What is the history of the ecf office

[Scott Freeman]

All this worries me. I think we have a chicken and egg problem here. If people don't pay game fee, then their tournaments are not graded (and rightly so). But if people are more interested in the prize money than the games being graded, then taking that process to an extreme, nobody has any grades at all because none of the games have been graded - and all we can ever run will be Open sections because we can never measure who would be "weak" enough to play in lower sections. As such the prize fund will go down anyway for all but the stars at the top. As such, I feel the need for grading is paramount if the players below the open section want prize money!

The ECF hub is the grading, unless of course we all switch to FIDE ratings - which I am quite happy with, other than I then fear for the future of the ECF. Someone made the point that the ECF probably receives less income from memberships that it would have done had everyone been paying game fee. Probably true, certainly in the case of active players who take the £16 a year option and therefore don't pay game fee.

The whole crux of the argument is simply that an organisation can only work if those playing stop arguing with the fact that there needs to be that central hub and whatever is needed to make that hub work must be charged. There is no point in us worrying about losing players who won't pay the extra if they are not going to be prepared to cover the cost of their activity, because if we bend over backwards to keep them (and subsidise them), then we go bankrupt or else the grading system fails, so we have no hub anyway.

I can't help thinking how amusing it would be if we switch to the sort of charging done by many local football clubs that one could join. Let's say that everyone pays an annual membership of about £50 and then pays £5 per game played.......!

[Peter Rhodes]

All this worries me.

It worries me too Scott, and I agree with the sentiments you have posted.


The problem - as it appears to me - is that it is not particularly focussed on what the average player wants from chess, and takes a proscriptive approach.

From my simple point of view - if I go to MacDonalds and they don't offer me the burger I want, I'm quite happy for them to go bust. Same for ECF.

All I want is two very simple things.

1) A rating that allows me to objectively measure my progress, and also allows me to compare myself against my peers both nationally and Internationally (i.e. FIDE rating system).
2) An organisation which advocates standards and best-practice within chess.


In my humble opinion, the ECF does not do either of these consistently or effectively.


As for Junior Chess and such things. That's not my responsibility. As another poster pointed out - what is the point of pumping money into Junior Chess, just so that when they reach the level of IM they find it hard to make a professional living.

Let those who are interested in Junior Chess, pay for it. There seems to be more than enough organisations making money from Junior Chess - let them invest in the infrastructure required.


Politically (and economically), we have seen what happens when Big Government says "We will take your money and spend it on things which we think are worthwhile". I prefer Small Government, and for people to spend their own money wisely and effectively.

I have spent enough time standing outside football grounds with a bucket to know that individual volunteers make more of a difference than beauracratic centrally-focussed money-eating behemoths.


I don't ask alot from the ECF so find it hard to fathom why everything is so difficult to achieve.

Having said that - I am so very happy that CJ has been elected President, and I hope he will bring sunlight to those hard-to-reach places.

[Scott Freeman]

Peter Rhodes wrote:
if I go to MacDonalds and they don't offer me the burger I want, I'm quite happy for them to go bust. Same for ECF.

That's the answer. The ECF need to buy a franchise for McDonalds and that will make them the money they need to run the office! Problem solved!

Cheers Peter - see you on Monday.

[William Metcalfe]

Rather a large statement you made there Roger that some people in the north so not want a national body.
We all agree there has to be a need for a national body bloody hell we helped set up the BCF all the unions did.What we want is a proactive national body that does what it is supposed to do and not waste money on offices and chess for schools projects and all its other ways of wasting our damn money.
What other national body would ask you to guess how much you should pay it like the ECF does with game fee.What other national body would spend such a porportian of its income on a office that does exhactly what. I do not know what it does that it has to employ 5 people does anybody else.Has the ECF ever done a time and motion study at the office.
Just because the ex officers were amateur does not give them a excuse for incompitence or lack of vision or lack of insight in to how to run a business.Martin was a highly compitent business man[based in the north Roger] and he was driven out of the ECF what a wonderfull legacy those officers that did that left us in debt and now without the grant.
As to the revinue raised by the nccu membership scheme at least the nccu had a vision and a plan it was not us that scrapped the scheme after 1 year it should have been left to run for 4/5 years and given a proper trial if the numbers did not add up fine then try a differant route.
The one thing i do know that came out of the NMS was players in yorkshire and parts of lancashire that never contributed 1p before to the ECF before were doing so.

[Andrew Walker]

porportian; exhactly; incompitence; compitent; wonderfull; revinue
----------------------
"Has the ECF ever done a time and motion study at the office(?)"
William - your wish has come true (last week). Shall I email you from the labour exchange once the office is closed?
Yours - the webmonkey ...

[Andrew Farthing]

Has the exercise uncovered something that will lead to the closure of the office and the loss of your job?

No. The review is still ongoing. No conclusions have been reached. For what I hope will be obvious reasons, I shall not be providing a running commentary on this review while it is happening, so please don't press me for more information.

[William Metcalfe]

Thank you for the update Andrew.
At least this shows everything is now open to review and nothing is sacrasant.
I can understand you not wanting to make any more comments.
But making comments about possable job losses seemed out of place before any decisions have been made

[Andrew Farthing]

It's not for me to explain the other Andrew's comment.

Personally, I read it as a darkly humorous reaction to a longstanding post which was very critical in tone and implied that the ECF office was a waste of money. I know that I wouldn't like it at all if I worked in an office which had been subject to as much hostile comment as the ECF office has, so I can understand the temptation to make some sort of response.

I appreciate that most - maybe even all - of the comments about the office are aimed at the function rather than the individuals who work there. It needs to be understood, however, that for the people in the office itself the comments seem personal and cause genuine distress.

[Carl Hibbard]

It needs to be understood, however, that for the people in the office itself the comments seem personal and cause genuine distress.

I will be cracking down hard on any comments that wander into that area...

[Andrew Farthing]

I will be cracking down hard on any comments that wander into that area...

Thanks, Carl. The office staff feel like they've been under siege for a long time now, and it's not been pleasant for them.

The review which I'm conducting starts with no preconceptions, and I am determined that its recommendations will be based on as good and fair an understanding of the facts as I can achieve. No one in the ECF is pressuring me to reach any one specific conclusion, and I wouldn't have taken it on if I felt that the results were predetermined.

All I can ask is that everyone involved is given some space while the review is going on.

[William Metcalfe]

I have never been critical of any worker at the office.I have been critical of the office costs and its drain on ECF finance.
That i hope is something that is open to debate

[Andrew Farthing]

Nothing will come of it, because the wrong questions are always posed.

Martin,

With all due respect to your scepticism, I don't believe that you can possibly know what questions have been posed this time. I've been given considerable freedom to determine how to approach this review and what to consider.

The issues that you mention, along with a number of others, were already part of my thinking.

[John Upham]

For the record, I would like it noted that my work with members of the ECF Office on matters connected with CoM and CfS has been business-like, efficient and enjoyable over the last few months. I would like to thank the Office and its staff for making this so. We have made significant strides in a number of IT and other related areas.

I look forward to migrating some of the antiquated back office functions from disconnected, difficult to maintain applications to modern scalable and resilient platforms.

We can only do our best within tight budget constraints (where the budget might be close to zero!).

I can absolutely agree with Andrew Farthing about the siege mentality which does weigh heavily and does impinge on morale.

Please try and be nice to your office staff!

[Andrew Walker]

possable; sacrasant
----------------------------
Thanks are due to the estimable Mr Farthing and the helpful Mr Upham. It is indeed the siege mentality that has prompted my response. However, I am a cheerful sort and continue to anticipate the future of the ECF on the web with excitement and enthusiasm.
I am, as ever, your webmonkey
Andrew | ECF |

[David Sedgwick]

It needs to be understood, however, that for the people in the office itself the comments seem personal and cause genuine distress.

I will be cracking down hard on any comments that wander into that area...

Quite right, Carl. But it should be regarded as equally unacceptable for the ECF office staff to ridicule contributors to this Forum.