This is, of course, no longer any of my business directly. Having read some of the discourse in passing, there have been two grumbles so far:
- There aren't many strong players playing
- There isn't on-site and off-site commentary
There is an element of chicken and egg. You could spend £3,000 on commentary, but then you can't spend it attracting the top players to play in it. You could spend £3,000 on conditions for titled players, but then you can't spend it on the commentary.
There isn't a sponsor this year, so what is the answer if one can't be found? Put the entry fees up? Put the ECF membership fees up? Or carry on with a compromise that does half and half? It is said that a compromise keeps everyone unhappy, and so it shows here: Mike Gunn and Andrew Martin are unhappy money isn't being spent on on-site commentary, and I imagine the top players are unhappy that more money isn't being made available for them either. I suppose the issue does allow the forum to do what it does best - discuss the merits of how best to spend limited money without ever forming a consensus. We've already reached the "Why don't they find a sponsor?!" part of that debate, an idea which has obviously never occurred to anyone before.
I always found amusing the comments about "The London Chess Classic manages it." Of course! But the London Chess Classic spends more on the Internet for the on-site broadcast in one year than the British Championship has on venues in total in the last 5 years. It is comparing apples and oranges. Even Hastings receives - well, received? - more money than the British, and now that's gone, you can see the issues befalling it.
Anyway, I'm sure that Adrian and Kevin are doing the best they can with the funds available, and I wish them every success with it this year. I look forward to watching it from afar.
