My Resignation

[Roger de Coverly]

Regular and prompt publishing of minutes of meetings (Council and Board) would be a huge step forward.

I don't think they've ever published (edit) Board (/edit)minutes because of the confidential material they might contain. For a while, they were diligent in publishing summaries of discussions and decisions of board meetings.

They are on this page http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897

The latest board meeting report is number 54 from June 2011.

None of the reports contain any mention about participating in legal action against FIDE even as a puppet. On the financial side, they don't contain any discussion of a shortfall of Congress Game Fee income from the year ending April 2010 to the year ending April 2011.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Exactly so, why then has no one seen fit to call an EGM or have we arrived at a situation whereby the Board are accountable to no one.

Ernie,
I'm afraid, like Roger, I'm a bit sceptical about the value of an EGM per se. After all, compare the situation now to how things were at the time of the AGM in October:-


The ECF has been unable to fully account for the origins of the money that paid for Sheffield.
- it wasn't able to do so then.

The ECF has been unable to fully account for where the money that was raised for Sheffield was spent.
- it wasn't able to do so then.

The ECF President has an established history of promising accounts but not providing them
- we knew that then

The ECF President has an established history of providing conflicting figures for the amounts he'd said he'd raised for the British Championship tournament
- we knew that then


The AGM had the opportunity to address these matters. It wasn't taken. What would be different at an EGM?

[Ernie Lazenby]

In other words those who were at the AGM are not interested in geting proper answers- no doubt star struck by celebrity as I used to be. Good politicians promise the earth, deliver nothing, are duplicitous by nature and treat the rank and file as inconsequential irrelevance to be hoodwinked at will. Traits that infest many volunteer organisations.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Jonathan,
The february Media News section makes reference to this saga. BCM would like to print more detail when we establish the actual facts rather than the assumptions of facts. Our legal team is ready and waiting to analyse the copy.

Pleased to hear that John, but over the last six months many 'actual facts' have been established precisely because articles about Sheffield have been written. During this time the BCM and CHESS have chosen to remain (for the most part) silent.

[Jonathan Bryant]

In other words those who were at the AGM are not interested in geting proper answers....

Might be true for some, but I know for a fact that it's not true in all cases. I just don't think it was a particularly good forum for any kind of reasonable debate.

As a body it seems reasonable (to say the least) to conclude that the AGM wasn't interested in really examining the questions that were raised. As for the individuals who attended, well I don't think it's so clear.

[EDIT: should have made clear in the above post that when I published some questions that I would like answered by the AGM several people within the ECF volunteered to raise them on my behalf. They might not have got the full discussion that I would have liked, but some ECF folk were at least willing to ask them.]

[Roger de Coverly]

Might be true for some, but I know for a fact that it's not true in all cases. I just don't think it was a particularly good forum for any kind of reasonable debate.
.

Presumably the delegates were under the impression that over £ 30,000 had been paid as support of the 2011 British, being contributed 50:50 or thereabouts by Darwin and CJ. I'm not sure what facts can now be regarded as confirmed, but there is reasonable doubt, or no clear denial, that the expenditure was anywhere near that amount. There's also doubt as to whether expected standards of responsible accounting have been maintained over the spending of the Darwin part of the money.

The minutes record that questions were asked about the British and give a brief summary of the answers.

MJG read out three questions concerning the British Championships. In response, ANR confirmed that:

(i) He was happy that the ECF knew the origins of the monies raised for the event;
(ii) The basis for offering conditions to players was fair and the suggestion that one GM had not been offered conditions was untrue (the individual received an offer and played);
(iii) He accepted that it would be preferable for the ECF to set clearer boundaries between public and private activities.

Earlier (but after the AGM) the Streatham blog attracted these comments

Blogger Mike G said...

The questions were answered by Adam Raoof in his role as Director of Home Chess:

Q. Is the ECF confident that it knows the origins of the money that paid for Sheffield 2011?

A. From the ECF's point a view a single payment was received from CJ and we do not know how much each event/ activity contributed to this.

Q. Was the basis for awarding conditions for Sheffield agreed within the ECF beforehand? Is anybody other than CJ even aware what the criteria were?

A. All (active) GMs were offered conditions and there were no exceptions. This is a matter for the Congress Management and wasn't discussed by the board.

Q. Should the ECF be more forthright in ensuring that clearer boundaries are drawn between its officials' private business and public roles?

A. Yes.

In the discussion which took place several people (including Nigel Short) made the point that in practice you couldn't forecast the financial outcome of events like simul displays in advance and it was probably a mistake to issue any predictions of what sums would be raised.

(This is based on my memory of what was said - I didn't take notes and apologise if there is any inaccuracy in my report.)

I'm not sure on the accuracy of the answers attributed to Adam Raoof.

No discussion took place between the Managers of the British with a view to setting conditions. I have no idea what arrangements were made. I know of the condition offered to only a few players and only because they chose to tell me.
I do not believe that all the condition offered went through the official accounts. If there was a private deal then I would not expect the event accounts to reflect it.

I suggest Adam should be contacted to check the accuracy of the statement attributed to him.

Alex McFarlane

[E Michael White]

In the discussion which took place several people (including Nigel Short) made the point that in practice you couldn't forecast the financial outcome of events like simul displays in advance and it was probably a mistake to issue any predictions of what sums would be raised.

Thats almost interesting and suggests maybe some losses were underwritten rather than unconditional donations made. For chess events finding someone prepared to underwrite losses is almost as valuable as an outright donation.

[Alex McFarlane]

I asked a day or two ago if the 2011 Championship accounts have been finalised yet. I also asked for a copy of them if they have.

It was being established if they had been finalised. I await an answer.

I confirm that neither co-manager was made aware of the conditions offered. I wait to see if any conditions and indeed any sponsorship monies have gone through the accounts. Since Darwin did give money to the ECF I would expect that to be recorded somewhere.

Roger, it is not uncommon for organisations to publish redacted minutes to cover confidential items.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thats almost interesting and suggests maybe some losses were underwritten rather than unconditional donations made. For chess events finding someone prepared to underwrite losses is almost as valuable as an outright donation.

That seems to be the hypothesis put forward by Steve Giddens, namely that CJ underwrote the fees and conditions to GMs but in practice the Darwin sponsorship paid most or all of that expenditure and the additional entries attracted by the GM presence helped finance the prize fund, other expenses and surplus carried forward to future events.

PS I didn't write the comment attributed, I just quoted it from the posting (Mike Gunn) on the Streatham blog.

[Jonathan Bryant]

In the discussion which took place several people (including Nigel Short) made the point that in practice you couldn't forecast the financial outcome of events like simul displays in advance and it was probably a mistake to issue any predictions of what sums would be raised.

Thats almost interesting and suggests maybe some losses were underwritten rather than unconditional donations made. For chess events finding someone prepared to underwrite losses is almost as valuable as an outright donation.

That's one interpretation. I found this talk of "predictions" the part of the AGM that was hardest to understand.

Regarding the Nigel Short simul tour:-

CJ on 30/3/11
... I can say that £1500 was raised for the British Champs ....

CJ on 12/7/11
There was £500 from the simul tour but I instead gave that to Women's Chess instead

CJ on 8/8/11
I hope everyone has enjoyed this year's tournament [The British Championships - JMGB] which I, and others, have been working to support financially for a long time (both the Staunton Dinner and Nigel tour made significant contributions to both the Championships and charity)

See http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... -post.html for the individual links.


Not predictions at all. Statements that the tour raised £1500 for the British. No it was £500. No it was £0. No it was a "significant contribution"



What's curious is how the idea of 'predictions' was allowed to pass unchallenged. At least some of those at the AGM knew full well that it was a complete red herring and that CJ had simply made conflicting statements about how much was raised.

The fact of his promises to publish accounts and subsequent failure to do so doesn't seem to have been discussed at all either.

[Mick Norris]

The fact of his promises to publish accounts and subsequent failure to do so doesn't seem to have been discussed at all either.

Yes it was

[Jonathan Bryant]

The fact of his promises to publish accounts and subsequent failure to do so doesn't seem to have been discussed at all either.

Yes it was

Ah, well I stand corrected.

What was the conclusion, then? Mike didn't mention it in the comment that Roger cited earlier. Is it mentioned in the minutes of the meeting?

[Angus French]

FWIW, I attended the AGM and Mike Gunn's comments on the S&BCB Blog (given above by RdC) tally with my notes. I also recorded Adam saying that:
1. the conditions for the players would have been agreed with David Welch (which Alex McFarlane has stated, here, wasn't the case);
2. the Congress had received a cheque from CJ.

[Mick Norris]

The fact of his promises to publish accounts and subsequent failure to do so doesn't seem to have been discussed at all either.

Yes it was

Ah, well I stand corrected.

What was the conclusion, then? Mike didn't mention it in the comment that Roger cited earlier. Is it mentioned in the minutes of the meeting?

Jonathan

From memory, it was agreed that it would have been better if CJ hadn't promised to publish accounts, but there was nothing sinister in his failing to do so; and noted that it wasn't possible in advance to predict accurately the amount to be raised by a simul tour (particularly given that items were being sold at events as well as not knowing if all the simuls would be full) and that any funds raised were a bonus

Clearly, Council didn't want to pursue it, but then again there were financial questions about the British in Sheffield available, but of which Council hadn't been made aware (and possibly the ECF board hadn't been made aware too, it is hard to know what was going on)

Now we are in a situation where, I understand, David Welch finally passed on this info in December and Mike Truran and John Philpott seem to me ideal people to resolve it

It may be that CJ should go, but based on the information available in October, all but 1 Council voter felt not - if a motion is to be put to the ECF Finance meting in April, the MCF would like to know in advance of our Council meeting of 15 March

[Roger de Coverly]

Now we are in a situation where, I understand, David Welch finally passed on this info in December and Mike Truran and John Philpott seem to me ideal people to resolve it

The way you would normally expect fees and conditions to be paid would be that it would be handled by the Congress managers if the payments were being made on behalf of the ECF. Whilst the amounts paid to individual players would remain generally confidential, the ECF would be able to document them, if an interested party, perhaps HMRC or the auditors wished to see them.

The story which now seems to be emerging is that the payments to players were personally handled by CJ with amounts being reclaimed from the ECF. The problem for the ECF and the 2011 Managers is that it leaves them exposed without an audit trail should there be questions asked about whether taxation (including VAT) has been correctly handled. It also means that the ECF probably doesn't know CJ's personal contribution, not that it necessarily should.

As far as the simul amounts were concerned, the variable reports on how much they raised were made after the events took place, so they should have been actual rather than predicted amounts.