Ecf Silver member letter

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

I never said that I'd support everything the board did. My point is that I think that these are the right people to be running English chess at this moment in time and I will listen to what they have to say.

Fair enough, I think it was a fair comment, given you mentioned 'bottom lines'! What's interesting is that the right people who I know well, aren't the ones asking for more money in their respective directorates (not to second guess whether they support these proposals or not)

The ECF can't `solve` the demographic time bomb as such but they can provide a framework for local organisers such as you and me to work within and share best practice.

That I agree, but the international budget increasing by £17,000 and then to £20,000, on top of the current £63,000 seems excessive. And I don't think the ECF will break even on the Development Officer spending.

On reflection I agree that my £3.50 a month figure is slightly unhelpful as the ECF charges an annual lump sum rather than a monthly subscription. My point is to show that the cost is negligible compared to other outgoings. This ties into Michael's comment as well but I strongly suspect that other activities such as football and tennis have a similar funding model. I can't do a full detailed analysis but football has never struck me as a particularly cheap hobby from what I've picked up over the years. The problem with chess in this country has always been that players seem to expect it on the cheap.

I don't know whether expecting things on the cheap is such a problem. If the ECF want to raise fees by 25%, then I shall anticipate with an open mind from any speeches the Board wish to make; but from the Council papers alone, I can't see how the proposed funding increase generates a 25% increase in value to the members...

[Roger de Coverly]

I can't see how the proposed funding increase generates a 25% increase in value to the members...

The ECF is looking for more money mostly to spend on itself. That's the nature of national bodies that don't have sources of income other than participants.

It foregoes two other sources of income, parents and tournaments with major sponsorship.

[JustinHorton]

The connection of those associated with CSC is well known and not secret.

I would be surprised if everybody in the ECF knew who was and was not associated with CSC.

[Michael Farthing]

Obviously. My point was that we know which Board members are (strongly) associated with CSC.

[JustinHorton]

I cannot say I'm impressed by the continued level of hatred directed towards the new FIDE President and his associates. .

This is projection. As long as I've been on this forum Roger has been describing people who disagree with his preferred FIDE candidates as "haters". "Kasparov-haters" used to be the old version, now it's this. If someone's unable to understand disagreements except by interpreting them in personal terms, then what they're doing is replacing other people's motivations with their own, and that is what we refer to as "projection".

[JustinHorton]

Obviously. My point was that we know which Board members are (strongly) associated with CSC.

Mmmm. My point is that while we may do collectively, individually I don't know that we do.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is projection

How should describe the comparison of Nigel Short to Kim Philby be described as anything other than as an expression of hatred? Or perhaps Kim Philby is a hero because he supported the Soviet Union.

You do accept the description that you hate Ray Keene, Nigel Short, Gary Kasparov etc?

[JustinHorton]

No, that's you being unable to distinguish personal criticism from personal dislike, Roger.

[Michael Farthing]

Further, there is also quite a substantial difference between personal dislike and hatred.

[Matt Mackenzie]

A sure sign of "hating" somebody is when your claims are exaggerated or irrational. No doubt Justin has indulged in that on occasion (we are all human, after all) but most of his critiques of all three people mentioned seem substantially factual much of the time. That doesn't mean there aren't other things that reflect more favourably on them, but if people don't want to hear legitimate criticism that is maybe more their problem than the accuser's.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The connection of those associated with CSC is well known and not secret.

I would be surprised if everybody in the ECF knew who was and was not associated with CSC.

The list of CSC staff can be found here https://www.chessinschools.co.uk/staff With a few obvious exceptions most of them have no ECF connection at all. I'm not sure what could be more transparent.

As I said upthread; it is hard to avoid personal connections when the English chess community is relatively small.

[Martin Crichton]

Further, there is also quite a substantial difference between personal dislike and hatred.

spot on... nail on the head.

People use the word hate all too often without understanding it's meaning. My understanding of hate is when you would be happy if that person or persons were to die, to be wiped off the face of the earth and probably in a very slow and painful manner....for some context. Hitler hated Jews.

I am sure words like dislike or dislike a lot are more appropriate verbs on this forum or within the chess community in general.

[JustinHorton]

How does it work then for amateur players who play in the lowest levels of formal competition? Are they expected to finance the Football Association, or is the flow of funds the other way, namely that grants and prizes are made available financed from the sums earned by sponsorship?

Well you know, I think I'd like someone to tell me. What I mean is, before proposing that the ECF's funding model be drastically altered, I'd like to know that other models, preferably real-life ones, have been sought, identified, and evaluated for their applicability to our own situation. Somebody produce a study, maybe it'll be interesting. But until they do then I'm not seeing that a great deal that's valuable is being contributed.