My Resignation

[John Philpott]

Mick Norris wrote

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

The ECF Finance Council meeting is taking place on 14 April in London. Given the requirement of Article 18 for 37 days notice to be provided to the ECF Secretary of business proposed other than by the Board for the Finance Council agenda, any such motion would be known about a week before the MCF meeting.

[Mick Norris]

if someone walked off without paying (as happened at one of our simuls) you wouldn't know for a while whether you were able to recover the money from them, and therefore you couldn't finalise the figures immediately

[Mick Norris]

Mick Norris wrote

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

The ECF Finance Council meeting is taking place on 14 April in London. Given the requirement of Article 18 for 37 days notice to be provided to the ECF Secretary of business proposed other than by the Board for the Finance Council agenda, any such motion would be known about a week before the MCF meeting.

Thank you

[John McKenna]

Or Roger might have put it this way - actual amounts remain predicted amounts because very few know how much the said amounts actually are?

[John Upham]

I note that SG is travelling down the derision road today: http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... f-jericho/

[Carl Hibbard]

This now refer's to an invoice as well:

http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... -hercules/

[Matthew Turner]

Steve Giddins' information seems to be getting more and more specific. I wonder where the information is coming from?

[Jonathan Bryant]

if someone walked off without paying (as happened at one of our simuls) you wouldn't know for a while whether you were able to recover the money from them, and therefore you couldn't finalise the figures immediately

That's true enough, Mick, but CJ's various figures were provided months after the tour ended. In any event, the situation you describe wouldn't explain why the figures went

from £1500 to £500 to £0 and then back up to 'significant'. The sums coming in would go up not down and clearly the differences are much greater than a few non-payers here and there.


The inconsistencies in these figures together with the promised accounts not being delivered should have been a warning sign for the AGM. The situation that we're in now was clearly predictable from the facts available at the time of the meeting.

Which brings us to,

This now refer's to an invoice as well:

http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... -hercules/

It's always a pleasure to be referenced by Gidders. I don't particularly care for how G chooses to express himself - personally I've always found Adam Raoof to be a very decent person and the fact he and I see these issues differently doesn't change that in the slightest - but he's absolutely right. The Sheffield accounts are a complete 'shambles'. That they would be so was entirely predictable given the knowledge that was available at the time of the AGM.

[Matthew Turner]

Steve Giddins' writes

"I have obtained details of an invoice dated 7 April 2011, from CJ de Mooi, addressed to the ECF office at Battle. The rubric reads blandly “British Championship Sponsorship Fund” and the invoice is in the sum of £12,600. I would emphasise that this is an invoice from CJ, to the Egregious Federation. A covering note describes the amount concerned as being the whole of the Darwin sponsorship money £15,600 (being £13,000 plus VAT), less £3,000, which CJ says “the ECF is due… from me for the British Champs”. The covering note and invoice both ask for “immediate payment”, which, as far as I am aware, was made."

This seems to flesh out what Alex McFarlane was alluding to earlier. If true (and I am reading it correctly) then CJ used almost all the Darwin money for the GMs and the ECF were left with £400 to cover the increased prize fund and the reduction in revenue because of the halving of junior entry fees.

[Carl Hibbard]

This seems to flesh out what Alex McFarlane was eluding to earlier. If true (and I am reading it correctly) then CJ used almost all the Darwin money for the GMs and the ECF were left with £400 to cover the increased prize fund and the reduction in revenue because of the halving of junior entry fees.

So Steve Giddins "obtained" the paperwork how exactly

[Roger de Coverly]

This now refer's to an invoice as well:

What this could now be saying is that of the £ 15,600 paid by Darwin to the ECF, the ECF retained £ 3,000 for the general Congress funds / VAT and paid £ 12,600 to CJ to use as part of fees and conditions funding.

It's not an approach that's necessarily wrong but
(a) the bare bones of the scheme could have been disclosed at any time over the last nine months
and
(b) the private nature of the payments could leave the ECF unable to justify its VAT treatment and whether it breached HMRC limits for making prize and similar payments gross of tax.

At the time of the AGM, would it have been assumed, perhaps even by ECF directors, that the usual approach of paying for the participation of titled players through the Congress accounts would have been followed?

[Alex McFarlane]

It would appear that the ECF may have more leaks than Wales on St David's Day!

I will not comment on the accuracy of the Giddins blog as that could be taken as a breach of confidentiality.

I will say that perhaps more people will now understand why I have refused to be quiet throughout this whole affair and why I have felt that some people were being treated differently from others. I have raised my financial concerns at the appropriate level and will hopefully have them answered.

Whilst I cannot claim to have any respect for Keene, I should perhaps state that I have never considered him to be the main villain in this. If a good friend makes allegations then you tend to believe them until your good friend convinces you that he was wrong in the first place. If the friend has not backed up his later denial of his original accusations then Keene's position is understandable even if totaly objectionable.

[Matthew Turner]

"What this could now be saying is that of the £ 15,600 paid by Darwin to the ECF, the ECF retained £ 3,000 for the general Congress funds / VAT and paid £ 12,600 to CJ to use as part of fees and conditions funding."

Surely this is not correct. The ECF would only receive £13,000, because £2,600 would go straightaway as VAT. If an invoice was then paid for £12,600 then there would only be £400 left

[Roger de Coverly]

This seems to flesh out what Alex McFarlane was alluding to earlier. If true (and I am reading it correctly) then CJ used almost all the Darwin money for the GMs and the ECF were left with £400 to cover the increased prize fund and the reduction in revenue because of the halving of junior entry fees.

That would appear to be the case. It has also been suggested that the buoyant entries attracted by the GM presence left the general financing in a healthy state. The ECF doesn't or shouldn't pay quite as much VAT as 20% of entry fees and sponsorship would suggest. If it does the paperwork correctly, the VAT component on Congress expenses can be offset.

VAT is usually paid quarterly in arrears one month after the quarter end and you might expect possibly that income received for an event in August could be treated as a pre-payment until the event actually took place. So plausibly the VAT was not actually paid until the end of October and could have been offset in full or part. I would imagine the point of expressing it as £ 13,000 plus £ 2,600 VAT was so that Darwin could offset it against their own VAT liability.

[Carl Hibbard]

It would appear that the ECF may have more leaks than Wales on St David's Day!

The culprit for this must be sacked before this general mud slinging gets even worse if that is possible