ECF demands more money

[David Robertson]

Frankly i think this is a pretty pathetic thread, full of innuendo that somehow the ECF is an organisation somehow out to enrich itself (for what purpose?), or anyway out to fleece the ordinary chessplayer. As well as the emotive use of the word "demands" when in this context (sadly) all the ECF Board actually have the power to do is "propose". One can only hope that the voting representatives at the Finance meeting will adopt a more mature attitude.

We need a separate forum for outbreaks of sanity

[John Townsend]

Richard Bates said (snipped):

I would note that (in relation to 2) ) comments about inflation being "0%"
should be treated with contempt. The ECF is a small enough organisation that
the inflation on its various costs should be easily quantified without
reference to broadbrush national indicators (how much does the ECF spend on
fuel ?- the main reason why inflation is running at 0%).

What kind of annual percentage does Richard Bates consider would reflect the ECF's increase in costs?

As I mentioned yesterday the "game fee" has increased by 323.73% in the last few years.

[benedgell]

My personal opinion is that the amount the ECF is asking for as an increase really isn't an especially big deal. The big issue that I have is why the ECF is asking for the increase. It might be speculation but I wonder if its linked to item 17 on the agenda, r.e. the Olympiad budget.

[Angus French]

My personal opinion is that the amount the ECF is asking for as an increase really isn't an especially big deal. The big issue that I have is why the ECF is asking for the increase. It might be speculation but I wonder if its linked to item 17 on the agenda, r.e. the Olympiad budget.

The next Olympiad falls in the 2016/17 FY and it's the budget for 2015/16 which Council will be asked to approve... However, funding of participation in the next European Team Championships will be needed for 2015/16.

I think Richard B is right that we should wait for sight of the supporting papers and these should be available "at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897 by no later than midday on Saturday 28 March" (recent email to Council members from ECF Company Secretary, John Philpott).

That said, the Finance Director's Report to last year's Finance meeting did suggest a wish of the Board to build up reserves to £100K. A notional budget for 2015/16 was also produced.

[David Gilbert]

My personal opinion is that the amount the ECF is asking for as an increase really isn't an especially big deal. The big issue that I have is why the ECF is asking for the increase. It might be speculation but I wonder if its linked to item 17 on the agenda, r.e. the Olympiad budget.

The next Olympiad falls in the 2016/17 FY and it's the budget for 2015/16 which Council will be asked to approve... However, funding of participation in the next European Team Championships will be needed for 2015/16.

I think Richard B is right that we should wait for sight of the supporting papers and these should be available "at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897 by no later than midday on Saturday 28 March" (recent email to Council members from ECF Company Secretary, John Philpott).

That said, the Finance Director's Report to last year's Finance meeting did suggest a wish of the Board to build up reserves to £100K. A notional budget for 2015/16 was also produced.

It seems sensible to await the new strategy document and other papers before passing judgement.

There are some forceful advocates on Council for the full funding of Olympiad and representative teams; others lobby loudly to save and indeed expand the National Chess Library at any cost; the Board itself has a strong focus on chess for juniors and the development of the Academy; there are Managers for chess for seniors, chess for people with disabilities and chess in prisons, yet there is no nationally available funding to draw upon to support innovative ideas to promote chess among these populations.

Council might be embarrassed if they reject the proposed increases yet continue to campaign for extra resources to be diverted towards their pet priorities.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not only does the ECF want to put membership costs up in 2015-16, it also wants increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

See the Forecast and Budget Spreadsheet

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... udget.xlsx

[Carl Hibbard]

Not only does the ECF want to put membership costs up in 2015-16, it also wants increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

See the Forecast and Budget Spreadsheet

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... udget.xlsx

The cost of the system is interesting.

[Mike Truran]

Not only does the ECF want to put membership costs up in 2015-16, it also wants increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Well, that's sort of why Council is there, isn't it? If it doesn't like the justification for the increases, it will presumably reject the proposal. If it does, it will accept it. Either way, a post from you with no context as to why the increases are being proposed is hardly helpful.

[LawrenceCooper]

Food for thought in terms of the forthcoming international team events:

2. The budgeted income for the 2015 European Team Championship is £11,000 of which the International Director expects to raise
£6,000 himself and is looking to the Chief Executive to raise £2,000 and others, including the Commercial Director and President to raise
£3,000. For subsequent Olympiads and European Team Championships, the budgeted income has been substantially reduced to £2,500,
assuming a little sponsorship, and no individual donations as the ECF should not rely on these indefinitely for its primary team
events. The Board will need to discuss the extent to which the reduction in budgeted income can be made good by increased
membership fees.

[Roger de Coverly]

Either way, a post from you with no context as to why the increases are being proposed is hardly helpful.

I don't think the ECF have explained the context of the increases either. I could speculate (see LawrenceCooper's post) that it's to pay for the International team.

[Mike Truran]

We rarely see eye to eye, but on this one I cannot but agree with you. I have been banging on to the ECF Board for some time now (with little or no success) about what I perceive as their abject failure to communicate effectively.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Not only does the ECF want to put membership costs up in 2015-16, it also wants increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Well, that's sort of why Council is there, isn't it? If it doesn't like the justification for the increases, it will presumably reject the proposal. If it does, it will accept it. Either way, a post from you with no context as to why the increases are being proposed is hardly helpful.

I’m not so bothered about the increase per se. Like Richard Bates I don’t see why the ECF’s inflation rate would necessarily be the same as (or even close to) the headline figure.

Actually, if it were down to me and were it a perfect world I’d like the membership fee to be much higher in order that the ECF could do more.

That said the the system of Council passing or rejecting the proposed budget is inherently problematic. It’s not council who’ll have to pay what they agree to is it?

It’s a simple 'taxation without representation' problem.

[Chris Rice]

Not only does the ECF want to put membership costs up in 2015-16, it also wants increases in 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Well, that's sort of why Council is there, isn't it? If it doesn't like the justification for the increases, it will presumably reject the proposal. If it does, it will accept it. Either way, a post from you with no context as to why the increases are being proposed is hardly helpful.

I’m not so bothered about the increase per se. Like Richard Bates I don’t see why the ECF’s inflation rate would necessarily be the same as (or even close to) the headline figure.

Actually, if it were down to me and were it a perfect world I’d like the membership fee to be much higher in order that the ECF could do more.

That said the the system of Council passing or rejecting the proposed budget is inherently problematic. It’s not council who’ll have to pay what they agree to is it?

It’s a simple 'taxation without representation' problem.

I'd echo that Jon. I don't have an issue with the level of the fees. The basic point to me is that the ECF can't run without our membership fees yet members get no real say in the running of it. I want a vote. I don't want to be fobbed off with some members representative acting like some kind of fourth official at a football match, I don't want to rely on Council acting in my best interests, I want an actual vote in the running of the ECF that I am helping to fund. Why is that so difficult to put into practice?

[Mick Norris]

Food for thought in terms of the forthcoming international team events:

2. The budgeted income for the 2015 European Team Championship is £11,000 of which the International Director expects to raise £6,000 himself and is looking to the Chief Executive to raise £2,000 and others, including the Commercial Director and President to raise £3,000. For subsequent Olympiads and European Team Championships, the budgeted income has been substantially reduced to £2,500, assuming a little sponsorship, and no individual donations as the ECF should not rely on these indefinitely for its primary team events. The Board will need to discuss the extent to which the reduction in budgeted income can be made good by increased membership fees.

Is there any mention about the Senior teams, where we have a chance of actually winning something?
And, are we referring here, again, to the men getting most of the money and the women getting very little?
Have we any idea of what Council thinks about this or, more importantly, what individual ECF members think?

[Roger de Coverly]

Have we any idea of what Council thinks about this or, more importantly, what individual ECF members think?

Other than by reading about it here or at the main ECF site, how would an individual ECF member even know that increases were proposed? The latest edition of Chess-Moves announces the Finance meeting and suggests that issues can be raised, but doesn't mention that the ECF Directors have made a policy change in how the ECF will attempt to finance its activities.

Some members of Council have in the past spoken in opposition to expenditure on International Chess, if indeed that is the background to the proposed increases.