English Chess Forum

From the members?

Mike Truran wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:57 pm

From the members?

I did wonder whether an application might be made to the Chess Trust rather than the ECF.

Angus French wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:17 pm

I did wonder whether an application might be made to the Chess Trust rather than the ECF.

Or seek a grant from the millions (tens of thousands anyway) in the BCF's PIF. There's also a motion on the use of that being put before Council.

To make another contribution, I don't think we should get our knickers in a twist about whether it should have been considered by the Board or Council. From my understanding Council is the representative body of all the Leagues across the country and members of the Board, so I don't see an issue with chess players under the ECF's jurisdiction to raise matters like these straight to this upcoming meeting.

I'm more interested in the actual content of the proposal, if indeed Casual Club has drawn 500 women to their Beginners/Improvers course over a period of 11 months, then I would very much hope that the initiative is rolled out up and down the country, instead of just London - for the very least, exactly how this has been down should be shared at the Council meeting, so respective Leagues can consider reproducing this in due course.

Though that begs the questions why the proposer did not otherwise run for the vacant role of Director for Womens Chess, which would be more suitable for spearheading widening participation initiatives of this nature across the whole Federation, and whether the removal of the role is indeed reversible - however that is something more appropriate to be asked at the meeting rather than on this Forum.

To be clear, I'm not anti-London and I don't think anyone else is. (I even support West London's 4th-best football team.) If you're going to try a new thing and you have to pick a location for it, it makes sense to pick London, we get that. Nor is it up to the proprietors of a London chess club to fix the problems faced by chess in the rest of England. They're entitled to bang their own drum.

I suppose a better test of whether this is too London-centric, that doesn't just sound like provincial whingeing, is:

Would tying up £6,000pa of OpEx in London make it more likely that a similar sum will be granted to the North in the future (because of the precedent it sets) or less likely (because of the amount it takes out of the discretionary pot)?

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:21 pm

I'm more interested in the actual content of the proposal

I'm sure we all are. The complete absence of such is at present the biggest obstacle this proposal faces.

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:21 pm

To make another contribution, I don't think we should get our knickers in a twist about whether it should have been considered by the Board or Council. From my understanding Council is the representative body of all the Leagues across the country and members of the Board, so I don't see an issue with chess players under the ECF's jurisdiction to raise matters like these straight to this upcoming meeting.

I'm more interested in the actual content of the proposal, if indeed Casual Club has drawn 500 women to their Beginners/Improvers course over a period of 11 months, then I would very much hope that the initiative is rolled out up and down the country, instead of just London - for the very least, exactly how this has been down should be shared at the Council meeting, so respective Leagues can consider reproducing this in due course.

+1 to both paragraphs.

"You didn't navigate the bureaucracy well enough" would be a pathetic excuse for denying funding. The bureaucracy has been in place for decades and chess hasn't gotten any less old-white-man-centric, so if you're trying to get more women and minorities involved, "do the exact opposite" can't be an unreasonable strategy.

Not just at the Council meeting. How this has been done should be emailed to every organiser and player the ECF can find. It should be made into a TEDx talk. That's the least they could do in return for £6,000pa. There's no lack of willpower in the outer regions of England - we Novocastrians would run through broken glass to get 500 women through the door in 11 months! Clearly we're sorely lacking in the expertise department.

Tying up a similar proposal up north is not really consistent with wanting to reduce silver membership at the expense of bronze.

Or am I missing something?

If we are talking about 500 new women chess players in London, how many have been introduced to a number of local clubs to them? Most clubs are trying to be inclusive. Many offer assistance to new players wanting to improve and socialise and integrate them into their club teams.

Mick Norris wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:07 pm

Serious question; if this extended to Bristol, Birmingham, Newcastle, Southampton and other metro areas considered to be of sufficient size, where would the ECF get the money?

We keep hearing about this unspent surplus of £10,000 that keeps being lost in corporation tax? It may just be a stick to hit the Director of Finance with but if not it could be paid to a charity constituted to consider and make grants to chess organisations (there is an organisation in Harrogate that does something similar, albeit with a very limited remit).

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:21 pm

To make another contribution, I don't think we should get our knickers in a twist about whether it should have been considered by the Board or Council. From my understanding Council is the representative body of all the Leagues across the country and members of the Board, so I don't see an issue with chess players under the ECF's jurisdiction to raise matters like these straight to this upcoming meeting.

Council also contains a lot of congress votes (albeit generally held by progressives), votes that aren't used because their constituent holders don't realise they exist and which are snaffled up by proxy vote collectors and other vested interests.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:16 pm

Tying up a similar proposal up north is not really consistent with wanting to reduce silver membership at the expense of bronze.

Or am I missing something?

If we are talking about 500 new women chess players in London, how many have been introduced to a number of local clubs to them? Most clubs are trying to be inclusive. Many offer assistance to new players wanting to improve and socialise and integrate them into their club teams.

You are missing something. The bronze/ silver membership proposal comes from the NCCU which is a secretive and narrow cabal. It is not a representative body of players in the North and exists for the purposes of bureaucracy with no real interest in chess itself and with no connection to many of the progressive organisers in the North.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:53 pm

It (NCCU) is not a representative body of players in the North

Why don't the county organisations who are its members turn up at its meetings and tell it how to behave? I rather seem to recall that the membership scheme was inflicted on the rest of the country by the NCCU. A "Northern membership scheme" was the prototype, one of whose most enthusiastic supporters appears to be the man behind the latest wheeze.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:02 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:53 pm

It (NCCU) is not a representative body of players in the North

Why don't the county organisations who are its members turn up at its meetings and tell it how to behave? I rather seem to recall that the membership scheme was inflicted on the rest of the country by the NCCU. A "Northern membership scheme" was the prototype, one of whose most enthusiastic supporters appears to be the man behind the latest wheeze.

Going a bit off topic but the NCCU works on a delegate system whereby each of the member counties elect two delegates to attend NCCU meetings. I think this is an addition to anybody who might hold an elected position within the NCCU but might be wrong. In any case it is a silo system that limits attendance and prevents anybody with progressive views from turning up and having their say.

If memory serves the Northern Membership Scheme was an experiment that lasted a year before relations between the NCCU and the Gerry Walsh era ECF collapsed. The year was 2005-6 and the ECF's own membership scheme was launched in 2012. So I can't see any link between the two.

Ok so the café/bar runs behind closed doors unless you know where to go. Sound like a private members club but that is not clear.

Maybe the sort of thing to be included under chess in the pub/winebar/café. It has a wide range of sponsors/donors, so not as if they are not trying.

Food, wine, cocktails, beer, teas, coffees, soft drinks appear more expensive than the surroundings. But then again that may be attractive to being quiet.

May be useful if you happen to be in that direction and it is open.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:50 pm

Council also contains a lot of congress votes (albeit generally held by progressives), votes that aren't used because their constituent holders don't realise they exist and which are snaffled up by proxy vote collectors and other vested interests.

This reads as though it is intended to give offence, but to whom?

I know, it always amazes Southerners that the 15 million inhabitants of the North can't get together at a rugby league game and agree what our collective opinion is