ECF Finance meeting 2018

[JustinHorton]

There is a very common misconception that professional chess players and grandmasters generally are absolutely rolling in money.

Do people really think that? If so, what are they basing it on?

anybody with the intelligence to become a titled player will probably also have the intelligence to be able to earn a lucrative salary elsewhere should they wish

There's a couple of assumptions in there that maybe shouldn't be made.

we can hardly be a national federation if we do not have individuals and teams entering international competitions.

Quite. And at the end of the day, you want to ask: do we really want a situation where practically everybody else is sending a team, but we're just peering in through the window with no team to support inside?

A pity the Council did not ask the International Director to set a budget when he stood for election.

They could hardly do that when he had pre-empted it by assuring us that all funds would be raised by sponsorship and that the process would be crippled if any details regarding how much was raised or how it was disbursed were made public.

Again, quite. And apart from anything else, I think that in more than one way, this damages the cause of trying to field representative teams and getting broad support for doing that.

[Chris Goodall]

I played in a tournament with 55,000 other kids in 2001.

How many are still playing today?

That's the nature of the demographic problem, that from the mid 1960s or earlier up to about the mid 1990s there was a steady stream of new players in the 15-25 age range, after which it dried up.

They don't have to have been playing constantly since then. A lot of young players that first joined in the Fischer boom, then started taking real life more seriously and have only in the last decade or so been coming back, once they've retired. That's why David Robertson is talking nonsense about evening chess. In Northumberland we've expanded from 23 teams in 2011 to 33 today.


On the topic of "professional" chess, I think there is a population trap at work. If you take a strictly amateur game and inject enough cash into it to provide for 5 professionals, you will get 10 professionals fighting for that cash. Expand your cash injection to provide for 10 professionals, and you will get 20 professionals fighting for it. You will never not have some professionals complaining that they're not getting paid enough. You've just got to decide whether to drop the guillotine down before you've run out of cash, or after.

[Chris Goodall]

And at the end of the day, you want to ask: do we really want a situation where practically everybody else is sending a team, but we're just peering in through the window with no team to support inside?

You're a marketing exec at heart, Justin. "Think of how bad you'd feel if you didn't have this thing!"

In the real world, what would actually happen if England's name was missing from the open Olympiad entrants? The public and the Commons backbenchers wouldn't read about it in the papers and think "I must complain to the ECF for prioritising chess development over the national team". They'd think "I must complain to the government for not supporting chess to the level that the rest of Europe does".

[NickFaulks]

And at the end of the day, you want to ask: do we really want a situation where practically everybody else is sending a team, but we're just peering in through the window with no team to support inside?

I'm sure not many club players "really want" that, although the Board might be surprised by the number who aren't very bothered either way. By analogy, I am a football fan to the extent of following the Premier League and watching some games, but I really couldn't care less about the national team.

Given that many club players certainly would prefer England to send a competitive team to the Olympiad, and they need paying, how should this be achieved? The only model currently under consideration is that all adult chess players are told that they must make a contribution of £4 ( yes, 36 divided by 9 is still 4 ) or they will not be permitted to play competitive chess. Adding insult to injury, they are called nasty names if they say they would just as soon not do that. Is this ideal?

[JustinHorton]

No, but what is?

[NickFaulks]

No, but what is?

Funding from sponsorship, as per election promises. That sounded very good.

[JustinHorton]

I'm sure it did, but I'm also sure that "sponsorship" is widely used in the English chess community as a magic word, by professionals and amateurs alike. At very least, I think we may need to discuss what happens if we wave the magic wand and nothing happens, which is one reason why the International Director can be criticised for speaking as he did.

[Chris Goodall]

No, but what is?

Funding from sponsorship, as per election promises. That sounded very good.

Or funding from the government. Or funding from spectators. Or voluntary funding from members. Or funding from invested reserves.

So basically, anything at all other than the current arrangement.

[JustinHorton]

Or funding from spectators. Or voluntary funding from members.

I would be interested in the experience of other countries who have sought to fund teams of professionals in this way.

[Andrew Zigmond]

There is a very common misconception that professional chess players and grandmasters generally are absolutely rolling in money.

Do people really think that? If so, what are they basing it on?

anybody with the intelligence to become a titled player will probably also have the intelligence to be able to earn a lucrative salary elsewhere should they wish

There's a couple of assumptions in there that maybe shouldn't be made.

Regarding your first point they probably base it on the assumption that the Grandmaster title is so impressive anybody holding one must be stinking rich, or else simple prejudice and ignorance. There is also another common misconception; that the board of the ECF must draw six figure salaries when the role is a voluntary one.

I agree that my second point may have been a bit of a leap but it is noticeable that the two strongest English players post Adams (Sadler and McShane) have opted for professional careers elsewhere.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Or funding from the government. Or funding from spectators. Or voluntary funding from members. Or funding from invested reserves.

So basically, anything at all other than the current arrangement.

Government - I'm assuming you know the ECF received a government grant for many years until the coalition government cut it as part of their plan to halt the deficit. Unless chess suddenly becomes an election winning topic I wouldn't hold your breath.

Spectators/ Voluntary donations - it could actually work but would take a lot of effort to put the correct infrastructure in place and the board are already doing a full time job in their part time. Of course, if more people got involved rather than simply writing on forums ...

[NickFaulks]

Regarding your first point they probably base it on the assumption that the Grandmaster title is so impressive anybody holding one must be stinking rich, or else simple prejudice and ignorance. There is also another common misconception; that the board of the ECF must draw six figure salaries when the role is a voluntary one.

I am confident that I have never known anyone in the UK or Western Europe who believes either of those things, or would even regard them as remotely believable. You do come across some strange preconceptions in Asia and Africa.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding your first point they probably base it on the assumption that the Grandmaster title is so impressive anybody holding one must be stinking rich, or else simple prejudice and ignorance. There is also another common misconception; that the board of the ECF must draw six figure salaries when the role is a voluntary one.

I am confident that I have never known anyone in the UK or Western Europe who believes either of those things, or would even regard them as remotely believable. You do come across some strange preconceptions in Asia and Africa.

A few years back I had a slightly heated conversation with a club stalwart (regarding grading of the local league which he controls). A few random `highlights`. `The ECF should be paying me to grade the event`. `The ECF probably get a huge amount of money from the BCF`. When it later came up that the (then) CEO was American `How much do you think he earns`.

Elsewhere a contributor to the old YCA forum said that he was not prepared to pay the ECF to `fund pampered lifestyles` although when I asked him to elaborate he failed to do so.

And these are just the outspoken people.

[Michael Farthing]

A number of silver members have argued to us against membership fee increaes on the basis that the ECF directors were undoubtedly over-paid.

[Chris Goodall]

Of course, if more people got involved rather than simply writing on forums ...

You'll see upthread, Alex H asked me whether I'd still like to be involved and I said yes. (I haven't heard from him again.)

If more people thought about the processes they were following and how to explain them and make them repeatable, instead of bemoaning the lack of trainee superheroes...