ECF Finance meeting 2018

[JustinHorton]

when you say "our collective pocket", we don't have a collective pocket

We do, in fact. We pay our subs and we have budgets and we have officials who decide how they shall be spent.

Exactly

Maybe don't say "exactly" when you've made a point and it's been entirely wrong, it gives a bad impression.

[Chris Goodall]

We do, in fact. We pay our subs and we have budgets and we have officials who decide how they shall be spent.

Exactly

Maybe don't say "exactly" when you've made a point and it's been entirely wrong, it gives a bad impression.

Uh-oh, I made a bad impression on someone who follows me around telling me I'm wrong about everything? I think I'll survive.

[Michael Farthing]

The English language is impeding the flow of thought methinks.

I suspect Chris means that the chess players of the world do not have a collective pocket but actually have one pocket each. He seems to think that these individual chess players should be allowed to support the professional game, or not, as they choose.

Justin however perceives the collective pocket as existing (perhaps in addition to the individual pockets) in some ethereal place, filled by the individual chessplayers from their individual pockets (or by some other means). This ethereal pocket is then administered on their behalf by officials appointed for the purpose by officials, who, in turn, have been appointed for the purpose of appointing officials, by officials of selected chess organisations who more often than not are appointed because they are the only ones prepared to do the job. (I confess that I belong to both the second and third layers of this hierarchy).

If we could concentrate on the fundamental difference of approach (should all chess players contribute to professionals or just those that want to) we might get to the heart of any agreement or disagreement without being distracted by the exact meaning and interpretation of the word "collective".

(Edited to change square brackets to round ones: the perverse software clearly tried, and failed, to interpret my square brackets as a bbCode italic. It missed the lot out and italicised the next paragraph, which looked rather good so I've retained that).

[NickFaulks]

The ECF's contribution to the European Team and the Olympiad works out, if my maths is correct, at a little less than £2 per member per annum.

£36,000 contribution to the 2018 Olympiad, on the back of about 9,000 adult members....

[Mike Truran]

Oops.

£36k (Olympiad) + £28k (European Teams) every two years, 10,000 or so members (per last page of budget papers), so just over £3 per member.

Still not unreasonable......

[Chris Goodall]

If we could concentrate on the fundamental difference of approach (should all chess players contribute to professionals or just those that want to) we might get to the heart of any agreement or disagreement without being distracted by the exact meaning and interpretation of the word "collective".

It ties in with how we expect élite chess to be funded. You can't separate the two. We need the members to keep the professional chess bubble inflated because the Olympiad and Euros don't bring in spectator revenue, and they don't bring in spectator revenue because fans expect to be able to watch them for free. That model works for schools and the NHS. It doesn't work for sport. The Sunday league footballers in Newcastle would be outraged if they were charged extra this weekend because Leyton Orient needed the cash. "Get some more fans!" they would say to Leyton Orient.

A game that you watch without paying for it is an amateur game, and paying professionals to play an amateur game is throwing money into a black hole. You have to have a better reason for throwing money into a black hole than "the fans like it". Of course the fans like it. They get free stuff, subsidised by the non-fans!

If we wanted to get some good publicity in return for throwing money into the black hole, then it's a no-brainer: de-fund the men, crank up the funding for the women. No-one's explained to me yet why we have to prioritise the men.

[Michael Farthing]

Well this is an area where we are not in accord, Mike.

Whether or not £3 is a lot, not a lot, reasonable or unreasonable is not what matters.
We should concentrate on the principle of whether the membership should be compelled to contribute.

However, some clue as to whether it is 'reasonable' might come if we knew the ansewer to this question:

If renewals went out with the option of paying a voluntary extra £3 to support the professional game what percentage of the membership would contribute that extra £3?

At the same time the following questions might be of interest:

If the renewals went out with the option of paying a voluntery extra £3 to support the chess academy.. [etc]
If the renewals went out with the option of paying a voluntary extra £3 to support local entry level junior chess.. etc
If the renewals went out with the option of paying a voluntary extra £9 for all of this...

..and if we had answers to all these questions I can hazard a guess which would bring in the most contributions amongst the silvers, and I don't think it would be the first one.

[Mike Truran]

I said a while back that it’s entirely within Council’s gift to strike out some or indeed all of the international spend, or to put member contributions to international teams on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis, or to make whatever arrangements it likes for international chess. If you and others feel so strongly about the matter, a motion to Council is surely very easily arranged.

[JustinHorton]

We should concentrate on the principle of whether the membership should be compelled to contribute.

Well we do have decision-making and consultative processes in the ECF. It might very well be worth debating.

[NickFaulks]

£36k (Olympiad) + £28k (European Teams) every two years, 10,000 or so members (per last page of budget papers), so just over £3 per member.

Still not unreasonable......

I'll stay with my figures for the current year, but whether it's £3 or £4 isn't the point. Nor is whether you think it's reasonable. The current regime was elected on a clear and explicit promise that membership fees would not be raised and the proceeds used to fund the national team. That was supposedly the policy of the previous International Director, for which he suffered brutal treatment. I shall not once again quote chapter and verse, because we all know where to find it.

Council members are entitled to ask the reason for this 180 degree turn in policy. When they do, I hope they will not be subjected to the same sneering dismissal by the Board, both at the meeting and in follow-up newspaper comment, that occurred last year.

[Mike Truran]

I'm afraid you've lost me. Membership fees are not being raised in the budget. Any increases later on in the budget cycle are intended to cover things like inflation, not to fund international teams - and in any event are subject to review and approval by Council. We said last time round that any extra discretionary spend on junior and international over and above the existing run rate will need to come from third party sources. David's covering paper makes that clear.

[NickFaulks]

I'm afraid you've lost me. Membership fees are not being raised in the budget.

Please don't go all Gordon Brown. The removal of a discount is an increase.

Any increases later on in the budget cycle are intended to cover things like inflation, not to fund international teams - and in any event are subject to review and approval by Council. We said last time round that any extra discretionary spend on junior and international over and above the existing run rate will need to come from third party sources. David's covering paper makes that clear.

But it isn't. The only conspicuous increase in expediture relates to the the national team, where last year's Budget showed £26.5k for the 2018 Olympiad. The new Budget has raised this to £36k, up 36 per cent. This is a big increase, surely worthy of some explanation.

[Mike Truran]

The £26.5k in the 2017/18 budget was for the European Teams, not the Olympiad. The figure for the Olympiad in the 2016/17 budget was £36k, the same figure as in the proposed 2018/19 budget.

[Michael Farthing]

I said a while back that it’s entirely within Council’s gift to strike out some or indeed all of the international spend, or to put member contributions to international teams on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis, or to make whatever arrangements it likes for international chess. If you and others feel so strongly about the matter, a motion to Council is surely very easily arranged.

Some day that might happen. (though any motion I brought would not be that draconian). It's one way of doing things.

Another way of doing things is to talk openly and freely about our concerns, listen to the views and concerns of others, and hope that the Board reflects on the overall message coming through, makes intelligent choices, and perhaps adjusts what it asks for in the light of what it has heard.

Personally I would prefer the second approach.
Actually, I think you would to.

[NickFaulks]

C26.7.2-201718-201718-Budget-version-v1-4-1.pdf

The £26.5k in the 2017/18 budget was for the European Teams, not the Olympiad. The figure for the Olympiad in the 2016/17 budget was £36k, the same figure as in the proposed 2018/19 budget.

Yes, but the amount shown last year for the 2018 Olympiad was £26,500, on the basis that external funds would make up any shortfall. That evidently hasn't happened, so this number has been increased to £36,000.