English Chess Forum

JustinHorton wrote:Anyway, Holloid. We do seem to have two schools of thought here. One is that nothing is going to happen, that Holloid no longer wish to be involved in the project even if they ever really were, and that no free sets of any kinds will ever be forthcoming. The other is that Holloid remain interested and that evetually something should happen. My inclination is to the first of these views - but if I understood him properly, Martin Regan is of the second

No, you have not understood him properly. With my eyesight I only have the luxury of reading things once, but I can't recall Martin stating in this forum whether, or not, he expects sets to come from Holloid. Perhaps Martin can clarify, although, to be honest, I thought his earlier post was cogently written.

The project pre-dated the appearance of Holloid. One should not conflate the distribution of free equipment, which, of course, would have been a tremendous coup, with the Chess for schools project in its entirety. I believe Martin expects the project to continue, this is true regardless of the status of the Holloid offer. I doubt that someone of the calibre of Andrew Martin would be involved if he thought that everything was dependent upon just the delivery of sets.

You may be right Simon, but my reason for interpreting Martin as I did was that when he said:

Martin Regan wrote:I am absolutely sure that some form of Chess in Schools project - with or without all the sets - will take place.

It seemed to me that this is a difficult statement to make - absolutely sure? - unless it's known who's prepared to produce the material it would take. So if not Holloid - who does Martin have in mind?

OK, thanks for clarifying, I understand you better now.

Didn't Richard James say somewhere that he had promised a contract for writing some materials for the scheme but hadn't received it?

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Justin I am stil waiting to read what you have done in practical terms to help improve chess be it in the ECF or in your county or even in your club.

I'm not sure I'm interested in the question, Ernie. I wasn't asking after your CV - why would I be interested in presenting you with mine? An "I've achieved more than you" willy-waving contest strikes me as precisely the sort of thing I'm not interested in.

Keep to the point please people - we and wandering off it again...

The other new section/post in this forum is depressing enough

Simon Spivack wrote:

JustinHorton wrote:Anyway, Holloid. We do seem to have two schools of thought here. One is that nothing is going to happen, that Holloid no longer wish to be involved in the project even if they ever really were, and that no free sets of any kinds will ever be forthcoming. The other is that Holloid remain interested and that evetually something should happen. My inclination is to the first of these views - but if I understood him properly, Martin Regan is of the second

No, you have not understood him properly. With my eyesight I only have the luxury of reading things once, but I can't recall Martin stating in this forum whether, or not, he expects sets to come from Holloid. Perhaps Martin can clarify, although, to be honest, I thought his earlier post was cogently written.

The project pre-dated the appearance of Holloid. One should not conflate the distribution of free equipment, which, of course, would have been a tremendous coup, with the Chess for schools project in its entirety. I believe Martin expects the project to continue, this is true regardless of the status of the Holloid offer. I doubt that someone of the calibre of Andrew Martin would be involved if he thought that everything was dependent upon just the delivery of sets.

And now that Andrew has resigned?

Mick Norris wrote:

Simon Spivack wrote: I doubt that someone of the calibre of Andrew Martin would be involved if he thought that everything was dependent upon just the delivery of sets.

And now that Andrew has resigned?

I won't express my view on the likelihood of any sets materialising. Yet I suggest that the likelihood of their being produced was the same on the day of his appointment as on the day of his resignation. A resignation I deeply regret.

I make this the fifth high calibre, out of term, resignation including the "Gang of Four". To me this speaks volumes. I can see that frustration over the sets would not help. Yet I refuse to accept that that was sufficient of itself.
I am confounded that many can retain the belief that there is nothing wrong with a system that can lose so many capable board members.

I have just downloaded the 2007 accounts for Holloid Plastics from Companies House. They seem to be a company with a turnover of about £600,000 in 2007 (about the same in 2006). It seems unlikely that such a company would be able to donate 25,000 chess sets, let alone 250,000.

(Disclaimer: I'm no accountant and may have completely misread the accounts - it only costs £1to download them if anybody else wants to have a look.)

JustinHorton wrote:

Ernie Lazenby wrote:Justin I am stil waiting to read what you have done in practical terms to help improve chess be it in the ECF or in your county or even in your club.

I'm not sure I'm interested in the question, Ernie. I wasn't asking after your CV - why would I be interested in presenting you with mine? An "I've achieved more than you" willy-waving contest strikes me as precisely the sort of thing I'm not interested in.

I'm with Ernie on this one - prey tell what you have done for English/County/League/Club chess Justin?
Shall we start another thread on this?

You wag the finger at Ernie and indicate that he is a loud mouth that can't be arsed!?

Well my little Southern Cyber friend, we await your response

Hi Steve

I refer you to the answer I gave Ernie. You appear to have missed it.

I am quickly both losing interest and getting annoyed - please keep to the point, pass a comment or make your points but heading towards the personal side is something that will not be tolerated

Mike Gunn wrote:I have just downloaded the 2007 accounts for Holloid Plastics from Companies House. They seem to be a company with a turnover of about £600,000 in 2007 (about the same in 2006). It seems unlikely that such a company would be able to donate 25,000 chess sets, let alone 250,000.

(Disclaimer: I'm no accountant and may have completely misread the accounts - it only costs £1to download them if anybody else wants to have a look.)

Those revenue figures seem pretty revealing.

Curious, I decided to look too. From the Companies House web site I ordered the latest set of accounts for Holloid Plastics. These were for the year ending 30 June 2007. I couldn't see any revenue figures (presumably they were in another document) so can't corroborate Mike's statement. What the accounts do appear to show, however, is a net worth of £17,298 (the comparative figure for 2006 is £450,255). The value of fixed assets is given as £583,729, current assets are £575,344, creditor amounts falling due within one year are £586,249 and creditor amounts falling due after more than one year are £555,526.

Holloid don't look like a big company. They look tiny. Would they really be able to produce 250,000 chess sets?

Martin Regan wrote:I have no idea whether Holloid will be able to produce the sets...

This sticks out too. Did the ECF assure itself that Holloid had the capacity to produce so many sets? Were company searches carried out? Did ECF representatives visit Holloid to see their manufacturing facilities? Was there any due diligence?

One thing I would like to know is - where and whom does the figure of 250,000 come from? Was it invented for the much-criticised press release? If not, whose is it?

I showed the accounts to a friend with a bit more financial knowledge than me and he said possibly the £600,0000 is the profit (although that isn't what the accounts seem to say). Even so, the manufacturing and packing costs of 250,000 sets (at least £3 each, surely?) would still wipe out Holloid Plastics profit for one year. Something doesn't seem to add up ...

Mike Gunn wrote:I showed the accounts to a friend with a bit more financial knowledge than me and he said possibly the £600,0000 is the profit (although that isn't what the accounts seem to say).

I doubt it. First, it wouldn't fit with a net worth of £17K - if there's a profit of £600K, how come the value of the company is that much smaller? Second, it wouldn't fit with a reduction in net worth from the previous period of £433K - presumably this indicates a loss.