No news is bad news

[Mike Truran]

First rule of management in the real world - underpromise and overdeliver rather than the other way round (if you don't want to be fired that is - obviously that's not a concern for some of the career jobsworths with cartloads of proxy votes in the Alice Through The Looking Glass world of the ECF).

[Sean Hewitt]

The best the ECF can do is (if the Holloid deal has gone pear shaped) is to explain this to schools and to offer at cost sets to those schools that want them. This would not be expensive for the schools (say £30=£35 for ten sets) and should not be a barrier to those that have any interest in the game at all. Indeed, if a school were not prepared to pay this, then they are not really interested are they?

Sean, do you honestly believe the ECF can have the cheek to do this?

If the Holloid deal is dead then the ECF must work with a major supplier at a discount and with additional sponsorship and with the possibility of funding from selling extras to the schools to provide these sets.

The main points that force the ECF hand are :-

The ECF have publicly announced this project.

They have also announced this to every MP in the country.

All Schools in the country have more or less signed up.

Given the above It must be done, otherwise the ECF and sadly chess in this country will be forever tainted.

Paul, The ECF clearly announced the deal prematurely before everything was in place, and this is something they should not have done. I am sure they did it in good faith, but it was naive. But we are where we are and the question (if the deal is dead) is what to do next. You suggest a deal with a major supplier at a discount, funded via additional sponsorship.

But we live in the real world and must therefore look at the numbers. Let's assume for the moment that you can get a discounted deal and you can get the sets and boards at £2 per set (a stretch, but maybe doable I reckon). That's half a million quid. Then you have to deliver the sets onto the schools. I reckon that's getting on for another pound per set. So you are looking for "additional sponsorship" of half a million pounds, up to three quarters of a million pounds, during the worst economic downturn in living memory for a sport that has been unable to find a £10,000 per year sponsor for its national championships even when times were economically good. I don't think that that's achievable.

John U's icing suggestion is the sensible way to explain the problem. Having done that, the question then is, do you just leave it at that and let the interest generated by the project die? Or do you swallow a very bitter pill and face up to the problem as best you can, and try to deliver some sets to schools - even if they are no longer be free? Personally, I think the latter is the lessor of the two evils.

However, from a credibility point of view the exisiting management iwho were involved in the project probably could not do this and would have to be replaced for this to happen. That's why I voted "none of the above" for President at this years AGM.

[Sean Hewitt]

Just for clarification, I am not suggesting that the ECF buy 250,000 chess sets. A number of schools have applied for sets, let's say it is 6,000 (this seems high to me). This would require the ECF to buy 60,000 chess sets. On bulk, chess sets (with boards) cost about £4 each I believe, therefore the total cost to the ECF would be £240,000. Yes, a lot of money, but perfectly possible within the JR funds.
I believe there are very few limits imposed by John Robinson on the distribution of his legacy, so if the ECF had the will (no pun intended) then there is no reason why funds should not be used to purchase sets.

Matthew - I dont know how many schools have applied for sets - perhaps Andrew Martin is best placed to advise. But whatever the number, you would have to deliver the sets as well as buy them and this incurs further costs. The reason that I don't think you can or should look to the JR fund to bail the ECF out of this is firstly that the fund is not in the control of the ECF - it's a seperate charitable trust. So the ECF has no call on these funds. Secondly, I believe that it is in the terms of the trust that a certain amount of the capital must be maintained and only the income and a small proportion of the capital can be spent. Thirdly, and most importantly, much of the junior coaching and participation in this country is funded by the JR legacy. If you were to blow even half of the capital on bailing the ECF out of this mess (that they have created) then you would only be able spend half as much money on junior chess from now on FOR EVER MORE. This is far too high a price to pay in my opinion.

[Mick Norris]

At the risk of repeating myself;

As a member of Cleveland chess association I have known the current ECF President for something approaching 40 years and must make it clear that he is a decent chap who can be very good company.He did a tremendous job in supporting chess in Cleveland but most of the high profile and successfull work was decades ago. The problem is, as in many walks of life, people can get to positions that are beyond their capabilities, become stale or worse see an organisation as their baby to be run as they want it to be for self interest reasons. Thas life.

The Martin Regan experience clearly indicates that all is far from well in the ECF and one must really address the core issue and that is the position of President who once again became appointed when no other candidate was put forward. In any organisation the man at the top has to carry the can when the wheels fall off; generally many do the honourable thing and resign but occasionally the rank and file have to say thank you for all your efforts and loyal service but it really is time for you to step down.

If the situation has become such that directors cannot direct or function in accordance with their remit then there is something fundementally wrong with the system.

It serves little purpose to repeat what I said a couple of weeks ago but I will do it anyway. The press release on the project was very premature and in my view designed/timed to over shadow the bad press concerning the President. Good news tends to make the bad news go away. A method politicians find usefull on a day to day basis. WE live in a democracy and thats my opinion righty or wrongly.

I live in hope that there will come a time when rose tinted glasses and loyalty will be replaced by a dose of reality and recognition that the status quo cannot be allowed to continue.

BTW I find it disturbing that the number of players in the grading list is massive compared to the tiny number of ECF members- says it all I think.

Ernie

Are you available for the position as ECF President?

Mick

[Paul Stimpson]

Sean,

A number of points you raise I'll answer.

1. I think to put all 250,000 sets would realistically take up to 5 years to achieve. So the idea would be for the ECF to purchase up front say the first 6 months worth of sets. 25,000 at £2 each say is £50,000. Double this for delivery gets you £100,000. Rough numbers here. This gets the project on the road at least. The ECF must follow this up with the coaching materials sold to the schools. This then should finance the ongoing delivery of sets etc. If during the 6 months the project is not self funding enough then the ECF should then try selling the sets or shelving the project. I think at least they will have been seen to have at least tried hard to make it work.

Also why should the Holloid deal be totally dead? Perhaps there is some middle ground if the tooling is already built perhaps if Holloid produced the sets a £1 each or only produced 100,000 sets at least it's still working, perhaps this could happen in conjunction with the above?

2. The FA teamed up with McDonalds to get 8,000 FA coaches throughout the UK. I know times are hard but would there be no take up of a sponsor to get their name in every school in England?

3. I agree, John's suggestion is a way out, but I think without at least trying the above it wouldn't be taken to be very sincere.

4. I agree with you and Mike Turan that the ECF should not have hyped this up if it didn't have either a firm contract or a plan B in place.

[John Upham]

I cannot believe we are unable to find a top chess player, someone with lots of kudos to take on the role. A Bill Hartston type is someone who to me seems to tick all the boxes. Motivational speaker, highly intelligent, a top player, well respected and above all media friendly!

I quite agree. Bill would do an excellent job PROVIDED HE WAS ALLOWED TO.

This is the key to the solution.

Hartston as President
Martin Regan as CEO
Andrew Martin remains of course as does Peter Purdon.
RR comes back as do Claire, Mike and Peter.
Stewart remains of course.

Now THAT would make a great team that we could all support!

Is this possible? Who can approach Hartston?

John

[David Robertson]

None of the names above is remotely relevant as long as Council remains as it does.

The most competent Board will founder for as long as Council goes unreformed.

The reform of Council depends on decisions over game fee or membership. What we have currently is a 'game fee Council', heavily dominated by congress directors, regional panjandrums and their ilk, not a 'membership Council'.

Resolving the game fee v membership matter, with OMOV issues entwined, requires agreement on 'Vision, Mission, Values' for ECF.

The V-M-V, once agreed, describes the purpose of ECF.

It's this way round, no other.

And it's why nothing will change before the Grim Reaper comes knocking

David
Atticus CC

[Steve Henderson]

None of the names above is remotely relevant as long as Council remains as it does.

The most competent Board will founder for as long as Council goes unreformed.

The reform of Council depends on decisions over game fee or membership. What we have currently is a 'game fee Council', heavily dominated by congress directors, regional panjandrums and their ilk, not a 'membership Council'.

Resolving the game fee v membership matter, with OMOV issues entwined, requires agreement on 'Vision, Mission, Values' for ECF.

The V-M-V, once agreed, describes the purpose of ECF.

It's this way round, no other.

And it's why nothing will change before the Grim Reaper comes knocking

David
Atticus CC

I agree with David here - it is the ECF delegates that make up council that have got a lot to answer for - time and time again I have heard GW say, it was the members who voted for this, and, it was council who voted this in. GW will not take any responsibility for the state of the ECF because he says that it is council that decides.

But is it true, that if every council member voted against GW been President, he would still keep his post if there was no one to stand against him?

[Mike Truran]

David, as so often, may be the bearer of depressing tidings but is spot on.

No doubt an expert on the constitution will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that if "no confidence" votes exceed those in favour of the proposed candidate(s) then no candidate is elected - at which point the ECF board itself can then move into action to appoint its own candidate to the vacancy.

Hey ho.

[Mick Norris]

None of the names above is remotely relevant as long as Council remains as it does.

The most competent Board will founder for as long as Council goes unreformed.

The reform of Council depends on decisions over game fee or membership. What we have currently is a 'game fee Council', heavily dominated by congress directors, regional panjandrums and their ilk, not a 'membership Council'.

Resolving the game fee v membership matter, with OMOV issues entwined, requires agreement on 'Vision, Mission, Values' for ECF.

The V-M-V, once agreed, describes the purpose of ECF.

It's this way round, no other.

And it's why nothing will change before the Grim Reaper comes knocking

David
Atticus CC

David

Like Sean, I'm a Congress Director against the current system!

Mick

[Ben Purton]

I like Matt Turners post, I agree with all it.

I think the main arguements here are about the whole idea of the JR money. "You can sheer a sheep for years, but only skin it once" is a popular saying in the world of money. But I think we are ignoring the fact that the sets are a long term capital investment:

Its assumed more sets at grass roots levels will see a large growth in the long term of the amount of players. If this assumption can be made then in the long run the ECF will get alot more money through game fees if the amount of players "grow".

Speculate to accumalate etc etc.


Why doesnt anyone stand for ECF president? Is Peter Wilson the arbiter? He seems to know alot more than Gerry when I met him, I wouldnt want him to quit, thats just my view.


Mike, why dont you stand

Ben

[Mike Truran]

Ben

Thanks for the kind thought, but David is right. There is little point individuals standing until the ECF's structure is radically overhauled. Until that happens, all they would do is bang their heads against a brick wall - and I know as well as anybody that if you have a choice between banging your head against a brick wall and not banging your head against a brick wall, the latter choice is the one to go for.

Mike

[Paul McKeown]

Look. This thread is in danger of becoming everything that I hate about web fora - a cheaper form of entertainment than a saloon bar stool and as great a contributor of hot air.

I will go in person to collect a couple of dozen sets and boards from Holloid, pay (say) £100 for them and distribute them personally to a couple of local schools. I reckon I could probably get a local charity to donate a couple of hundred pounds or so - it's such an obvious good cause. Just tell me when they are ready and where to go.

If the fishermen, local freighters and pleasure cruisers of the South of England were able to evacuate the beaches of Dunkirk, then there is no earthly reason that the ECF - alongside the Scottish, Welsh and Ulster associations if they were interested - should not be able to evacuate the warehouses of an English plastic goods manufacturer. All it requires is volunteers - and a sergeant major to recruit (press-gang) and marshall the troops. A 1000 volunteers should easily be able to distribute 20000+ sets and boards. If the ECF can't do that, well, it would just confirm my view that chess players couldn't organise a piss up in Ray Keene's wine cellar.

If other people following this thread find this a fair plan, then please say so.

Carl - if this was a goer - would you be able to create a page for volunteers to sign up? And perhaps coordinate with the ECF to get them to link to that specific page from their site?

Cheers - I knew you would say yes!

[Carl Hibbard]

I suspect my name is not the most popular in ECF circles at this time but yes of course no problems

[Paul McKeown]

Thanks, Carl!
I assume you are volunteer number 0002?