English Chess Forum

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:51 am

Perhaps Council ought to volunteer those that moan about account and budget delays being unacceptable for the 'overtime' next year?

If you can frame a proposal based on that comment that makes any sense at all, you should do so.

The people who have complained so loudly on this thread could be nominated for CEO, Finance, International and Home Director (I'll resist temptation to say who should be put forward for which). They have already effectively appointed themselves the shadows for these roles after all.

I certainly wish I had the ability to nominate them, just to see how fast they then ran in the opposite direction.

"The people who have complained so loudly on this thread could be nominated for CEO, Finance, International and Home Director "

I take your point and largely agree, but you don't want a situation where nobody is allowed to complain either.

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:49 pm

"The people who have complained so loudly on this thread could be nominated for CEO, Finance, International and Home Director "

I take your point and largely agree, but you don't want a situation where nobody is allowed to complain either.

Of course people should be allowed to speak out and challenge where necessary. However there are some people who have crossed the line and become serial complainers. This thread is full of them.

Yesterday evening I did little except chess administration and my responsibilities only stretch to club and county level. At times like that it does strike me what the workload of an ECF director must be like at times.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:34 am

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:51 am

Perhaps Council ought to volunteer those that moan about account and budget delays being unacceptable for the 'overtime' next year?

If you can frame a proposal based on that comment that makes any sense at all, you should do so.

I'm sure there are many volunteers who would chip in and do some boring admin work if it were possible.

And I'm sure that they wouldn't be any help, because the work obeys Brooks's Law. Adding more people to a late project makes it later.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:56 pm

I'm sure there are many volunteers who would chip in and do some boring admin work if it were possible.

I doubt that boring admin work has been the sticking point.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:18 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:56 pm

I'm sure there are many volunteers who would chip in and do some boring admin work if it were possible.

I doubt that boring admin work has been the sticking point.

"Simply no excuse" were your words. But if more effort from the ECF wouldn't have made a difference, then that clearly is an excuse.

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:43 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:18 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:56 pm

I'm sure there are many volunteers who would chip in and do some boring admin work if it were possible.

I doubt that boring admin work has been the sticking point.

"Simply no excuse" were your words. But if more effort from the ECF wouldn't have made a difference, then that clearly is an excuse.

The ECF simply haven't worked out how to match what the late John Philpott used to do. He was the 'go to man' if anything needed doing.

Michael Flatt wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:48 pm

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:43 pm

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:18 pm

I doubt that boring admin work has been the sticking point.

"Simply no excuse" were your words. But if more effort from the ECF wouldn't have made a difference, then that clearly is an excuse.

The ECF simply haven't worked out how to match what the late John Philpott used to do. He was the 'go to man' if anything needed doing.

We shouldn't be in that position though. "Here's something that needs doing, I wonder whose responsibility it is?"

Superheroes are ultimately no better for the health of your organisation than micromanagers. There is no substitute for working out a process and writing it down.

Nick - you could volunteer?

The point is that accounts approval and the budget can slow down for unforeseen circumstances.

RBKC's accounts ending 31st March 2017 were published May 2017 and being audited when Grenfell happened. A post balance sheet event. The audit was signed off after the statutory date (all down to a political intervention which was possibly unlawful).

Chris Goodall wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:26 pm

We shouldn't be in that position though. "Here's something that needs doing, I wonder whose responsibility it is?"

Superheroes are ultimately no better for the health of your organisation than micromanagers. There is no substitute for working out a process and writing it down.

In recent months the ECF have made a significant step forward by adopting proper accountancy software (Zero).

It is noticeable that invoices for grading fees, following submission of of competition results, are now being sent out within weeks rather than at the end of the season or start of the next season.

Personlly I'd put the change down to PB. Much simpler explanation. Lets just hope no one asks him to do a time sheet instead.

I've had a chance to look at the financials. Apologies if this post turns out to be a bit longer than my usual.

First, the ( not unexpected ) bad news. There is no breakdown of 2015/16, which I believe was promised at the last meeting. I am quite willing to believe that reconstructing these figures simply proved to be impossible. This means that for practical purposes 2016/17 is year zero, comparisons start from there. We can live with that.

How did 2016/17 compare to Budget? Game fees have been distorted by the new charging structure, with a large amount dragged back from 2017/18. I don't understand that, but it doesn't look important. Why was there no expenditure on Hastings to match the income? Something major happened to the accounting for the ECF Academy, though with little net effect. Sponsorship income for the national team is shown, which is good.

The big unbudgeted item was bookkeeping, but we know about that. There was also the cost of the intervention in the bridge court case - at least our loss was miniscule compared to theirs.

Moving on to 2017/18, we have budget, forecast and actual to date. We are promised further updated figures before the meeting. This really is an excellent development. The ECF seems to be running on balance better than budget, led by membership fees and in particular Silvers. Is there a reason for that? International is over budget because of expenditure related to the European Individuals - based on results, we did get our money's worth this time.

Time for a break, then to move on the projections of the future.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:04 pm

then to move on the projections of the future.

When they budget an increase in membership of 5%, are they expecting the net number of (adult) chess players to grow by 5%, or are they just expecting to coerce more of the non-members into becoming members?

It's all very well talking about direct debits, but scrapping three year membership means the potential aggravation of having to fight a computer system to renew has to take place every year instead of every three. Some stats on whether there are many unused second and third year memberships wouldn't come amiss. Removing any financial incentives to renew online is something that could bite as well.

I don't understand this Roger. We joined the AA around 30 years ago and set up a direct debit arrangement. We've never yet had to battle with any computer system.