ECF Finance meeting 2018

[Paul Cooksey]

There was a lot of discussion on the International budget. A motion was passed along the lines of "Council requests the International Director provides a more thorough breakdown of the costs for the International teams at the Olympiad (appearance fees, travel etc)" Obviously it would be unfair to publish it seperately for each individual, so the intention is for the ID to show the total costs of each of these.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of asking for the breakdown. Surely all council needs is a total an a commitment to stick to it?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Many players at that level often don't feel like they want to upgrade to Silver, as well as figuring out transport, etc, etc, and simple don't play in these events.

Therefore, my opinion is that, if everyone is on a Standard membership, these players would be more likely to be peer pressured to join their mates to go along to more Congresses/Tournaments"

I am sure that's true.

[benedgell]

From some of the early items:

There were a couple of minor changes to the minutes from the AGM.

There was some criticism of the lack of advanced notice of the removal of 3yr membership.

The accounts are subject to review, but the figures are better then expected.

There was discussion as to whether or not the Olympiad is more costly then the Euro Team Champs.

The budget is anticipating growth in membership (Yorkshire & juniors were specifically mentioned). The budget is anticipating an increase of members by 500 for each of the next 3yrs.

The Chess Library is valued at £130k. Once proper insurance is sorted (hopefully this week) it'll be open for members to visit.

The motion I mentioned in the previous post passed, 19 for, 6 against.

£5k is ringfenced for Women's Chess.

There was discussion as to why the budget for arbiters at the British is higher then the budget for players.

At the last Chess Academy weekend there was 20% female students. The aim is to get this to 25%.

The top junior players are being put in to an accelerator programme, financially supported by the Chess Trust. It is guaranteed for the 1st year, then will be reviewed before commitments are made for future years.

There was discussion about the work of the Finance Committee.

There was discussion of the removal of £1 discount for online membership review.

There was discussion of two elements of the junior membership: Bronze and Silver junior being the same price, and the pay to play fee for FIDE rated games for juniors being less then the difference between junior Silver and Gold. For the latter, the pay to play fee only allows tge junior to play in that one event, whilst a Junior Gold member can play in as many Fide- rated events as they wish over the course of the season.

[benedgell]

There was a lot of discussion on the International budget. A motion was passed along the lines of "Council requests the International Director provides a more thorough breakdown of the costs for the International teams at the Olympiad (appearance fees, travel etc)" Obviously it would be unfair to publish it seperately for each individual, so the intention is for the ID to show the total costs of each of these.

I'm not sure I see the relevance of asking for the breakdown. Surely all council needs is a total an a commitment to stick to it?

I believe I'm correct in saying that this motion was proposed by one of the Bronze Members' reps and seconded by the other. I didn't vote for it, but I appreciate why it was proposed and passed.

[benedgell]

Thanks, always useful to see these reports.

Can anyone give a more detailed report on the budget? Was the position on international spending raised?

Apologies - I was late and missed the bit on International Spending, I was also asked by Warwick University to ask about details of ECF Academy spending (some of the Warwick Uni committee were curious whether necessarily all the spending was value for money), but my lateness meant I didn't get to. [I should've on hindsight asked the relevant Director at the break]

All I can deduce is that when one of the Board Members said afterwards that the £1 issue caused anguish, so I expect the International Budget to have been fully scrutinised; and there may have been a card vote on something contentious before I arrived (card votse usually suggest that the issue was contentious - I think)...

...Fundamentally, as Leagues organise more Rapidplays, etc, the distinction between League chess and congresses/tournaments is getting more blurred, and rightly so - we should have a simple membership system where it is no additional hassle for people wanting to play League chess, or in Congresses, or a bit of both.

A league-organised tournament, so long as it's restricted to players in the league, counts as a closed event and only requires Bronze membership. See here.

I appreciate this and will look into it; however, my understanding is that with the Warwick Uni, Leamington, the proposed-Coventry (and the Birmingham Rapidplay) close by and organised by different but overlapping Leagues, we want players to play in as many of them as possible (due to their proximity) and really facilitate the growth of local chess in our "Warwickshire-ish" area.

I believe the first card vote was on 8a. The only issue that was voted on earlier and was not unanimously passed was the propsal regarding the international budget, which was decided on hand vote.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

I believe the first card vote was on 8a. The only issue that was voted on earlier and was not unanimously passed was the propsal regarding the international budget, which was decided on hand vote.

Fair enough, I recall Card 2 being used, so assumed a card 1 had been used in vote taking place before I arrived - thanks for the clarification!

[David Gilbert]

There was a lot of discussion on the International budget. A motion was passed along the lines of "Council requests the International Director provides a more thorough breakdown of the costs for the International teams at the Olympiad (appearance fees, travel etc)" Obviously it would be unfair to publish it seperately for each individual, so the intention is for the ID to show the total costs of each of these.

It’s more knotty than that. The request concerns how the ECF’s share of the funding was spent, not the £26k sponsorship money Malcolm raised. This is tricky. When funding streams are bundled together they become difficult to unravel in a meaningful way. Chris Fegan did point out that Council was attempting to micro-manage the international budget, but that was talked down. I'd agree with Paul Cooksey that after setting the international budget Council ought to let the International Director get on with the job. He would need to be challenged if the budget had been wildly exceeded, or indeed left significantly underspent, but he came in pretty much on target.

[NickFaulks]

The request concerns how the ECF’s share of the funding was spent, not the £26k sponsorship money Malcolm raised.

Oh, dear. You seem to be saying that we requested a breakdown of the budget for the 2016 Olympiad, whereas I though we were talking about the 2018 event. That needs to be cleared up quickly.

[David Gilbert]

The request concerns how the ECF’s share of the funding was spent, not the £26k sponsorship money Malcolm raised.

Oh, dear. You seem to be saying that we requested a breakdown of the budget for the 2016 Olympiad, whereas I though we were talking about the 2018 event. That needs to be cleared up quickly.

Right, well maybe I wasn't paying attention (it's happened before!), but I thought this was about the money spent, rather than money to be spent. Angus should be able to clear this up.

[Mike Truran]

I thought 2018.

[NickFaulks]

I thought 2018.

Thanks, that's good enough for me.

[Chris Goodall]

This proved contentious, despite a jovial remark that the effective increase for current bronze members was £4 – roughly a pint of beer – I was reminded by a member of the Board that if the £1 price increase in Item 6 caused anguish, then this would be 4 times the anguish…

Sorites paradox. When does a collection of grains of sand become a heap? When does a collection of small increases in membership become an extortionate fee?

How does an IT project get to be a year late? (One day at a time).

I spend much more on stuff that I've been told costs "less than a cup of coffee" than I spend on coffee.

If it was a small amount, it wouldn't be missed by the people requesting it.

My point is that if you want new players, you don't impose individual membership requirements at all. That's an avenue the ECF blocked off with the consequence that it's just ticking over at replacement level, if that.

I get it, Roger. I've been saying the same thing since membership started. Talking about the social policy benefits of membership is like talking about the social policy benefits of the poll tax. We do whatever brings in the most revenue, and then look around for ways to justify it post hoc.

This is directed at Andrew Z, too: you have to pull the levers you can pull, no matter how big their effect on the output is. We care about global warming even though it's 1 or 2 degrees on a planet that's already heated to about 300.

At the last Chess Academy weekend there was 20% female students. The aim is to get this to 25%.

The statistician in me would like to know whether that's 25% of total attendees or of total capacity. Reaching 25% of total attendees is easy, just turn away 25% of the boys you currently have.

[Angus French]

I thought 2018.

Thanks, that's good enough for me.

Yes, for 2018/19 which covers the 2018 Olympiad. The proposal was put during discussion of the budget agenda item.
I proposed and the seconder was Francis Bowers, one of the Platinum members' reps.
The request was for a breakdown of the ECF's contribution towards expenses. I suggested that, for both teams, figures were provided for: travel, accommodation, food, coaching, appearance fees, other.
The proposal was made because I was surprised at the level of expenditure for the 2016 Olympiad in Baku - £58,879 for two five-player teams which is equivalent to almost £6,000 a player. I was also concerned about the ECF's expenditure on the 2017 European Teams which came to £42,599 (since no sponsorship was found for the event), against a budget of £26,500. (I'm also curious to know why Olympiad spend is greater than that for the European Teams when accommodation and food is provided by the hosts of the former but not the latter. I appreciate the Olympiad is over 11 rounds against the European Teams' nine.)

[NickFaulks]

Was the position on international spending raised?

I was able to ask the technical question about the Budget that has been niggling me for a while. I fear that very few people in the room got the point.

The Budget approved 12 months ago showed the following outlay in respect of the 2018 Batumi Olympiad.

From ECF funds £26,500
From sponsorship £13,500
Total £40,000

The Budget approved yesterday showed

From ECF funds £36,000
From sponsorship £13,500
Total £49,500

I'm not interested in which one of these, if either, represents the proper expenditure on the teams. I would just like to know why the top number was changed, when it happened and whether the Board approved it. No answers to any of these questions were immediately available, but I have been assured that they will be..

One possible explanation was suggested from the floor. It is very simple ( they're often the best ) and is that in the International tab of last year's Budget, the figure in cell H25 is an error, and should have been not 26,500 but 36,000. I confess that I had not even thought of that, but it would make sense. It would also mean that the Board has spent the past year under the illusion that the ECF's finances were more robust by £9,500 that they actually were. As an aside, since we have been told that the Finance Committee tales a close interest in Budgets, might they not have picked this up?

There was a interesting related point. When I said that the members were now covering the full cost of the Olympiad teams the FD said no, only part of it. Does thai mean that some of the sponsorship is in fact nailed down? Do we have a right to know?

[Roger de Coverly]

The proposal was made because I was surprised at the level of expenditure for the 2016 Olympiad in Baku - £58,879 for two five-player teams which is equivalent to almost £6,000 a player.

Weren't there also the expenses of trainers?

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/baku-olympiad-round-up/