AGM : 15 October 2011

[Jonathan Bryant]

I am a great fan of the blog, but this is simply another attempt to get at the penguin and anyone even remotely associated with him.

This is an interesting suggestion, since I've been writing about the ECF President and not about Ray Keene. Out of interest, would you care to cite an example of where I have 'got at' Ray Keene.

The suggestion from the mix of "evidence" and innuendo ....

No innuendo. I have directly quoted CJ's own posts on this forum. I'm not sure why you consider that to require the ""s around the word evidence.

That he did not publish accounts having said he would do so is a shame, but who is S&B blog to think it has the right to such accounts, if it was a private venture.

Well, personally I feel that it is more than a shame. However, I'm not really interested in seeing the accounts, per se. Well, only insofar as they would clear up the conflicting statements about amounts raised that CJ left behind. More relevant, I feel, is the record of promises being made and not kept.

The underlying idea that somehow some money might have found its way to where it should not, to RDK presumably, is just nonsense and quite frankly none of your business.

Nonsense, no doubt, but irrelevant since I have never suggested that that money has gone to Raymond Keene or anywhere else.

[John Philpott]

Again reverting to the issue raised at the start of this thread, the Director of Finance's report has been published in the course of today, but does not seem to have attracted any comments.

That just leaves the report of the Chairman of the Governance Committee. Apologies to all for its late appearance, but I have had quite a lot of fire fighting to do in respect of various aspects of the Council meeting. The report was submitted to the Office this afternoon, but has not so far been uploaded: hopefully that will be rectified in the morning, but for anybody who cannot wait till then it can be viewed at http://johnu175.wordpress.com/2011/10/1 ... 1-ecf-agm/

[JustinHorton]

For CJ to host the dinner as ECF President does not necessarily imply anything official about the event - merely that he is the ECF President. The use of the email address - ditto

I'm afraid this is a nonsense. The whole reason for having official titles and emails is that one uses them when one is working in an official capacity, i.e. precisely not in a personal capacity. Conversely, when operating in a personal capacity, one does not use them. I don't believe that this is at all a difficult principle to grasp. (Unless you're Michael Gove, of course.)

Similarly, if a private individual puts up money to pay conditions in the British why should he not be able to do so, as long as those he is paying are eligible to play and are declining to play because of the lack of conditions? Many of our international teams have been funded on the same private terms.

I'm not aware that anybody has objected - at all - to any private individual putting up money for the British, or any other tournament. However, we really do need to distinguish between a private tournament, organised by private individuals, and a British Championship tournament organised by the ECF. In the latter you really do need some transparency and accountability, on behalf of and for the benefit of the members of the ECF, i.e. all of us. Because it's not a purely private affair.

Again, I don't think this is a particularly hard principle to grasp.

At the end of the day this is simple accountability and good governance. There is an alternative to this, which is to say that somebody is waving money at chess, therefore we need to ask no questions and discourage anybody else from asking them. It's quite a common view, and not just in chess: but it's not one I believe to be wise in the long run.

[Matthew Turner]

The Finance Director's report is grim reading. The finances are £15,000 worse than expected. This seems to be for two reasons

1. Game fee income is £10,000 under forecast. This discrepancy is almost entirely due to lack of receipts from Congress organisers.

(I don't really understand this one - anybody know what is going on here?)

2. The Junior Chess budget was overspent by £5,000. This is due to unexpected costs incurred at overseas Junior Championships.

(Organisers at World and Euro Championships making a quick buck by overcharging - perhaps not completely unexpected?)

[Alex McFarlane]

Having been asked by Mr De Mooi not to confuse his capacity as ECF President with his person identity, I will refrain from commenting on that matter.

If a player is sponsored by a private individual or company to take part in an event then I accept that the details of this might not be made public (other than to the taxman). I think that should apply regardless of the event. There was at least one player at the British wearing the logo of his sponsor.

Confusion can arise when part of the deal is a private one but part goes through tournament accounts. I would hope that this will not present a problem in the finalised accounts for this year's event.

[Mick Norris]

Neville Belinfante is the normal CAA rep but is elsewhere so I could have gone in his stead. I could have gone as Scarborough. There are a couple of other NE England votes I could have gone to represent.

You would hope that any member would be allowed to attend if not to participate at least to observe.

On observing - is anyone going who will be able to give a blow by blow account of the action?

Yes, me

I'll write up my notes on the train home and type them up when I have time, which won't be until Sunday evening I guess

(If I catch my connection at Stockport which only has 5 mins to spare, I won't be back in Bolton until after 11 pm on Sat night, if not I'll be sleeping on Stockport railway station )

[Mick Norris]

Again reverting to the issue raised at the start of this thread, the Director of Finance's report has been published in the course of today, but does not seem to have attracted any comments.

That just leaves the report of the Chairman of the Governance Committee. Apologies to all for its late appearance, but I have had quite a lot of fire fighting to do in respect of various aspects of the Council meeting. The report was submitted to the Office this afternoon, but has not so far been uploaded: hopefully that will be rectified in the morning, but for anybody who cannot wait till then it can be viewed at http://johnu175.wordpress.com/2011/10/1 ... 1-ecf-agm/

John

Thanks for that, nice to complete the set

[Christopher Kreuzer]

There was at least one player at the British wearing the logo of his sponsor.

Chess players get sponsored? (Is there a reason the company or player can't be named? Or previous examples given if that is sensitive for some reason. Of course, Magnus is leading the way when it comes to clothes sponsorship, though he was hardly the first, I don't think.)

[Sean Hewitt]

The Finance Director's report is grim reading. The finances are £15,000 worse than expected. This seems to be for two reasons

1. Game fee income is £10,000 under forecast. This discrepancy is almost entirely due to lack of receipts from Congress organisers.

(I don't really understand this one - anybody know what is going on here?)

Grim indeed. However, the figures in the accounts for game fee must be wrong unless you believe that something like 50 congresses all failed to pay their game fee last year. I doubt that, so think there is some incorrect allocation going on.

The membership numbers are clearly fiction too.

[Roger de Coverly]

Grim indeed. However, the figures in the accounts for game fee must be wrong unless you believe that something like 50 congresses all failed to pay their game fee last year. I doubt that, so think there is some incorrect allocation going on.

The membership numbers are clearly fiction too.

The ECF has extended Game Fee exemptions to FIDE rated events. But that wouldn't explain the collapse in Game Fee income for Rapidplays.

As Sean suggests, the figures for membership income, if correct, require explanation, not least because of the variances from last year. It would be my impression , and probably everyone else's, that the balance between members and non-members did not change dramatically over the year. So what do we make of
(a) NMS income increasing from £ 6737 to £ 20310
(b) Other MO income increasing from £ 5357 to £ 13922
(c) "subs" reducing from £ 39690 to £ 17085 ?

I would have thought there's a reasonable case to refuse to approve the accounts until these issues are sorted.

[John Upham]

I would have thought there's a reasonable case to refuse to approve the accounts until these issues are sorted.

Have these accounts been independently examined this time around?

[Roger de Coverly]

Have these accounts been independently examined this time around?

I would have hoped that both the 2009-10 accounts and the 2010-11 accounts, along with the parallel grading files would have been extensively scrutinised and reviewed as part of the development of the ECF's new funding proposals. It seems very strange that apparently dramatic shifts in the ECF's sources of revenue, plus serious shortfalls in Game Fee could make it into the draft accounts without ringing alarm bells.

[John Philpott]

John Upham wrote

Have these accounts been independently examined this time around?

Whereas the BCF accounts (of which there is currently no sign) are now independently examined, the ECF accounts are subject to a full audit. I do not believe that the audit has yet been completed. Last year, in an analogous situation, Council approved the accounts subject to audit. This time around, given the doubts that Sean and Roger have expressed, which mirror concerns of my own, I think that a more appropriate course of action would be to wait for the audit to be completed, circulate the audited accounts to Council members and deal with the approval by applying the provisions of section 288 of the Companies Act 2006 which enable a private company's members to make decisions by a written resolution.

[Angus French]

The ECF accounts are subject to a full audit. I do not believe that the audit has yet been completed.

The Finance Director's Report states: "10. The 2010-11 accounts are currently with the auditors".

4. Game fee income is £10,000 under forecast. This discrepancy is almost entirely due to lack of receipts from Congress organisers. I have conducted a review of those congresses that have not paid game fee and asked the office to investigate and issue invoices where they identify under or non-payment...

I'm having a little difficulty reconciling this statement with figures given in the accounts document and the budget report spreadsheet provided for the April Finance meeting. In the first place, game fee income, at £51,310, appears to be not £10K but £5K under the forecast of £56,250. (Though it is £10K under the budget of £62,000 - perhaps that is what is meant?) And second, the problem with undercollection of income, while largely Congress-related can also be attributed to lower 'Prior Year' income (than was budgetted for). The relevant figures are below.

Game Fee income from standardplay Congresses (for year ending 30 April):
- 2010/11 actual from accounts document £5,882
- 2010/11 forecast from budget report £10,000
- 2010/11 budget from budget report £11,000
- 2010/11 to date from budget report £3,167
- 2009/10 actual from accounts document £11,281

Game Fee income from Rapidplays:
- 2010/11 actual from accounts document £1,991
- 2010/11 forecast from budget report £4,000
- 2010/11 budget from budget report £4,500
- 2010/11 to date from budget report £1,241
- 2009/10 actual from accounts document £4,191

Game Fee income from Prior Year:
- 2010/11 actual from accounts document £195
- 2010/11 forecast from budget report £50
- 2010/11 budget from budget report £1,900
- 2010/11 to date from budget report £47
- 2009/10 actual from accounts document £1,440

Some questions further to the above and to previous posts concerning the accounts:
1. Don’t the to-date figures provided for the April Finance meeting indicate that there was a problem with income collection for 2010/11 as long as six months ago (by which time most of the money should have been "in", shouldn't it)?
2. Why should it require an instruction from the Finance Director to instigate a review of game fee income owing? Shouldn't this be covered by a process? Weren't we previously assured that the problem of game fee under-collection would be fixed?
3. Are the members of the Finance committee satisfied with what's reported in the accounts?
4. Is the Board satisfied with the accounts?

[Kevin Thurlow]

Game Fee figures might be skewed by the rather strange bills that get sent. I got one for an internal club championship this summer, and realised the demand was way over the correct amount, so paid what we owed, including an explanatory note. But when I looked at the demand, the figures quoted to me made no sense, even if you calculated it with full Game Fee. This was only one event of course, but presumably it might have happened elsewhere. Even if repeated, this sort of error would probably not account for the full shortfall.