English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:49 am

I would be interested in the experience of other countries who have sought to fund teams of professionals in this way.

It's my understanding that's basically the way the Australian and Canadian teams are financed. At the very least the players aren't out of pocket for travel expenses and spending money. ( It's worth remembering that basic accommodation costs for the Olympiad are paid for by the hosts)

You do hear of other countries having difficulty funding their national teams. Despite being one of the world's Federations with the most players, the Germans were short of money for one Olympiad, but did actually send teams, albeit not as strong as usual. More recently the team representing Israel has either been absent or not up to its usual strength.

Michael Farthing wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:29 am

A number of silver members have argued to us against membership fee increaes on the basis that the ECF directors were undoubtedly over-paid.

I know you can't be specific, but I would be disappointed if any were from the London area. I intend to send something to all London League clubs after the meeting and would be happy to disabuse them of this belief, if it is held.

I wasn't wanting to imply that it's a widely held belief, but I think it probably is also not widely known that they receive nothing. When such comments do come they do get a reply (though hardly any of this time's respondents have got a reply yet - they will eventually - just to reassure any that are here. Encouragingly there has been a goodly number).

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:51 am

the two strongest English players post Adams (Sadler and McShane)

The current English number 1 might have something to say about that

To clarify this, I meant in terms of appearance on the scene (ie Short predates Adams by being slightly older).

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:34 pm

(ie Short predates Adams by being slightly older).

It's about 6 years (1965 v 1971). Nigel first came to prominence in the immediate aftermath of the 1972 match and along with Julian who is about two years older, demonstrated that you could be a decent chess player even while your age was in single figures.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:34 pm

To clarify this, I meant in terms of appearance on the scene (ie Short predates Adams by being slightly older).

True, but David Howell post-dates Adams by a considerable time...

Andrew at the ECF Office has kindly just sent a message (provided to him this afternoon) to ECF Bronze members about this Saturday's Finance Council meeting. A copy of the message is available here. Some supporting documents can be found here.

Angus French wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:34 pm

People ask: what do I get for the cost of membership?

There can be no answer to that question - it's not ECF policy that there be an answer to that question. They have never pretended to give members £1 worth of benefits in return for £1 worth of contributions, even when grading was a difficult thing to do.

You're supposed to think of it like taxation: everyone pays into a central fund, and then in a totally separate transaction, the keepers of the central fund spend the money on stuff that benefits the least fortunate. And the least fortunate turn out, surprisingly often, to be the people already at the top of the pile threatening to switch allegiance to Switzerland, not the people at the bottom.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:49 pm

They have never pretended to give members £1 worth of benefits in return for £1 worth of contributions

It's the same really for every national sporting or cultural body that doesn't have any or enough external financing from sponsorship or government. Quite a bit of what's collected is used to maintain an organisation capable of collection.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:53 pm

It's the same really for every national sporting or cultural body that doesn't have any or enough external financing from sponsorship or government. Quite a bit of what's collected is used to maintain an organisation capable of collection.

If only we lived in a country where managers were allowed to ask their employees for a one-line summary of what they'd been up to that day, without it being grounds for industrial action. Then we'd know how big a bit that was.

I spoken to the NCCU President, byran about the proposal, as he was asking the MCF to support him

had a good chat to him, but I feel that other people in the nccu has hijacked it and has lost the value of what the proposal is?

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 am

I feel that other people in the nccu has hijacked it and has lost the value of what the proposal is?

Rule of thumb, if the internal politics of the NCCU appear exciting, you're probably missing part of the story.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:47 am

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:33 am

I feel that other people in the nccu has hijacked it and has lost the value of what the proposal is?

Rule of thumb, if the internal politics of the NCCU appear exciting, you're probably missing part of the story.

depends on who the person is

I expect the Budget will be approved without difficuly, because it usually is. Council members are right to feel that it is dangerous to fiddle around in a large meeting with a construct that has been painstakingly created from many moving parts. This year, however, the issues do look unusually straightforward.

Compared to the Budget approved last year, there are two changes of significance.

1. The amount going to the 2018 Olympiad teams has risen by £9,500, from £26,500 to £36,000.

2. The £1pa discount available to members by way of online payment has been scrapped. Let's say this will bring in an additional £9,000 in membership fees.

It is evident that it would be possible to reverse both of these unheralded changes, leaving the Budget largely as was approved a year ago, with little net effect. It is therefore to be hoped that counties and leagues have sounded out their players regarding their level of enthusiasm regarding an additional levy of £1pa to support the national team. Those who have found such enthusiasm to be high will presumably support the new plans, while those who have found resistance ought to favour rolling them back.

Based on admittedly limited soundings in the very short time available, I believe that club players in London would generally prefer the cost of membership not to go up this year, and that they think that Olympiad teams should be able to work within their existing budget. If applied around the country, this would also apply to the categories of Silver and Bronze members. It is of course possible that club players further North open their wallets more freely.