ECF Annual General Meeting 13 October 2012

[David Robertson]

Jesus wept! What a thread

[Martin Regan]

Rdc:

You want to raise money from club players .. to spend money on club players.

On the face of it a good point. However, you could dismiss the entire idea of a democracy and taxation with the same argument.

The point is to maximize impact - so that a player who pays £20 sees more benefit than he would by not paying the £20.

[Roger de Coverly]

The point is to maximize impact - so that a player who pays £20 sees more benefit than he would by not paying the £20.

If he only gets a grade by paying £ 20, then the impact is going to be that his only opponents who will allow him to play graded games will be those who also have paid £ 20. So playing in the league could put players off if they mostly got ungraded players. The next consequence is that the team folds, the one after that is that the club folds and then the league. Result!

If league rules more stringently say that he can only play chess by paying £ 20, is the likely result an increase in players or a reduction?

In many ways the traditional club is the wrong place to look for growth. If you again wish to encourage the 16 to 30 age group, it's necessary to recognise that there will be periods in their life when the traditional model of playing in a local league twice a month just isn't possible. The odd weekend break might however be possible, even if it's just once or twice a year. A financial and membership structure which appears designed to discourage this type of player isn't desirable, even though it's what the ECF have adopted.

[David Pardoe]

One comment regarding Adam Rooaf for Director of M&M...
He was apparently `rejected` because his views on certain things, including Membership, were not known..
Here`s what Adam had to say on the Membership scheme...

Roger Edwards is a lovely man, but he is not someone who supports the membership scheme. That alone is sufficient reason for me to vote for 'none of the above'.

We have a membership scheme, it is working and we are putting a lot of effort to make it work better. This is no time to do u-turns!

What we need now is to make sure that all these new members get added value for their money. For my money I would like to see a more frequent, revamped pdf magazine sent by email to all our members, and with good content from some titled players and writers. This requires a modest budget, and the first thing the ECF should do is allocate the Membership and Marketing Directorate a sensible fund to pay for an editor and some articles. The other thing we need to do is revitalise the web site, but the same comments regarding budgets apply.

_________________
Adam Raoof
FIDE Arbiter / Organiser
http://www.chessengland.com

That doesnt sound too much outside the `official position`, although he does recognise that improvements are desireable.
If he really isnt interested that would be understandable, otherwise he should be inviited back.
He has a demonstratable track record of successful event organisation.

[Roger de Coverly]

Here`s what Adam had to say on the Membership scheme...

This forum is unofficial, therefore election statements made here cannot be assumed to have been read by the members of Council. If those were the policies he wished to pursue, they should have been posted as an official statement on the ECF site and became part of the material to be considered at the meeting.

There's also http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... &start=230

from which (in response to a suggestion as to the abolition of silver membership)

I agree. I think that we can really simplify the membership scheme both for players (less categories, one would do for me), and for organisers (integrated membership and grading database, we're working on it). We also need a specific scheme for Juniors, at a base level of about £5 perhaps, or £10 to cover any junior up to the age of 16, with a membership officer dedicated to getting more junior events graded, and more juniors to join up. We already have a magazine, but it really needs to refocus post-membership as the audience will probably widen enough to attract a sponsor or two.

It would be inconsistent to deny Roger Edwards a mandate to revise and simplify membership and then give AR a mandate to do exactly that, particularly with a revision that would drive costs upwards for club only players.

[David Pardoe]

Martin raised the question of Membership fees, and that they should be used to encourage grass roots and league/competative chess.
Thats true... And his idea that the ECF should network regional Press to publicise articals by GMs in conjunction with local news for local clubs is also an excellent idea.
But what I believe is that clubs, leagues and various other chess bodies need to promote a self help plan, and be more vigorous in reaching out to joe public.... We need Marketing to be applied at all levels in chess, and we need a more focused approach to fund raising. Far too many chess bodies adopt a petty minded cash control, minimalist approach to chess funding. ie, the secretary or whoever, simply looks to raise the minimum to make the books balance. Thats one reason that many chess bodies have very low funding reserves, and cant affoprd to do anything more ambitious than `carry on as normal`.
The Bridge community put us to shame. They`ve used imagination to raise funds and insure that playing premises are generally pleasant places to go...and many clubs actually own there premises. One I can think of which I like is Newcastle U Lyme Bridge Club.
In particular, the Bridge message seems to be focused on `enjoyment` and a good social element. I`m keen that Chess adopts a similar theme and not just pitch it at the top gun GM titles achievements, although they have a serious part to play.
We must not take the view that its all down to the ECF. And I`m keen to see the junior community take more direct control of there own funding, and for parents to get more involved, instead of treating junior clubs as child minders....hoping they will fund chess events out of other peoples pockets. Self help has to be a key note to going forward. There is another side to the coin...those bodies who do have money stashed away, but never seem to spend it. This deathly hording is locking up valuable funds that could be used to invest in chess. Ultra caution is not good, but I agree that prudent management is very desirable.
Yes, on the wider front, the ECF needs to help promote and support big national events, and to drive International initiatives and ensure teams in major events. And, yes, we need to encourage our top guns on the world stage... This aught to be possible under a `national umbrella` body...without fragmenting and contortions to fit the `charitable status` model.
A united body, which is `essentially not for profit`, but can accomodate the professional element aught to be possible, and should be workable...but it does take all parties, including our top gun GMs, to put in the effort to make things work. Clearly, sponsorship, TV & media, and strong membership are all part of the picture. We cant encourage a `give us the money` attitude...it has to be earned and worked for. There must be other inovitive ways to raise significant funds. I can remember Vic Knox running a day long Simultaineous in Stockport shopping centre one Saturday. It was a great day, raised funds, and helped to bring chess to the local community. We need to get the message out to Joe public that chess is alive in there local area, and clubs would love to see new members of all ages and abilities.
Yes, we need to raise our aspirations, and aim to boost membership to nearer the 30 - 50,000 level.
Fischer almost single handedly brought chess to the publics attention in the seventies, and chess boomed because of it.....
I think Roger had something along these lines in mind when he talked of encouraging grass roots chess.

[Richard Bates]

That's not a surprise given my proposal of the 'toothless tiger' motion but what did surprise me is that the other dissenter was the newly elected Gold member rep. Given that e2e4 events are nearly all FIDE rated (so mainly Gold members playing) and seem to be well received by the players I was surprised by that vote. To the best of my knowledge, I've never met nor corresponded with the chap. Can anybody who was at the AGM shed any insight on his reasoning?

I wasn't at the AGM and have no idea of his reasoning but Bill Armstrong plays for the same club as Roger Edwards and I think he was one of those who "proposed" him as President. (I can't remember in what capacity.)

This apparent substitution for personal opinion over the opinions of those he represents is enough to drive anyone to become a Platinum member. Perhaps that's the point! Is there a Platinum representative? Or do they all get their own vote?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Is there a Platinum representative? Or do they all get their own vote?

There are two Platinum representatives: Peter Wilson and John Wickham.

[David Robertson]

I'd missed Adam Raoof's advocacy of a single-tier membership. That is truly simple-minded. It's even more economically illiterate than game fee!

[Roger de Coverly]

This apparent substitution for personal opinion over the opinions of those he represents is enough to drive anyone to become a Platinum member. Perhaps that's the point! Is there a Platinum representative? Or do they all get their own vote?

Platinum is in the hands of Peter Wilson and John Wickham.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=79 which is already up to date with AGM changes.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'd missed Adam Raoof's advocacy of a single-tier membership. That is truly simple-minded. It's even more economically illiterate than game fee!

Why is single-tier membership economically illiterate? It's what membership advocates always seem to be proposing and was indeed part of the first version of the Farthing plan that got a majority, only to be ditched in favour of the metallic approach.

[David Pardoe]

This misses the point...
It is very easy to call various parties `idiots` for expressing certain views.
What is more important is to open up discussions on these areas, where many believe that genuine improvements are desirable.
Once the dialogue is started, we`re on the path to improvement, once a concensus view can be found.
Thats why this rediculous nonsence about peoples personal manifestoes is so futile.
It completely misses the point that any major changes are not simply down to one individual, it should be a collective team decision. Some people here seem to think that the ECF directorate can act like little dictators, putting out manifestoes on personal views then simly imposing them on the majority.
This is not how things (should) work. Going forward, with well constructed papers that cover multple aspects, getting good majority support, should be the ECF ethos.
In this context, Adams treatment at the AGM looks to be shambolic.

[David Robertson]

I'd missed Adam Raoof's advocacy of a single-tier membership. That is truly simple-minded. It's even more economically illiterate than game fee!

Why is single-tier membership economically illiterate? It's what membership advocates always seem to be proposing and was indeed part of the first version of the Farthing plan that got a majority, only to be ditched in favour of the metallic approach.

It has never been what this advocate of membership has ever argued. I've always argued for tiered membership. Check my arguments from 2006-08 on the Atticus forum. Check the threads I initiated on this forum a year back, setting out my ideas - threads you trampled all over, took off-topic, and generally polluted. I've spent six years arguing for an economically literate membership scheme. We're still not there yet, even if some kind of progress has been made

[William Metcalfe]

Ok lets cut to the chase here can we can anybody please tell me what Adam did as director of home chess.Alex ran the county champs Lara ran the british Adam even screwed up the Grand Prix prize giving.Now people are trying to tell me he is suitable for a more dificult post in the ECF where in the past has he shown he is a competant director.
Is a incompitent director better or worse than no director that is the question that needs to be answered

[Alex McFarlane]

This apparent substitution for personal opinion over the opinions of those he represents is enough to drive anyone to become a Platinum member

People attend representing multiple groups. A hand held up merely indicates which way the majority of the delegated votes have gone. Having sat behind the person in question I know that in one card vote he shared his votes between options. This was obvious when it was held up for collection.
At the previous meeting when I had more votes I did the same thing on certain issues as mandated.