ECF Accounting

[Ernie Lazenby]

A very cynical person may believe the the report presented in the manner it does, highlighting some bad practices and naming names ,is intended to encourage members to say okay they have identified a problem so let's put things right and move on. This is perhaps a good ploy to prevent a forensic examination of the accounts for the British being published.

It is quite clear to any reader of this forum that there are several people who are in position to express serious concerns about the financial affairs at the championships. these matters cannot be allowed to go away simply because the ECF says we got some things wrong.

In my view very penny should be accounted for with receipts and if it isn't then sorry serious questions need to be asked.

It is apparent that this explosive matter has been bubbling under the surface for some time.

Sadly however I feel when push comes to shove at any meeting the majority of the elected reps will simply try to have the matter brushed aside such is the nature of our organisation.

[John McKenna]

My thanks to Roger for pointing out my earlier mistake regarding the figures for the Brit. Ch. that appear in the ECF a/s for 2011-12.
They actually appear in the column for 2011 (not marked Canterbury) so I wrongly assumed they were for Sheffield.
Let me get this right - those a/cs are being submitted in 2012, yet the latest Br. Ch. they have figures for is 2010!?
Would moving the ECF's end of financial year to 31 Aug. mean the figures for each year's Championship could appear in the same year's a/cs?

[Roger de Coverly]

(c) what the rather large "other" figure consists of

Replying to my own question, it's possible to "unlock" the spreadsheet and find more detail analyses. The contents of "other" aren't very exciting.

[John McKenna]

I still have not got it right - the a/cs I mentioned above are 2010-11 not 2011-12. Arrrrgh...

[Jonathan Bryant]

As an Insolvency Practitioner and accountant I deal on a daily basis with failed companies, a large proportion of which failed through nothing more than mismanagement or even misfeasance on the part of its directors.

It says something that I am truly shocked by the contents of the finance committee report....

Whilst it may be shocking to a professional, to anybody who has followed the story of CJ de Mooi's time as ECF President, it's really no great surprise. Indeed, the report would only have raised an eyebrow if it had not come to the conclusions that it reached.

The great shame is that post-Sheffield hindsight was not at all necessary to identify the problems that have now, rather late in the day (to borrow a phrase), finally been identified.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why does the Budget spreadsheet not record the amount of the Darwin sponsorship, either as the Gross Amount received by the ECF being £ 15,600 or the amount net of VAT being £ 13,000?

Again answering my own question, the amount shown as outrun for the "Donation" income at the British is the amount extracted from the ECF's ledger. Not that it explains why the amount isn't £ 13,000 or £ 15,600 or even some larger amount. The English Championship income of £ 2,500 is shown on a different line.

[Roger de Coverly]

The great shame is that post-Sheffield hindsight was not at all necessary to identify the problems that have now, rather late in the day (to borrow a phrase), finally been identified.

Credit, perhaps, to the Streatham blog for indirectly tabling questions at the AGM, the replies to which just dug the ECF deeper into a hole. I suppose the T-shirt incident is partly to blame, otherwise the Championship managers could presumably have worked with the Finance Director or other ECF Accounting person, CJ or CJ's accountant to put together a coherent set of books with all the necessary VAT reclaimed and sufficient disclosure or non-disclosure to satisfy both CJ and the ECF Council.

[Roger de Coverly]

In my view very penny should be accounted for with receipts and if it isn't then sorry serious questions need to be asked.

The budget spreadsheet gave more away than perhaps it intended. I don't think there are any particular questions about the accounting of income and expenditures handled directly by the organisation team at the Congress. The issues surround the consolidation of the Congress accounts into the accounts for the ECF and the treatment of sponsorship income, VAT and identification of money sources for player conditions or fees.

The Finance Chairman's report highlights the issue that the ECF is rather low in book keeping or accounting experience or expertise in its Battle office. This may have influenced the preparation of the Sheffield accounts.

[Ernie Lazenby]

I am absolutely certain that the team at Sheffield did every right in respect of matters they had control of, it's the issues raised by Alex and David that concern all of us, matters they seem to have had no control over.

[Alex McFarlane]

The Finance Chairman's report highlights the issue that the ECF is rather low in book keeping or accounting experience or expertise in its Battle office. This may have influenced the preparation of the Sheffield accounts.

If the office staff have limited bookkeeping skills, and that is probably the case, then who should be blamed? I think that it would be totally unfair to blame the Hastings office. The situation was known to exist when Cynthia retired. Why did neither the CEO nor Finance Director instruct remedial action. Indeed, both were alerted to the problems at an early stage by David Welch and later I made my concerns known.

If the Finance Director was unaware of the De Mooi invoice then the system is fatally flawed and the Council meeting must be allowed to ask some serious questions regarding the competence of several Board members.

If you accept that the Managers were doing their best to make their concerns known then who shoulders the main blame?
The President has obviously broken ECF procedures. His procedures are confirmed as lacking.
The CEO seems not to have investigated the concerns of officials.
The Finance Director was either unaware or did not act on concerns raised.
The Home Director actively praised De Mooi's financial contribution even after it was being queried elsewhere. As the British is his 'baby' he should have been seeking the truth rather than defending the indefensible.

The Co-Managers who were expressing concerns were both forced out. (I have seen David's resignation letter which he asked to appear on the website and I was not re-employed as the Home Director could no longer support me!)

Do any of the above volunteer to be Spartacus?

[Jonathan Bryant]

The great shame is that post-Sheffield hindsight was not at all necessary to identify the problems that have now, rather late in the day (to borrow a phrase), finally been identified.

Credit, perhaps, to the Streatham blog for indirectly tabling questions at the AGM, the replies to which just dug the ECF deeper into a hole.

I do think it's fair to say that we - the S&B Blog - have been interested in this issue at times while other people (the print media, for example, who seem to be sitting around waiting to see what SG has to say) have been ignoring it.

However, I think the AGM is much too late a starting point. True, it was a bit of a missed opportunity to start to set things right, but the clues that the shambles that arose at Sheffield was on its way were there as early as July 2010, if not before.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have seen David's resignation letter which he asked to appear on the website...

Since the ECF refused to publish those details is it available to publish here?

[Alex McFarlane]

Since the ECF refused to publish those details is it available to publish here?

David did not want it to appear here. Suffice it to say that it did mention a lack of support from the ECF hierarchy in the fallout from teeshirt gate. It also mentioned that he had discussed the financial situation with De Mooi during Sheffield.

Roger suggests that but for the situation following the prizegiving the matter could have been resolved. I do not agree with that assessment. De Mooi was made aware of the situation at an early date. This was reinforced in a conversation held with De Mooi in late July/early August during the event. The board were made aware of the financial concerns in September in David's resignation letter and before. It is incredible that nothing was acknowledged until Mike Truran's report in February.

The CEO's report mentions that this will not be allowed to happen again. It should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. Has any reprimand been issued to those involved or, like the FIDE case, did various officials 'forget' repeatedly to mention the problem?

During the fallout from Sheffield De Mooi offered a personal apology to Andrew Farthing (no=one else, of course). Has he done so again one wonders? After Sheffield he offered his resignation which was rejected. Has this been offered again? If so, why was it rejected?

I will be representing Scarborough at the Council Meeting and Lara will be representing quite a bit of the north of England. I hope the Board are prepared to answer some very embarassing questions.

Is Mr De Mooi willing to indicate whether or not he will be in attendance?

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger suggests that but for the situation following the prizegiving the matter could have been resolved. I do not agree with that assessment.

That's a view or impression from the outside. Whilst there was criticism, particularly of the moveable funds claimed raised by the Staunton dinner and the simul tour, it just seemed like gratuitous Keene bashing or associate of Keene bashing and that the sponsorship income of the Congress would have been handled in the normal established manner.

If the facts now becoming available were known to the Board at a much earlier stage, why did they take the decision to keep quiet, even when prompted by AGM questions to make a disclosure?

The latest paper on Governance seems to be proposing that best practice is to have an awful lot of it. Would a director who didn't play chess really be necessary? Perhaps if you are trying to spend £ 250,000 of other people's money, such structures and the expense accounts that go with them make sense. Bottom line is that it's not satisfactory to run a voluntary organisation using an approach where concerns voiced by managers which would, if or when made public, be of concern to the wider community, are suppressed by the Board.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the facts now becoming available were known to the Board at a much earlier stage, why did they take the decision to keep quiet, even when prompted by AGM questions to make a disclosure?

Again, answering my own question, was it the re-election of directors? Although there were no relevant contested elections, Council will on occasion vote for "None", as it proved the previous year for the non-exec vacancy and nearly proved last year for Marketing Director.