April 2016 Council meeting

[NickFaulks]

The thing is, in his election address to last October's AGM, Malcolm very clearly set expectations to raise money for upcoming international team events

Precisely. It seems very odd that, only a few months after the ID was elected on his ( reasonable ) claim that he would raise money for England's national teams, we are being asked to approve a budget including substantial fee increases which is predicated upon his failure to do so.

[Sean Hewitt]

At present my inclination is to vote against proposal A on the basis that the Board should not be landing a decision like this on us at such short notice and that in the absence of a mandate my responsibiltiy is to vote for no change.

I agree entirely.

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com'è bisogna che tutto cambi"

I agree entirely

[NickFaulks]

I wonder whether the ECF could give a commitment that if Malcolm is successful in raising the necessary funds, any fee increases will be immediately rescinded. Would a credit towards next year be too much to ask?

[Roger de Coverly]

The increased fees seems a last minute decision.

In
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ersion.pdf
we see

c)
Board recommendations for Membership and Game Fee Rates
It was agreed nem con to recommend no change for the coming year, to be reviewed again
for the following year.

however there's a note attached

1
As a result of additional expenditure requests received, an additional Board meeting is being held on 31 March to revisit the budget and the recommendation on rates to be made to Council

These additional requests seem to be

(1) more support for International chess from the broad base of players- This is not just the European and Olympiad teams, but also Senior events and others.

(2) additional support for Junior chess and training. It's an arguable view that this should be raised by fees or otherwise across the Junior chess activity, not by a levy on adult club players.

(3) additional costs of monthly grading, the League Management System expenditure being seen as a prerequisite.

Rather than being agreed line by line, the Board strategy has been to present them as all or nothing.

[Michael Farthing]

Rather than being agreed line by line, the Board strategy has been to present them as all or nothing.

This also concerns me. Strikes me as a Lloyd George budget technique.

[Mike Truran]

No doubt Council will accept or reject the Board's recommendations as it sees fit. That is entirely within Council's right. It is also entirely within the Board's right to make proposals for Council to accept or reject as it sees fit.

It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man for Council to have a debate about which parts of the budget it likes and doesn't like.

How hard can this be?

[JustinHorton]

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com'è bisogna che tutto cambi"

That looks familiar...

[PeterFarr]

No doubt Council will accept or reject the Board's recommendations as it sees fit. That is entirely within Council's right. It is also entirely within the Board's right to make proposals for Council to accept or reject as it sees fit.

It doesn't seem beyond the wit of man for Council to have a debate about which parts of the budget it likes and doesn't like.

How hard can this be?

Have to confess I gave feedback to my council rep based on the individual elements rather than option (a) or (b), on the assumption that the best answer is somewhere in between. I didn't get the impression that the Board was saying, "do this or the sky will fall down"; the presentation of options seems quite transparent, though I agree more time would have been useful.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com'è bisogna che tutto cambi"

That looks familiar...

Oh dear. Veering really off-topic now, I see you link there to a tweet by Malola Prasath. I played him once in a TVL match (when he was playing for Ealing) and also shared a bus ride with him to a 4NCL weekend last season (or maybe the season before). Interesting to see what he tweets about:

https://twitter.com/malolaprasath

That reminded me of the Chris Ross simultaneous, which I should really mention in the blindfold chess thread (though it is not exactly the same as a pure blindfold simul, there are similarities).

[John McKenna]

Rather than being agreed line by line, the Board strategy has been to present them as all or nothing.

This also concerns me. Strikes me as a Lloyd George budget technique.

Lloyd George gave a speech at Limehouse (July 1909) in which he said that "a fully-equipped duke cost as much to keep up as two dreadnoughts (battleships)" – but was "much less easy to scrap".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget

In this case the "fully-equipped duke" could be the ECF office and the "two dreadnoughts" International and Junior Chess.

Not sure what the parallel for the League Management System might be... unless it's the 1911 Parliament Act?

[John Hickman]

"Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com'è bisogna che tutto cambi"

That looks familiar...

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery

[David Pardoe]

I`m tempted to suggest that if money`s are not available to send out our strongest teams, we should scale back and send a more modest representation, maybe giving some `new faces` a chance to gain some useful experience..
Fund raising is never an easy matter, so all initiatives should be tried to encourage support.
Maybe have a subscription/donation option on all congress entry forms with a donation box for our national teams..
I`d like to see our GMs and other senior players go out and fly the flag...maybe give some `public simultaineous` events to raise monies.
I`m sure that some open air events could be arranged in shopping malls, maybe including the Arndale Centre, Trafford Centre, other major shopping malls. This might also be used as a way of promoting local club chess across our regions....perhaps including these events as part of Summer Fairs. They would certainly attract great interest, and if a charge of say £5 per board was levied, along with donation buckets, and maybe a bookstall, it could be a good publication and promotion of our noble cultural game/sport. Maybe an offer could be included, signing up prospective new players for ECF membership at a discount, if they sign up for membership of local clubs..perhaps.
We certainly need to encourage new membership and more take-up of chess...and to take chess to joe public as a game they can enjoy without necessarily aspiring to the dizzy heights of GM,, but who knows how far a new player can progress with the right encouragement.

On another tac... I`d like to see this `proposed` move to `monthly grades` scraped... its just a gimmick in my view, which very few players would gain from, or are really interested in.. Yes, I`m not against having an extra grading column which says `moving average`, if you want to flag up current form for those who play shed loads of chess, or for those aspiring juniors who might be rapidly improving.

Next.. we really should do more to promote our wide selection of chess offerings...to all classes, age groups, and abilities. I`m particularly keen to see some initiatives to encourage greater support for our County chess offerings. These events provide great chessing and big, 16 board, team chess matches for teams of all levels. These Saturday afternoon chess events, played at sensible time rates, enable some good competitive battles across neighbouring regions, at low costs, where games can be played out into good endgames, without those dreadful blitz, clock, pot luck shootouts, that you often get in our league chess..

I note with sadness the recent passing of Cyril Johnson, a terrific advocate of chess, and prime mover of our counties competitions over many years.
If there is one thing chess needs right now, it is more volunteers, at all levels, who can give a little of there time to help keep the wheels turning at all levels.. Its coming up to that time of year when AGMs take place. Clubs, leagues, County bodies, and National bodies, up and down the country, are very keen to hear from any players who can help. Most posts require a willing pair of hands, and much assistance and advice is available to those who would volunteer. Without these volunteers, our chess activities can quite quickly decline.
Players interested should ask local chess officials for details of upcoming AGMs and what posts might need to be filled..and also check League, Club and County/Union websites. Make a phone call to officials to find out more...
One such post, which awaits a volunteer, is County Captain for the Manchester `Open` Team...just to take one example from the North West.
The MCF would like to hear from players who might help....there are plenty of potential players available to play, just need a couple of volunteers to get the show on the road.
Incidentally, we could potentially put out a very strong team(s), if we made the National Finals stages.. I`m sure. And this could produce some high octaine matches.. But its not just about block buster clashes of titanic armies.....

[Angus French]

I`m tempted to suggest that if money`s are not available to send out our strongest teams, we should scale back and send a more modest representation, maybe giving some `new faces` a chance to gain some useful experience..

I agree with this. At last year's Finance Council meeting, I believe David Openshaw said that the budget for the 2016 Olympiad teams included circa £16K in appearance fees for the Open team players. Personally I'd prefer it if less was spent on appearance fees and we gave more support to up-and-coming players. It's not as though, with our strongest possible team, we're going to be in contention for medals. I'd like, for example, to see the British Champion, Jonathan Hawkins, selected to play.

[Richard Bates]

I`m tempted to suggest that if money`s are not available to send out our strongest teams, we should scale back and send a more modest representation, maybe giving some `new faces` a chance to gain some useful experience..

I agree with this. At last year's Finance Council meeting, I believe David Openshaw said that the budget for the 2016 Olympiad teams included circa £16K in appearance fees for the Open team players. Personally I'd prefer it if less was spent on appearance fees and we gave more support to up-and-coming players. It's not as though, with our strongest possible team, we're going to be in contention for medals. I'd like, for example, to see the British Champion, Jonathan Hawkins, selected to play.

What makes you think he'd be much cheaper...?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Dare I ask how much you would charge if you won the British Championship?