AGM : 15 October 2011

[LozCooper]

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

At this year's European Youth the organisers threatened to leave the English players out of the draw unless we paid the allegedly owed €132. Subsequent detective work by me led to the conclusion that if anyone owed any money it was the organisers owing the ECF. When this was pointed out to them I was suddenly allowed to use their office to print off the boarding passes for our return flights and use their paper at no charge

The ECU also tried to get an additional €700+ out of me. Again, subsequent checks revealed the amounts had been paid in July. I'm expecting a similar scenario at the European Team Championship in November

[Roger de Coverly]

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?

A review of Congresses and MOs should be quite simple.

Write down a list of Congresses, the Income from Game Fee this year and last year. Show the list to someone like the CEO who plays in most known Congresses and should be familiar with the rest. Similarly with MO and membership income. Write out a detail comparison between this year and last year. Hazarding a guess, perhaps, when a Congress takes place in an MO county and the data is submitted by the county, the Congress Game Fee has been reported under the Income for the MO. Should we expect the non-playing paid staff to understand these things? Possibly not, but I would expect it of the Board.

[Jonathan Rogers]

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.

Did he allow you to reply to his email or does the ban on you contacting him still remain?

It's an extraordinary thing to say, because of course CJ confuses his identities as ECF President and as an individual all the time. Apart from the examples given in this thread, recall page 9 of the "CJ Banned" thread, where CJ concluded by writing:

"However, you know who I am, what I do and what I support (incidentally, I don't support gay rights, I support gay equality) I humbly dare to suggest that no-one has any issue with my chess endeavours and how I work to promote and support the game - if it's extraneous activities where the problem lies, I'm afraid that's me.
I am happy and honoured to be ECF President but I am foremost CJ de Mooi and it's him who defines the job, not the other way around.

cjdemooi"

If he were pesent tomorrow, yet another question that could have been addressed to him is exactly what he meant in that last sentence. It sounds like "no one tells me what to do" and it has to be said that there are many who have allowed him to get away with this.

[Roger de Coverly]

Weren't we previously assured that the problem of game fee under-collection would be fixed?

It's not really known that there was a problem in the first place. Certainly the budget and the actual weren't always in agreement, but that was down to the budget method needing an update.

In 2010 there was an investigation of Game Fee collection using the grading files. This also improved the methods of deriving Game Fee from a grading file. If I recall correctly, the problems that it identified related to leagues and their initial estimation process for the most part. It was suggested that Congresses were paying the correct amounts.

[Sean Hewitt]

If I recall correctly, the problems that it identified related to leagues and their initial estimation process for the most part. It was suggested that Congresses were paying the correct amounts.

Indeed. This suggests
1) Lots of congresses simultaneously graded games but did not pay game fee
2) There is something wrong with the ECF congress game fee figures (either this year or last) meaning the comparisons are not meaningful.
3) There is something [else] wrong with the membership figures. If the number of members increases we would expect congress game fee to fall without affecting league game fee.
4) Congress organisers may have become aware of exemptions that they were not previously aware of.
5) Something else.
The FD's report

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.

suggests 1) but if that is true then he should already know who the culprits are though it would be a very big coincidence indeed if lots of congresses simultaneously graded games but did not pay game fee. I don't believe in that kind of coincidence.

[Roger de Coverly]

4) Congress organisers may have become aware of exemptions that they were not previously aware of.
5) Something else.

Earlier this year, the Board decided to exempt FIDE rated events from Game Fee. I don't know the effective date of the decision as to whether they backdated it so as to include the London Classic, Hastings and Gibraltar.

In any event, a crude test of the grading data ( list players with non-domestic FIDE codes without English club codes), suggests the amount involved to be around £ 2000 in a full year. Not enough to account for the supposed Game Fee shortfall, but possibly worthy of comment.

[E Michael White]

If someone doesnt renew their mebership in say April how is this accounted for? If all games were played before April these would be game fee free with no corresponding membership fee. I dont expect these accruals would account for the differences; there are likely to be several reasons.

[John Philpott]

Greetings from the Euston Square Hotel, which helpfully provides free WiFi. The ECF AGM is comfortably quorate and is about to get underway.

[John Philpott]

First 6 items on the agenda completed already. If the same rate of progress could be maintained I might get to the West Ham game after all, but I am not counting on this Various amendments to the voting register approved; Andrew Leadbetter and myself appointed as tellers. CJ's report accepted without comment (but one directed proxy against). Potential charitable status now being discussed in the context of the Chief Executive's report.

[John Upham]

Remember the key Pavlovian phrase: "Can I have a show of hands please?"

Say it twenty times in a minute and the meeting can be completed before having a nice cup of tea.

[John Philpott]

Rather a lot of questions for the Finance Director. Given the state of the accounts, it was not considered appropriate to ask the meeting to approve these: after finalisation and audit these will be circulated to Council members and approval sought via a written resolution under section 288 of the Companies Act 2006, as I suggested in one of my posts yesterday would be the appropriate way to proceed. The Finance Director's report was approved with 2 directed proxies against.

[John Philpott]

Good progress had been made through Directors' reports, with one vote in the room against adoption of the Home Chess report, until we got on to the Marketing Director's report. A statement was read out by the Chairman from Alex McFarlane, who asked the meeting to vote against the adoption of this report, as he strongly objected to Stewart Reuben's statement in relation to the incident at the British Chess Championship prize givingthat:

Had the Marketing Director been consulted initially there would have been no problem.

After a preliminary vote as to whether to vote to note rather than to receive and approve the report was lost, the meeting voted by a clear majority on a show of hands to receive and approve Stewart's report.

Officers' reports now completed with one directed proxy against the FIDE Delegate's report.

2 minutes to kick off. Alas I am not going to make it to the Boleyn Ground today.

[Alex McFarlane]

I trust that my objection has been minuted as requested. I still don't see how speculation on Stewart's part constitutes a report.

[John Philpott]

Now on to elections. CJ (one vote in the room against), Andrew Farthing, Mike Gunn, Jack Rudd, John Wickham and Adam Raoof (one directed proxy against) re-elected with a minimum of fuss. The two candidates for Junior Director are now having the opportunity to address the meeting.

[John Upham]

I still don't see how speculation on Stewart's part constitutes a report.

Alex,
I suspect that reports are generally approved in many cases without the approver reading said report. The mere fact that a report exists is normally enough to illicit approval.

Had it said "I have come to the conclusion that the earth is flat and not roundish as some have suggested" then I would imagine it would have generally been approved.

The Pavlovian responses to report approval requests should be witnessed at least once in your lifetime. I did this two years ago and it scarred and (scared) me for life!

People like to attend AGMs and put their hands up. It does get one out of the house on a Saturday when DIY chores might beckon.