AGM : 15 October 2011

[John Philpott]

Dragoljub Sudar wrote

Can someone please clarify what proposals were actually passed? Alex's post mentions bye-laws 1 & 2 being passed but not the 'rates proposal doc' which is the one that states the charge for all non-members will be £1 or £2. Was that actually voted on as well?

On the ECF website the doc covering the proposal for bye-law 2 states:
"Made by the Council of English Chess Federation .... and 15th October 2011 in pursuance of Article 82...
WHEREAS the Articles of Association of English Chess Federation... the Game Fee established respectively for results:
(a) of Standard graded games at 44 pence;"

If bye-law 2 was passed, and the rates doc not voted on, doesn't that mean game fee is only 44p?

Rates were not voted upon on Saturday because under the ECF Articles the rates for the coming year are required to be determined by the Finance Council meeting in April. The AGM cannot bind the Finance Council to any particular set of rates, because these needs to be judged in the light of the financial position at the time, and until we have audited accounts we cannot even be sure what the financial position was last April!.

The rates referred to in the Bye Law and the Articles are those that happened to apply at the time the ECF was created: the listing of rates to which you allude concludes with the words "or such other rates established respectively pursuant to Article 18", and it is Article 18 that provides for the rates to be set annually by the Finance Council. This old rates represent part of the "historical material" that I referred to in my own report to Council as needing to be deleted from the Articles and Bye Laws next October once the ECF is operating under the new membership regime.

[Roger de Coverly]

The AGM cannot bind the Finance Council to any particular set of rates, because these needs to be judged in the light of the financial position at the time, and until we have audited accounts we cannot even be sure what the financial position was last April!.

Any speculation as to what might happen if the Bronze rate needed to be £ 15 instead of £ 12? You cannot blame Game Fee any longer, the membership rate, in particular the MO/Bronze rate, has to carry the full burden of paying for the ECF.

[Paul McKeown]

Looking at the Finance Director's report, I'm afraid that I can only share David Robertson's pessimism. If the transition to a membership scheme in 2012/13 is implemented in a manner similar to this year's apparent non-collection of fee and membership revenues, particularly given the loss of the remaining DCMS grant, then the ECF might well be rendered insolvent by 2015/16 or even sooner. This seems very grim indeed. If anyone can see a ray of sunshine or nugget of gold, please let us all know.

[Paul Cooksey]

If anyone can see a ray of sunshine or nugget of gold, please let us all know.

If you look really hard for a silver lining:
1. In extremis the ECF can ask its parent for money
2. Unaudited accounts don't prove things are bad

But agreed, you do have to look really hard.

[IM Jack Rudd]

3. Chess events in this country are largely not organized by the ECF directly, so they can still continue even if the ECF goes under.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

Thanks John for explaining that. Appreaciated.

I, probably like many others, was under the impression that the rates being quoted in the funding proposal and in the 'rates proposal' doc were being voted on at the AGM. That means all we can say to our club members is that we won't actually know the exact rates until next April. Uhm.

[Paul McKeown]

1. In extremis the ECF can ask its parent for money

I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories, but I wonder if the plan is simply to run the organisation into the ground, then when insolvent to force dissolution of its otiose league/county/union/federation structure, then to refinance it from currently untouchable funds... but no, I don't actually believe it to be true, as although chess players are portrayed as schemers in popular fiction, it's not a stereotype that holds water. It could well happen by default, though.

[Sean Hewitt]

I, probably like many others, was under the impression that the rates being quoted in the funding proposal and in the 'rates proposal' doc were being voted on at the AGM. That means all we can say to our club members is that we won't actually know the exact rates until next April. Uhm.

I think you can say something, i.e. that they'll need to be an ECF member. The likely cost at the moment appears to be £12 but as with game fee that's not set in stone until April.

[Paul Cooksey]

I, probably like many others, was under the impression that the rates being quoted in the funding proposal and in the 'rates proposal' doc were being voted on at the AGM. That means all we can say to our club members is that we won't actually know the exact rates until next April. Uhm.

I think you can say something, i.e. that they'll need to be an ECF member. The likely cost at the moment appears to be £12 but as with game fee that's not set in stone until April.

Also, the ECF board did make a proposal with figures in it to set an expectation of what is likely in April. If we weren't having the parallel discussion about the accounts, you could probably have assumed about £12 for Bronze. I'd guess it is still most likely.

[Paul McKeown]

3. Chess events in this country are largely not organized by the ECF directly, so they can still continue even if the ECF goes under.

Which is good news as it's all that the majority of players need. It would be nice to think, though, that important causes such as support for international/junior/womens/senior/prisoners/etc. chess could be continued without interruption.

[Alex Holowczak]

1. In extremis the ECF can ask its parent for money

I don't usually go in for conspiracy theories, but I wonder if the plan is simply to run the organisation into the ground, then when insolvent to force dissolution of its otiose league/county/union/federation structure, then to refinance it from currently untouchable funds... but no, I don't actually believe it to be true, as although chess players are portrayed as schemers in popular fiction, it's not a stereotype that holds water. It could well happen by default, though.

If that were going on, I'd resign immediately and make this public knowledge. Being listed on the accounts of a bankrupted company - when I'm already in £15k debt myself (student loan) - isn't something I need on my CV...

[Paul McKeown]

Alex,

As I said, I don't actually believe it myself. But unless the losses can be turned around fairly quickly, then there seems good reason for pessimism.

[David Robertson]

. And the ECF must be legally reconstituted as a voluntary association of individually subscribing members, thereby dissolving Company, Board and the rest of that tiresome clutter.

Ok so you've just done all that. Where do Clubs, Counties, Leagues and Congresses fit in?

One of the most astonishing aspects of the ECF as an organisation, made yet more astonishing by yesterday's shift to membership, is that it recognises every kind of organisational sub-unit within its domain except the unit players actually join. Nowhere are clubs recognised. I'd start there. And I'd pretty much finish there too. I'd disintermediate the current structure, scrapping regions, counties and certainly, congresses, as political units of the ECF. Under fire in an argument, I might recognise some kind of place for counties and regions because I accept that practice and experience varies in different parts of the country. For now though, I'd press for a national model based on Player-Club-ECF

Would you demand that all bodies offering chess services exclusively supply only members of your "voluntary" association?

For me, 'voluntary' means voluntary. I would have ECF retain its monopoly of a national/FIDE grading system: no membership, no grade. But I would decouple it from a 'right to play' at the club level, accepting that some players are simply 'social players' for whom a grade may not be important. Instead, under my own draft membership proposals published to another thread, I'd create a Bronze category membership - much as we plan to have - which would seek to attract those players voluntarily into basic membership. I concede I need to think through the 'free-rider' (leakage) problem a bit more.

This is a sketch. It's not the last word. It isn't even my last word.

[John Philpott]

It is self-evidently desirable to go into the period of uncertainty that a new approach inevitably involves from a position of strength. I have a number of question marks in my own mind about the figures in the accounts and do think that we need to wait for the audited version to judge the definitive position. However I note that.

1. The reserves shown in the unaudited accounts are £20,062.

2. The reserves would have been £17,152 higher if the expenditure indicated by note N in 2009/10 and 2010/11 on the eventually aborted Chess Sets for Schools Project had not been incurred.

[Mick Norris]

Looking at the Finance Director's report, I'm afraid that I can only share David Robertson's pessimism. If the transition to a membership scheme in 2012/13 is implemented in a manner similar to this year's apparent non-collection of fee and membership revenues, particularly given the loss of the remaining DCMS grant, then the ECF might well be rendered insolvent by 2015/16 or even sooner. This seems very grim indeed. If anyone can see a ray of sunshine or nugget of gold, please let us all know.

From discussion with the FD during the break, I would say yes

If it was me, I wouldn't have issued the accounts, I would have said I have no confidence in their accuracy

It may be grim, but I wouldn't base that on reading the accounts and wait until you see the final audited accounts in a few weeks