Ask the CEO

[Roger de Coverly]

It may surprise you to learn that chess tournaments cost money to run.

Congress organisers are taking a risk. They can advertise high prize funds in the hope of attracting entries. If they fail to deliver these prize funds for whatever reason, then their reputation will suffer, particularly when they try to cover up the withdrawal of the prize funds.

But the ECF CEO still seems misinformed. If the £ 1000 support was independent of the ECF, why not say so, when the issue was first raised?

[Jonathan Bryant]

e2e4 Chess received an underwrite from a personal sponsor on 11 January 2014 to support the event in the event of receiving fewer than 48 entries. ... That amount was paid to e2e4 Chess some days later via the ECF ....

Out of interest, why would the ECF get involved with this? Why did the 'personal sponsor' not just give e2e4 the money directly?

[Michael Flatt]

e2e4 Chess received an underwrite from a personal sponsor on 11 January 2014 to support the event in the event of receiving fewer than 48 entries. ... That amount was paid to e2e4 Chess some days later via the ECF ....

Out of interest, why would the ECF get involved with this? Why did the 'personal sponsor' not just give e2e4 the money directly?

It was an ECF event.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/expressi ... mpionship/

[Jonathan Bryant]

It was an ECF event.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/expressi ... mpionship/

I knew that. That doesn’t per se explain why the ECF was acting as a conduit for private funding.

[Michael Flatt]

It was an ECF event.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/expressi ... mpionship/

I knew that. That doesn’t per se explain why the ECF was acting as a conduit for private funding.

The donor gave the money to the ECF to underwrite the cost of the event.
It is normal that the money would go through their account.
What is the problem?

[Jonathan Bryant]

What is the problem?

Well, for a start here we are some time after the event suddenly debating whether the ECF did or did not spend money on it.

Also, you’re statement "The donor gave the money to the ECF to underwrite the cost of the event" may well be true, but Sean’s post implies that there was a private agreement between the sponsor and ECF. So my question is *why* did the donor give the money to the ECF and not to e2e4 directly?

[Michael Flatt]

What is the problem?

Well, for a start here we are some time after the event suddenly debating whether the ECF did or did not spend money on it.

Also, you’re statement "The donor gave the money to the ECF to underwrite the cost of the event" may well be true, but Sean’s post implies that there was a private agreement between the sponsor and ECF. So my question is *why* did the donor give the money to the ECF and not to e2e4 directly?

It is possible that e2-e4 may have found a benefactor to underwrite the cost of the event but it was the donor's prerogative to either pay the money to the ECF or to e2-e4. Only the donor can give a definitive answer to your question.

It seems to me that passing the money to the ECF keeps everything above board. It provides an Audit Trail.

So, Phil Ehr's response is correct in that the ECF paid an agreed amount to e2-e4 as a contribution to the costs of the event.

[Jonathan Bryant]

It seems to me that passing the money to the ECF keeps everything above board. It provides an Audit Trail.

Well that’s one way of looking at it - although it’s not clear to me why the ECF necessarily needs to provide an audit trail for money that’s part of an agreement between a private individual and a private organisation.

I’d have much more confidence in this,

So, Phil Ehr's response is correct ....

If I hadn’t previously read this ...

... what Phil said was not true.

Have we arrived in a position where a statement is both true and untrue? If so that strikes as somewhat unsatisfactory.

[John McKenna]

So, Phil Ehr's response is correct in that the ECF paid an agreed amount to e2-e4 as a contribution to the costs of the event.

However it should be pointed out that, once again, Phil has the actual sum of money wrong -

Actually Matthew got the question wrong saying £175 which did not help and Phil then squirmed away with a go legal on us option.

Matthew's slip of the tongue was unfortunate, but I thought the answer was clear enough.

Lawrence has given it above, but I'll repeat it.

The prizes were £750.

Phil had previously said that the ECF had contributed £1000 to the prize fund, but that was incorrect. The actual contribution was £750...

Now we are being told that the sum 'contributed' was not £750 but £1,000.

The actual disbursement of the monies has been explained, above, but the confusion engendered by this matter has not.

Why was it not sorted out long ago in a straightforward manner?

That's a rhetorical question because those involved must have their own reasons, which are unlikely to be revealed, for dealing with it in this way. Or is it just standard practice at the ECF to make things less clear than they should be?

[Michael Flatt]

The actual figures involved are confirmed in Roger's earlier post.

e2e4 supplied accounts as agreed and drew down all of that £1000 support on 14 April 2014.

So £ 1000 was paid as support and £ 750 was paid in prizes.

[John McKenna]

That leads me to repeat -

The actual disbursement of the monies has been explained, above, but the confusion engendered by this matter has not.

[Adam Raoof]

what happened to my question on the thread about Guildford Academy? What happened to the thread?!

[Michael Flatt]

what happened to my question on the thread about Guildford Academy? What happened to the thread?!

I believe that the Moderator on the ECF Forum removed it because Guildford Academy could not provide a named contact.

[Kevin Thurlow]

If the ECF want a reason not to publish the Minutes, they could try this

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/myth-busting ... inutes.htm

[John Upham]

This one caught my attention:

Case 6 - historical re-enactment society told there were regulations for chopping vegetables in a public place