ECF Finance meeting 2018

[Roger de Coverly]

Compared to the Budget approved last year, there are two changes of significance.

Isn't there a strategy decision in there as well? Namely to reduce the junior membership cost to a level ,£ 5 where it's scarcely worth individually collecting because of the cost of collection. The side effect is to put a premium on the cost of a junior entering their first FIDE rated event or playing regularly in the 4NCL.

[NickFaulks]

Isn't there a strategy decision in there as well?

In the financial scheme of things, I don't think this is really significant.

[Alex Holowczak]

I believe that club players in London would generally prefer the cost of membership not to go up this year

Won't they say that every year? I've never heard anyone who prefers a cost to go up.

[NickFaulks]

I believe that club players in London would generally prefer the cost of membership not to go up this year

Won't they say that every year? I've never heard anyone who prefers a cost to go up.

Possibly, but they did accept an increase in 2017 and another in 2019, on the promise that there wouldn't be one in 2018. That has now been broken.

[Chris Goodall]

I expect the Budget will be approved without difficuly, because it usually is. Council members are right to feel that it is dangerous to fiddle around in a large meeting with a construct that has been painstakingly created from many moving parts.

Dangerous why? Council can strike out any item of spending they don't like. Mike Truran has already reassured us of that. He wouldn't be so cynical as to justify higher spending on the national teams by telling us that Council could strike it out, if there was no chance of Council striking it out, would he?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I expect the Budget will be approved without difficuly, because it usually is. Council members are right to feel that it is dangerous to fiddle around in a large meeting with a construct that has been painstakingly created from many moving parts.

Dangerous why? Council can strike out any item of spending they don't like. Mike Truran has already reassured us of that. He wouldn't be so cynical as to justify higher spending on the national teams by telling us that Council could strike it out, if there was no chance of Council striking it out, would he?

Mike Truran is entirely correct; Council CAN reject the board's spending plans should they so wish. More to the point if sufficient ECF members (or indeed non members) were sufficiently exercised about it they could pack council with individuals mandated to vote it out. That is how ECF democracy works - it is a flawed system as we all know but not proof against a mass revolt.

And no, Mike Truran would NOT be so cynical.Those of us with any knowledge of how the ECF works don't have to agree with Mike on everything to know that we would be lost without him at the helm.

[Michael Farthing]

Well said Andrew

[NickFaulks]

Mike Truran is entirely correct; Council CAN reject the board's spending plans should they so wish.

True, and also their plans to raise money from their members. We should remember that it is only by an accident of wording that Council is not being invited to approve the £1 increase across the board in the cost of membership. Evidently an increase requires specific approval, whereas the removal of a discount does not, but we all know they are the same thing.

Whether Council approves the use to which the Board intends put the new income - ie additional funding for the national team - is a separate point.

It is unfortunate that the Board's reversal in direction was signalled, and then only obliquely, less than three weeks before the meeting.

[JustinHorton]

And no, Mike Truran would NOT be so cynical.Those of us with any knowledge of how the ECF works don't have to agree with Mike on everything to know that we would be lost without him at the helm.

Regardless of the merits of any given individual, the organisation is bigger than any indivdual within it and could survive the absence of any individual within it. And any organisation of which this is not true is an organisation with a very big problem.

[Chris Goodall]

they could pack council with individuals mandated to vote it out.

Really though? They could organise that nationwide effort in the 3 weeks between the budget being announced and the meeting?

Look at it this way: let's say you were deciding on this year's International budget, and you wanted to increase it by an amount roughly equal to the £1 online discount. If I said to you no, you're not allowed to do that, the proper way to proceed is to keep the International budget the same as it was last year, and then if the members are sufficiently exercised about raising it, they'll let you know by packing Council with individuals of that opinion?

"But that's absurd, that would be virtually impossible to do, and they wouldn't agree on a single counter-proposal even if they did," you would say, and you would be right.

[Roger de Coverly]

Evidently an increase requires specific approval, whereas the removal of a discount does not, but we all know they are the same thing.

Does not Council have the power to reject the whole membership package? If so, it could agree to the abolition of the discount only if the base rates were £ 1 lower.

[Chris Goodall]

Regardless of the merits of any given individual, the organisation is bigger than any indivdual within it and could survive the absence of any individual within it. And any organisation of which this is not true is an organisation with a very big problem.

I'll need a sit down and a cup of tea after saying this, but I agree with Justin. A good volunteer makes people think "I could never do that, it's too complex". A great volunteer makes people think "I could do that, it's simple".

[John Reyes]

I expect the Budget will be approved without difficuly, because it usually is. Council members are right to feel that it is dangerous to fiddle around in a large meeting with a construct that has been painstakingly created from many moving parts. This year, however, the issues do look unusually straightforward.

Compared to the Budget approved last year, there are two changes of significance.

1. The amount going to the 2018 Olympiad teams has risen by £9,500, from £26,500 to £36,000.

2. The £1pa discount available to members by way of online payment has been scrapped. Let's say this will bring in an additional £9,000 in membership fees.

It is evident that it would be possible to reverse both of these unheralded changes, leaving the Budget largely as was approved a year ago, with little net effect. It is therefore to be hoped that counties and leagues have sounded out their players regarding their level of enthusiasm regarding an additional levy of £1pa to support the national team. Those who have found such enthusiasm to be high will presumably support the new plans, while those who have found resistance ought to favour rolling them back.

Based on admittedly limited soundings in the very short time available, I believe that club players in London would generally prefer the cost of membership not to go up this year, and that they think that Olympiad teams should be able to work within their existing budget. If applied around the country, this would also apply to the categories of Silver and Bronze members. It is of course possible that club players further North open their wallets more freely.

with the one pound, the ECF should instead offer a £5 discount if you pay over 3 years as it would be best for business!!

[Ian Thompson]

with the one pound, the ECF should instead offer a £5 discount if you pay over 3 years as it would be best for business!!

Evidently, some people at the ECF disagree with you because 3 year memberships are no longer available.

It would be interesting to know what the saving in collection costs to the ECF is with 3 year memberships compared to 1 year memberships, to determine what a fair discount would be (to be offset against any expected increases in membership fees over the 2 extra years of membership, which the ECF wouldn't get).

[Roger de Coverly]

It would be interesting to know what the saving in collection costs to the ECF is with 3 year memberships compared to 1 year memberships, to determine what a fair discount would be (to be offset against any expected increases in membership fees over the 2 extra years of membership, which the ECF wouldn't get).

The other indirect source of income with 3 year memberships is where the player doesn't play any games or very few games in the second and third years of membership.