Revised Papers

[Michael Farthing]

I draw everyone's attention to the publication of two revised finance papars for the Council Meeting.
I have not yet looked at these (it's my next job)

[Roger de Coverly]

I draw everyone's attention to the publication of two revised finance papars for the Council Meeting.

From the summary

The increase in Membership numbers will be key to the success of the Board’s plan. The Board will be seeking opportunities to increase membership and numbers will be regularly monitored. If numbers and income do not materialise then the expenditure budgets will have to be reviewed.

Unless they can increase the adult numbers participating in leagues and Congresses and thus compelled to become ECF members, isn't this just cloud cuckoo land?

[NickFaulks]

There is a great deal of information. We haven't got long to digest it before the meeting, but its appearance is still very welcome.

I headed straight to the International Budget. Twelve months ago, we approved core funding for the 2018 Olympiad of £26,500, with "additional expenditure" of £13,500. The former was paid for out of membership fees, while the latter figure was explained to mean desirable extras which were to be funded through sponsorship.

We are now told that the sponsorship has not materialised, but the core expenditure has risen to £36,000. This requires some further explanation - where is the line between core spending and desirable extras drawn, and why has it moved?

Last year the International Director said this was none of our business because we weren't paying for it, but this no longer applies. He might therefore have been more forthcoming on Saturday, but I see from the voting register that he will not be there.

[LawrenceCooper]

Last year the International Director said this was none of our business because we weren't paying for it, but this no longer applies. He might therefore have been more forthcoming on Saturday, but I see from the voting register that he will not be there.

http://www.echecs.asso.fr/Resultats.asp ... &Action=Ls

[NickFaulks]

I've realised something else. The £13,500 of extra expenditure from any sponsorship that may be found is still there, both for 2018 and future Olympiads. This means that the £9,500 increase in support from central funds is now locked in indefinitely, irrespective of sponsorship. This is unbelievable.

[Angus French]

My initial reaction is: what's changed? There's nothing to say, is there? We still don't have the 2015/16 actuals. There are more blank pages. The document is still in pdf rather than .xls(x) format and pagination is poor... What thought has been given to the reader and Council members?

[Michael Farthing]

Oh and the junior page has gone landscape and split over 3 pages instead of 1!

[NickFaulks]

Oh and the junior page has gone landscape and split over 3 pages instead of 1!

I'm not going to be critical about these details. The document was obviously put together in a great hurry and I'd sooner get it in this form now than in a fully proofread and easier to access version on Saturday. You can print it out page by page, adjusted as necessary, though I do agree with Angus that I would have preferred a .xls version, which presumably exists.

As I have said before, we may as well forget about 2015/16, since I expect the numbers are simply impossible to reconstruct. Not ideal, but it's where we are.

What I do complain about is that this document contains the seeds of the thinking behind the Board's reversal of its previous strategy regarding the funding of the national team, and has come out just three days beforen the meeting. I hope we shall learn on Saturday when this decision was taken, but it must have been some time ago. There is now hardly any time for discussion - some delegates will already have been instructed how to vote and there is no chance whatsoever for their constituents to be consulted. If representation is to mean anything, an outline of future plans should be available a couple of months before the meeting, not three weeks and certainly not three days.

[Michael Farthing]

Oh and the junior page has gone landscape and split over 3 pages instead of 1!

I'm not going to be critical about these details. The document was obviously put together in a great hurry and I'd sooner get it in this form now than in a fully proofread and easier to access version on Saturday. You can print it out page by page, adjusted as necessary, though I do agree with Angus that I would have preferred a .xls version, which presumably exists.

Of course it exists, it's an updated version of the spreadsheet that's been in use since my first Council meeting.
Almost certainly the format problems have resulted from the export to pdf. I imagine the thinking is that the pdf format is the most widely accessible one, which I think is a very valid reason. Nevertheless it might be worth seeing tomorrow if the office could give us the xls as well, (which is what we had last time).

[Angus French]

As I have said before, we may as well forget about 2015/16, since I expect the numbers are simply impossible to reconstruct. Not ideal, but it's where we are.

Though the accounts for HMRC will have been produced by summing individual amounts and those amounts could be categorised and summed differently to produce breakdowns. The super-duper accounting software which the FD was touting would presumably assist in this. I'd really like to see the numbers.

[Angus French]

... Almost certainly the format problems have resulted from the export to pdf. I imagine the thinking is that the pdf format is the most widely accessible one, which I think is a very valid reason. Nevertheless it might be worth seeing tomorrow if the office could give us the xls as well, (which is what we had last time).

IMO, any Council member attending a *finance* meeting and worth their salt ought to have software to read Excel spreadsheets. And it's not that difficult to find... Besides, who decided what Council members should have? We weren't consulted were we?

[Michael Farthing]

The Council paper C18.6a (the budget spreadsheet) has now been updated and is the underlying spreadsheet previously supplied as a pdf. Lets hear it for the ECF office!

[Kevin Thurlow]

" Lets hear it for the ECF office!"

Hooray!

[Michael Farthing]

A further paper relating to the income and expenditure on the ECF Junior Academy has appeared on the ECF website. My view is that it should certainly be looked at by Council reps before the meeting.

[NickFaulks]

A further paper relating to the income and expenditure on the ECF Junior Academy has appeared on the ECF website. My view is that it should certainly be looked at by Council reps before the meeting.

I'm sure many of us have wished we knew more about what the Academy does and how it spends its money. These documents are informative and very welcome.