English Chess Forum

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:04 pm

International is over budget because of expenditure related to the European Individuals - based on results, we did get our money's worth this time.

What counts as getting our money's worth? Are there performance targets?

Just out of interest, what is the accounting basis for the Budgets? How, for example, does the first year's expenditure on the British Blitz fall in 2017-18, other than on a Cash and/or commitment basis?

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:41 pm

How, for example, does the first year's expenditure on the British Blitz fall in 2017-18, other than on a Cash and/or commitment basis?

There's a certain amount of sense, if cautious sense, that when you announce a new event, you set aside funds to pay for it.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:47 pm

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:41 pm

How, for example, does the first year's expenditure on the British Blitz fall in 2017-18, other than on a Cash and/or commitment basis?

There's a certain amount of sense, if cautious sense, that when you announce a new event, you set aside funds to pay for it.

That's answering a slightly different question, isn't it? What you're effectively doing is budgeting for a surplus. You're not actually spending the money in 2017-18. Maybe a distinction without a difference, but has the potential to cause a mess if accounting treatment isn't applied consistently.

EDIT: although as it's matched by sponsorship it's no more than a technicality.

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:56 pm

EDIT: although as it's matched by sponsorship it's no more than a technicality.

If they've already received or accrued the sponsorship, if they don't "spend" it, it creates a surplus.

What bothers me rather more is whether there's a get out of jail on VAT and Corporation Tax. Lets's suppose the ECF wants to set aside money for a rainy day and looks for a whip around among its members to achieve this. For every £ 10 it requires in additional membership fees, it loses £ 2 immediately in VAT if it's not spending. Of the remaining £ 8, again if it isn't spending, it loses another 20% in Corporation Tax. So the membership surcharge of £ 10 only results in an additional £ 6.40 in reserves.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:13 pm

Richard Bates wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:56 pm

EDIT: although as it's matched by sponsorship it's no more than a technicality.

If they've already received or accrued the sponsorship, if they don't "spend" it, it creates a surplus.

What bothers me rather more is whether there's a get out of jail on VAT and Corporation Tax. Lets's suppose the ECF wants to set aside money for a rainy day and looks for a whip around among its members to achieve this. For every £ 10 it requires in additional membership fees, it loses £ 2 immediately in VAT if it's not spending. Of the remaining £ 8, again if it isn't spending, it loses another 20% in Corporation Tax. So the membership surcharge of £ 10 only results in an additional £ 6.40 in reserves.

I was assuming that the sponsorship would be accounted for in the same year as the spend (hence where it is shown for the purposes of budgeting/management accounts doesn't really matter), but I suppose that might not necessarily be so.

Hopefully all Gold Members will have been sent an email today, through the ECF Office (many thanks to Andrew), from myself and Roger Emerson as Gold Members Reps. Please do take a minute or 2 to read it and let us know your views.

It was good to have a well put together set of views in my inbox. Will get back.

The National Club Championships held at Telford last weekend were a shambles. The ECF has done little to promote the tournament and now, according to the budget for Home Chess, this historic competition has been abandoned completely. Shame, but after last week’s bedlam there’s little wonder.

That's a great pity. Can you give more details?
Was the organisation the problem, or did some (or not enough) teams not turn up, or was it both?

David Gilbert wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 1:20 pm

The National Club Championships held at Telford last weekend were a shambles.

Agreed. I wasn't going to comment publicly, as the organisers have a thankless task, but this year, in my opinion, the administration of the event was way below acceptable standards.

1. Not one of the four rounds started on time.
2. the draw wasn’t ready most of the time
3. The website wasn’t kept up to date during the tournament after the first round, and the online or paper tables weren’t available
4. In the Intermediate the tournament changed from a Swiss to a triangular in the last round, using the 4NCL model, but only 1 round of the 2 round model that meant that two of the teams in contention were given “up-floats” meaning that they ended up facing opposition over the average grading limit.
All we got was ‘sorry.’

Gary Cook wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:23 pm

1. Not one of the four rounds started on time.
2. the draw wasn’t ready most of the time
3. The website wasn’t kept up to date during the tournament after the first round, and the online or paper tables weren’t available
4. In the Intermediate the tournament changed from a Swiss to a triangular in the last round, using the 4NCL model, but only 1 round of the 2 round model that meant that two of the teams in contention were given “up-floats” meaning that they ended up facing opposition over the average grading limit.
All we got was ‘sorry.’

A fitting end. Disappointing it took two decades to get here. One gained from the dinosaurs

Getting back to the original topic, Council members should in theory be considering whether to approve the Budget. In practice, we know of course that they will. Looking ahead a few years, it is similar in shape to the one approved twelve months ago, with the advantage that it seems to be based on some solid numbers.

Once areas which fund themselves are netted off, the ECF's finances are broadly very simple. There is one source of income, which is membership fees. These are forecast to rise faster than they were last year, with Silvers the big area of growth. The basis for this optimism is not entirely clear, although the figures for this year to date are certainly encouraging. All rates are going up by £1 this year, once you take account of the removal of the online discount. This increase comes as a surprise.

The biggest expenditure is on the office - including the library, although following some outcry this is no longer shown as a separate item. I suspect that a large part of the office expenditure could be traced to the cost of administering memberships and know that this view is shared by some who, unlike me, have direct knowledge.

The other major recipient of membership fees is the national team, whose forecast annual receipt has risen to £43k. This will come as a disappointment, but probably not a surprise, to those who thought they had been assured that this was precisely what would not happen under the new regime. Nobody believes election promises, do they?

The funding of junior chess remains opaque, but in broad terms it will receive £20k pa, all going to the ECF Academy. I don't really know what they do with the money, which I expect is my fault, but in principle I would expect little opposition to this. They are the future, after all.

Finally, there is £5k pa for women's chess. This is a relatively small sum, so let's hope an effective way of spending it can be found. If the London group who are asking for it can produce a good business plan then it's nice to know the money exists, although it shouldn't all go to London.

In summary, compared with last year's Budget membership fees are going up and the contribution to the national team is going up. My impression is that the population of club players will not be best pleased by either, but I expect the Board are correct in their belief that they can get away with it.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:41 pm

I suspect that a large part of the office expenditure could be traced to the cost of administering memberships and know that this view is shared by some who, unlike me, have direct knowledge.

I get the impression that there's quite a bit of work the office do in maintaining and supporting the British Championship Congress. Whilst the Congress is usually budgeted to be self supporting in terms of direct costs, its effects on the ECF cost base should be known.