ECF Finance meeting 2018

[NickFaulks]

[Does not Council have the power to reject the whole membership package? If so, it could agree to the abolition of the discount only if the base rates were £ 1 lower.

You're right, but in practice I'm sure that would be much harder to get through. It would also carry a cost, since some people still do not renew online.

An alternative would be to enshrine the discount as part of the fee structure, as it must have been intended to be. Using it for a "stealth increase" would then be impossible.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regardless of the merits of any given individual, the organisation is bigger than any indivdual within it and could survive the absence of any individual within it. And any organisation of which this is not true is an organisation with a very big problem.

I'll need a sit down and a cup of tea after saying this, but I agree with Justin. A good volunteer makes people think "I could never do that, it's too complex". A great volunteer makes people think "I could do that, it's simple".

I don't disagree. Nobody is indispensable but I think Mike Truran would be very difficult to replace. Since he took on the CEO role we have had a whirlwind of proposals for reform; not all of which have gone through admittedly but Mike (and the rest of the board) can only work within the electoral and governance processes they have and these are not easily swept away.

As for what council can and can't block; it is true that ECF members might struggle to muster an revolt in a short period of time but a council with a reforming agenda could easily be constructed within a year. Most English chess players pay their ECF fees (some more happily than others) but when it comes to the issues they are apathetic and that is the obstacle to change.

[NickFaulks]

Nobody is indispensable but I think Mike Truran would be very difficult to replace.

Why the talk about replacing him? Is it believed that if the Board's new strategy comes under fire he will resign?

[Roger de Coverly]

Is it believed that if the Board's new strategy comes under fire he will resign?

There's a 10 year anniversary shortly

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=262&hilit=resignation

[Andrew Zigmond]

Is it believed that if the Board's new strategy comes under fire he will resign?

There's a 10 year anniversary shortly

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=262&hilit=resignation

I'd noticed that anniversary myself, albeit for slightly different reasons. Revisiting threads from around that time is quite sobering; even those critical of the ECF surely have to admit that considerable progress has been made since.

[Roger de Coverly]

even those critical of the ECF surely have to admit that considerable progress has been made since.

Really. Almost exactly the same points can be made today. I was thinking particularly about the comments Harriet and Andrew made about the lack of support for top players. That's in the context of threats to scupper Malcolm's international budget, not helped by his absence.

[Andrew Zigmond]

even those critical of the ECF surely have to admit that considerable progress has been made since.

Really. Almost exactly the same points can be made today. I was thinking particularly about the comments Harriet and Andrew made about the lack of support for top players. That's in the context of threats to scupper Malcolm's international budget, not helped by his absence.

Yes really. We no longer have an executive President frustrating progress and refusing to engage in any dialogue. There is no fiasco involving a plastics company and wild promises of free sets for schools. The ECF as a whole puts on a professional front rather than an amateurish one. Council may have rejected the radical constitutional change some people have called for but the current board put it on the agenda, which no previous board has done. Not everyone is a fan of the new membership structure (and I know you could write War And Peace on why it isn't) but it is now established and embedded.

[Paul Cooksey]

I really don't agree with any of Andrew's assessments. This is a board with very substantial influence over how Council votes.

[Chris Goodall]

I was thinking particularly about the comments Harriet and Andrew made about the lack of support for top players.

Top players will construe anything short of a full-time salary as a lack of support. Complaints are inevitable. But it's fundamentally an amateur game. We should deflate the professional bubble, not inflate it further.

[Roger de Coverly]

But it's fundamentally an amateur game.

What's changed over the past thirty years is the number of people making a living or attempting to make a living out of being chess coaches to inexperienced players, particularly to younger children. The ECF sees very little of the amounts charged to the wider population in this manner.

[NickFaulks]

I really don't agree with any of Andrew's assessments. This is a board with very substantial influence over how Council votes.

They certainly do have a fund of goodwill within Council, although they are chewing through it quite fast. Most Council members will vote through the special increase in the cost of membership, even though they may not like it much and know that their constituencies like it even less, because the Board tells them that there is no choice. The national team cannot live within its budget and the extra funds cannot be found anywhere else.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I really don't agree with any of Andrew's assessments. This is a board with very substantial influence over how Council votes.

Possibly because it is a board that's generally respected by council and which treats council with respect. I'll risk a slightly controversial comment and say it's also a board likely to win respect from the general membership. The brutal truth is that Malcolm Pein and Mike Truran were the two most influential men in English chess prior to their being on the board and if they resigned today they would still be.

This thread is largely four people nitpicking and needling at the ECF; as proven by the fact that all four commented in succession after my previous post. I'm laying down a mitten here (rather than a gauntlet) but last night I supported at a new junior club while running my own for older students tonight. I've spent this week trying to sort out a team for a match on Saturday despite work commitments preventing my playing myself - eight people wouldn't be playing chess otherwise. That's my bit.

And in direct response to Paul; if you had the option to `reset` to 2008 (Gerry Walsh in charge, a now largely forgotten Bradford player as the forum's most prolific contributor) would you take it?

[Chris Goodall]

This thread is largely four people nitpicking and needling at the ECF; as proven by the fact that all four commented in succession after my previous post. I'm laying down a mitten here (rather than a gauntlet) but last night I supported at a new junior club while running my own for older students tonight. I've spent this week trying to sort out a team for a match on Saturday despite work commitments preventing my playing myself - eight people wouldn't be playing chess otherwise. That's my bit.

If the proposed increase in the International budget is a large amount, then objecting to it is not nitpicking.

If it's a small amount, then it won't be missed if it gets voted down.

Take your pick!

(I've been a captain, club secretary, county secretary and league controller. We know how games of "what are you contributing?" end. They end with a general acknowledgement that we're all contributing more than the average player.)

[Roger de Coverly]

The brutal truth is that Malcolm Pein and Mike Truran were the two most influential men in English chess prior to their being on the board and if they resigned today they would still be.

Malcolm is treating the ECF Council with a certain amount of contempt in electing not to attend. It is after all an increase in funding for the International budget that is being sought. For that matter it's apparently not an issue for him to seek endorsement from his home federation of standing on a ticket for the ECU Board, or to take the opportunity to update the meeting on the latest fights within FIDE and gain endorsement for whatever line the ECF proposes to take in the next FIDE elections.

[Chris Goodall]

Malcolm is treating the ECF Council with a certain amount of contempt in electing not to attend. It is after all an increase in funding for the International budget that is being sought. For that matter it's apparently not an issue for him to seek endorsement from his home federation of standing on a ticket for the ECU Board, or to take the opportunity to update the meeting on the latest fights within FIDE and gain endorsement for whatever line the ECF proposes to take in the next FIDE elections.

I don't know about contempt. Reading his correspondence with Angus French, I think Malcolm has the greatest respect for Council and its ability to ask awkward questions of the directors. That he would prefer to be in a different country while that's happening shouldn't be taken as contempt, rather as a sort of endorsement