paolo was just checking that I was not offering surreptitious advice.
(No hard feelings, Paolo, I always appreciate your contributions even if I sometimes disagree in an annoying way.)
No worries, I'm a big fan of people "placing their wallet where their mouth is" (do you have such an expression in English?).
My hat's off to you.
In fact, my fault for not cross-checking posts before trying to be smart.

John McKenna

Re: ECF International budget

Post by John McKenna » Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:38 pm

Thanks Paolo - we say "put your money where your mouth is".
One "needs eyes in the back of one's head" in order not to miss things here.

PeterFarr
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:20 pm
Location: Horsham, Sussex

Re: ECF International budget

Post by PeterFarr » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:47 pm

It would be easier to respond to Jonathan's original question if it were possible to get a good view of the cost of each of the options. For example, how does the cost of having the top 2 open players for the Olympiad compare to funding a women's team, or say, a team for the European seniors?

I guess it might be difficult to get to a precise figure, and also it might be preferable to keep the terms for GMs confidential etc.?

At the moment if you go to the ECF website, you are invited to make a contribution towards 2014 Olympiad funds (also, you are still invited to donate towards the "2014.. European team championships in Poland", which says something about how much effort is put into this). There is no indication of how much money is required, and there is also no indication of how much was raised by donations towards the European (presumably it will be somewhere in next years accounts).

I would like to see the ECF be much more active and open here, for example (this is off the top of my head so I'm sure there are cleverer ideas):-

(1) Instead of just a donate button on the website, which is a very passive tool on a site that doesn't get that much traffic, why not e:mail members, or advertise elsewhere online, for donated funds. If Keith Arkell can do it for himself on the EC Forum, why can't the ECF as a whole do it? (ok well maybe Keith is more popular...)

(2) Rather than just make a vague appeal for funds, an approximate target figure could be set for each team / event, stating how much is needed to fund each. Obviously some of each target could be met by sponsorship or other sources than pure donations.

(3) It could be made possible to tag donations to specify which event the donor wishes to support (possibly a bit complex this - not sure you want a refund option if one team doesn't materialize, but maybe have some default back-up / transfer option?).

(4) Regular running totals showing progress could be shown - the kind of thing everyone is familiar with through charity sites such as "justgiving", so that we all know what the shortfalls look like.

One of the advantages I'm trying to create is to side-step the slightly arid kind of debate we had last Autumn on the forum about where the funding should go - the idea is to put your money where your mouth is and decide that way. Admittedly it's not necessarily very democratic, to the extent that it won't reflect preferences of those members that have paid their dues towards the base international budget, but not donated extra, but maybe it's better than the current approach, which I guess is just Board-dictated.

Anyway, just a thought. You might not get a huge amount of extra donations, but equally, I'm not suggesting anything that should cost fortune to try out.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:20 pm

It certainly is difficult to discuss things in straightforward terms when the players' fees (partly raised through compulsory membership) are treated as a state secret. I don't know them either, though have heard rumours, speculations and estimates of 5 K for each of Nigel and Adams, and nearer 1.5-2 K for each of Howell and Gawain. All plus expenses of course.

What I actually think they should do is to decide the proper proportions of the budget in principle. What the ECF should be supporting as a matter of fairness and strategic priorities. And this can be done in an open, transparent way without needing to talk about Nigel's fee, etc. Eg, one might decide

50% mens olympiad team (including everything, coach etc)
25% womens olympiad team (as above)
15% senior chess
5% european club cup
5% miscellaneous international events (University competition abroad?)

It could change from year to year - it might be less than that above for the main international teams in years when the olympiad is held, but more than that above in years when it is the more expensive european team chs.

Anyway, having done that, THEN you decide what the amount of international budget actually is, depending on the money left over from more pressing matters. Then you allocate that cash as above.

THEN if extra money is needed to make any of the above viable, you advertise for sponsorship and now you actually tell people what is needed, and of course people should be free to donate on the condition that their money goes to their preferred cause.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:47 am

Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Anyway, having done that, THEN you decide what the amount of international budget actually is, depending on the money left over from more pressing matters. Then you allocate that cash as above.
There has been a proposed split of the ECF into "professional" and "amateur" for at least six years, without there being any real progress. Where you put "International Senior" if it's proposed to pay players to compete remains to be seen.

To place in context, the ECF or financial supporters of the ECF might be able to get some tax breaks by it converting into a charity or equivalent. The downside is that if it does this it isn't allowed to support "professional sport" or given the Bridge VAT ruling, "professional games", hence the potential need to split into two or more. Funding issues were raised by previous ECF Boards as something to resolve, little has been made public about any progress in their resolution.

Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: ECF International budget

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:20 am

That's the next stage in the argument: getting people to accept that even if professional chess is worth supporting, and even if the national body should facilitate sponsorship opportunities for them, it is not the function of the national body actually to provide the money itself from the pockets of those who are forced to become members just to play the game themselves. And that is even before we get to the charity issues which Roger mentions.

To clarify, the international budget should be spent on strategic priorities, and to offer support (if only symbolic support) to those who are prepared to represent the ECF and are worthy to do so. This is not at all the same as offering financial opportunities for our top players. Significant expenditure for our mes's team from the international budget can only be justified to the extent that it raises the profile of the game in the country, encourages younger players to aspire to play for England, and is of broader interest among the English chess playing cmmunity who can now watch the games live. To be honest, only the latter is any kind of sensible justification at all. There is no publicity for our team, and there cannot be if even our best tean never finishes higher than 15th, and it is probably a disservice to encourage younger players, who are mostly capable of entering all sorts of careers, to encourage them in a chess career unless they are genuine Adams calibre.

So we should have to rely heavily on donations to field the sort of internatonal teams which we would like to see. It is as simple as that.

The womens' team is different. We desperately need more women to play the game, and it is possible for them to aspire to play for England without having to sacrifice other life opportunities. That is why it was so appalling that last year, not only was all the international budget allocated to the ECC/Olympiad without (it seems) any kind of reasoning process, but also that it was subdivided so heavily in favour of the men's team when it was arguably the women's team that was a greater strategic priority (from the ECF's point of view; of course private donors are entitled to have their own priorities).

Post Reply