Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:28 pm
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)
Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:28 pm
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.
Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:28 pm
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...