"SavetheUKCC" petition

[Alan Kennedy]

Having promised to cease posting as I thought my role had finished - the following comments are relevant:

John Upham the proposed solution sounds very plausible and is to be applauded
Michael Flatt - I agree with you that finances are not key (I am not sure I said they were). I spend most of professional time talking to clients about sales, pricing, marketing and managing staff. Finance and tax all follow from these factors and should not be the driver. When I am involved in the management of organisations I generally have as little as possible to do with either admin or finance other than to insist timely information is available to enable the management team to make decisions. I am not sure that the committee will need the authority of the Trustee in bankruptcy to set up the UKCC - particularly as the trade of Mike Basman has ceased. From a practical point a Trustee is often very unlikely to undertake legal action not least because it is impossible to prove the loss and are hardly likely to waste 10s of 000s of a cause they may well lose. As I said earlier I wish Mr Basman and his team well in the new venture - it sounds exciting and interesting - I would urge them to take advice concerning the set up and also regarding the VAT - if their VAT advisor suggests that the start of the new business is not the "transfer of a going concern" then ironically they probably would not have to charge VAT until the turnover was above the threshold. That may depend on whether Mr Basman continued to trade post bankruptcy. As before these are general comments and specific advice should be sought before proceeding.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I would have thought that there must be a parent somewhere who would have done MIke Basman's (UKCC) accounts at "mates' rates"? Maybe a bit late now...

[Alan Kennedy]

"mates' rates"

I permitted myself a wry smile with the thought that an accountant would have friends or mates - have you seen this http://bit.ly/2d4Fk5z

Alan

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I permitted myself a wry smile with the thought that an accountant would have friends or mates - have you seen this http://bit.ly/2d4Fk5z "

Not recently - thank you!

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a virtual forest of AGM papers now published at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ec ... and-board/

On a very quick read through, there's no mention of the potential demise of UKCC.

I did wonder who this referred to.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ouncil.pdf

As part of its concerns for the English chess community the Board agreed a donation towards supporting one of our senior and long standing members during a period of personal difficulty. This is an unusual occurrence, but one which I am sure everyone will endorse.

It may well be nothing to do with UKCC.

[JustinHorton]

Meanwhile what's Mike up to now?

[Alan Kennedy]

Meanwhile what's Mike up to now?

Hardly being in the background as John Upham suggested.

[Jonathan Rogers]

There's a virtual forest of AGM papers now published at
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/about/ec ... and-board/

On a very quick read through, there's no mention of the potential demise of UKCC.

I did wonder who this referred to.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ouncil.pdf

As part of its concerns for the English chess community the Board agreed a donation towards supporting one of our senior and long standing members during a period of personal difficulty. This is an unusual occurrence, but one which I am sure everyone will endorse.

It may well be nothing to do with UKCC.

I can't say that I approve of this sort of statement: quite the opposite. In particular, the recipient of the donation should be named; because it is our money, and besides, if the ECF if confident everyone would agree, why not name the person?!

[Nick Grey]

Not sure where we think because it is our money we get a voice or an answer. There have been some well known needs this year. I will be very surprised if this was about UKCC as I suspect not.

Similarly not thought of using the fee argument on reasons for not publishing a dispute and an appeal in a County match.

Though this is looking like going off topic, and loved the Monty Python link. So let's get back to what Mike has been doing.

[John Upham]

I am aware of at least four consortia who are bidding to "take control" of UK Chess Challenge.

These are all led be persons known to this place.

I believe that any of these will require a tender including a minimum of £50,000 to secure the assets.

Of these four I would say that two are more commercially minded than the other two who are more altruistic / philanthropic in nature.

If none of them register the plc, LLP or CIO before soon then someone may do so! The same goes for any trademarks associated with UKCC.

[John Upham]

if the ECF if confident everyone would agree, why not name the person?!

I'm sure an FoI request will yield the information you seek.

It is not myself before you ask!

[Matthew Turner]

if the ECF if confident everyone would agree, why not name the person?!

I'm sure an FoI request will yield the information you seek.

It is not myself before you ask!

I think it might be worth people have a private speculation about who this might be (I do not know). I can imagine how the ECF might indeed be taking the right approach here (yes, I really did say that).

[Jonathan Rogers]

I assume it is our money in a broad sense - much, if not most ECF income is from membership fees, I assume.

It is a tricky one, because I do trust Mike and co to give it to a genuinely deserving individual; and that being so, I feel no need to know his or her name. I share Nick's view that it is unlikely to be UKCC related. But it does set a precedent of sorts. Would we want another board, composed very differently, to make an anonymous donation in ten years time?

Well, that's for another day, perhaps.

[Michael Farthing]

I can't say that I approve of this sort of statement: quite the opposite. In particular, the recipient of the donation should be named; because it is our money, and besides, if the ECF if confident everyone would agree, why not name the person?!

It is not our money once we have handed it over to the ECF. It is the ECF's money

I find this attitude incredible. When I taught it was not uncommon for staff or governors to be aware of parents with financial difficulties. Costs of school trips and the like would be found from the school fund. Accounts would be presented saying, "money given to help pupils in need". I do not think anyone ever queried such an entry.

Well OK. Let's blast it from the rooftops. Michael Farthing is in dire financial need so we've given some cash! Now you all know. Perhaps that might put an end to it all.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I had already slightly withdrawn from my earlier position, which should have been enough. But if you insist on

"It is not our money once we have handed it over to the ECF. It is the ECF's money"

you run into difficulties. Does that mean they can do anything they like with it?

Presumably you do not think that. What you probably mean to say is that you trust the present adminstration to be sensible, as you would have trusted the staff at your school. But what of future, as yet unknown, administrations?

Just sayin', is all.