Membership Renewal

[Tim Spanton]

However, virtually no-one knows the content of the 2017 [BICC} Agreement. The ECF, traditionally responsible for publishing the Agreement, have persistently declined or refused to do so for over three years. The obsolete 2007 Agreement is still published in the ECF Documents section of the ECF website.

A question for both the candidates for the position of Director of Home Chess, should they happen to read this:

If you are elected, will you commit to publishing the BICC Agreement 2017 as a matter of urgency, before the end of October 2020?

I have been advised, that although all parties are content with the 2017 Agreement, some of them have yet to sign it. The relevant ECF Directors do not wish to publish the Agreement until this has happened.

Having checked my records, I also wish to acknowledge that I had previously been made aware that not all the signatures had yet been obtained.

Presumably there's no rush ...

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I have been advised, that although all parties are content with the 2017 Agreement, some of them have yet to sign it."

There may be an excuse now, with the four horsemen circling the M25 trying to work out where they are going, but why not sign it 2017 - 2019?

I seem to remember people signing a pdf, scanning the document, and emailing it back as an acceptable business practice.

Of course, there probably is no hurry any more as there is no immediate prospect of anything happening.

[Paul Cooksey]

No. Let us be under no illusions. "Operational problems" is code for the International gravy train coming off the rails.

Either Chris hasn't looked at the ECF finances or he hasn't understood them. I don't know which is worse.

I used the words "net flow of money" deliberately.

About 25% of membership income goes to international teams. Chris's argument is about 25% correct.

Does the content of the BICC agreement matter? I am trying to understand if we are discussing an administrative delay or matter of substance.

[Chris Goodall]

What exactly do you think an ECF Council Meeting is?

A forum for deciding whether, given that the elite being funded by the grassroots is inevitable, they should be given all the money they've asked for or just most of it.

(I was actually going to mention Malcolm Pein's infamous "who wants to know?" exchange with Angus French, but I see Angus French is here )

Can I asked a question Chris?

The ecf does have overhead with admin staffand also funding chess events and overheads for junior and paying for the software for the new grading database

Do you know what happened at an Ecf Financial and AGM meeting?

I love going to the meeting and represent the views of the local members and you see my records at ecf meeting and standing up for the members

Has there ever been a proposal to create an ECF Director of the 4NCL or an ECF Director of the UK Chess Challenge, and to allocate them enough money not just to keep those events in the black but to "dream big"?

Of course not, you will say, those things aren't the ECF's responsibility.

Okay, so explain to me why enticing the highest-rated players possible to travel to Caucasia every two years is the ECF's responsibility?

These meetings are designed to instill in as many people as possible a shared sense of ownership over the decisions made there. Even if it wasn't what they personally wanted, and even if the meaningful decisions were made in private phone calls between the directors in advance of the meeting. It's the Abilene paradox. Since most of those people will return for next year's meeting, you will never get next year's meeting to vote for the opposite of what they voted for this year.

I used the words "net flow of money" deliberately.

About 25% of membership income goes to international teams. Chris's argument is about 25% correct.

Money doesn't know where it came from. A pound is a pound is a pound. "This money went here, and that money went there" is just PR. (Sometimes, like the £350 million on the side of the bus, it's very effective PR.)

[Nick Grey]

BICC non agreement?

[Paul Cooksey]

About 25% of membership income goes to international teams.

Money doesn't know where it came from. A pound is a pound is a pound. "This money went here, and that money went there" is just PR. (Sometimes, like the £350 million on the side of the bus, it's very effective PR.)

Is this a suggestion that the ECF is publishing incorrect accounts? If so I might need to check with Justin when this does qualify as a conspiracy theory.

[Roger de Coverly]

Okay, so explain to me why enticing the highest-rated players possible to travel to Caucasia every two years is the ECF's responsibility?

The invitation to send a team is issued to the ECF in its role as national chess federation. That everything has to be done via the ECF can be a nuisance at times, for example arranging participation in individual tournaments (mostly junior ones). That is however the way that FIDE and the ECU operate.

[Chris Goodall]

About 25% of membership income goes to international teams.

Money doesn't know where it came from. A pound is a pound is a pound. "This money went here, and that money went there" is just PR. (Sometimes, like the £350 million on the side of the bus, it's very effective PR.)

Is this a suggestion that the ECF is publishing incorrect accounts? If so I might need to check with Justin when this does qualify as a conspiracy theory.

No, not incorrect. Whitehall accounting. Ask the government why you have to pay income taxes, and they'll point to nice things like hospitals and schools. Resettling violent offenders? Goodness, no! We use cigarette duty to pay for that. But if the income from the cigarette duty drops, does that mean we reduce the violent offenders budget by a proportionate amount? Hardly. We'd raid the schools and hospitals budgets first. That's how you know that, despite whatever brightly coloured arrows HM Treasury draw on the budget to encourage you to pay income tax, there is a net flow of money from you to the violent offenders budget.

Take this satirical news story. What they've done is draw a brightly coloured arrow from Tom Moore's £32 million to Ayanda Capital's £150 million. I think most people would agree, that's not the only story you can weave around those numbers.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Okay, so explain to me why enticing the highest-rated players possible to travel to Caucasia every two years is the ECF's responsibility?

The invitation to send a team is issued to the ECF in its role as national chess federation. That everything has to be done via the ECF can be a nuisance at times, for example arranging participation in individual tournaments (mostly junior ones). That is however the way that FIDE and the ECU operate.

There have occasionally been calls for a separate body to manage professional chess in England and, most critically, be able to seek sponsorship deals with having to go through the amateur wing. I seem to vaguely recall that twenty years ago or so such an organisation was founded although obviously it didn't amount to anything.

[Roger de Coverly]

I seem to vaguely recall that twenty years ago or so such an organisation was founded although obviously it didn't amount to anything.

If you were thinking of Raymond's English Chess Association it's thirty years rather than twenty.

Around ten years ago, it was noted that if a national body for English chess wished to reconstitute itself as a charity, then it had to divest itself of "professional sport/activity". Could you split into two bodies? That fell on two hurdles, one being which would be the national FIDE affiliation and the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage. The lesser ambition of having a charity to receive legacies was an achievable objective and now exists in the form of "The Chess Trust".

[Andrew Zigmond]

I seem to vaguely recall that twenty years ago or so such an organisation was founded although obviously it didn't amount to anything.

If you were thinking of Raymond's English Chess Association it's thirty years rather than twenty.

Around ten years ago, it was noted that if a national body for English chess wished to reconstitute itself as a charity, then it had to divest itself of "professional sport/activity". Could you split into two bodies? That fell on two hurdles, one being which would be the national FIDE affiliation and the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage. The lesser ambition of having a charity to receive legacies was an achievable objective and now exists in the form of "The Chess Trust".

I wasn't thinking of the ECA. I thought I remembered mention of a putative organisation that had Malcolm Pein's involvement but may be completely mistaken - it came up a few years back when another grandmaster was being very vocal about the failings of the ECF and its `patzer politicians`.

[Michael Farthing]

Do you mean Nigel Davies' plan? About the time he transferred to Wales.

[Chris Goodall]

the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage.

And this is a perfect example of the ECF's long-term spinelessness in the face of grandmasters pleading poverty. Because the correct answer to that, is that if you aren't playing at a high enough level to generate the revenue, then what you are is an amateur, and you should get a job.

Tennis has the same disease. 600 players capable of breaking even, 15,000 self-described professionals. The inevitable result: a carnival of match-fixing.

[John Reyes]

the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage.

And this is a perfect example of the ECF's long-term spinelessness in the face of grandmasters pleading poverty. Because the correct answer to that, is that if you aren't playing at a high enough level to generate the revenue, then what you are is an amateur, and you should get a job.

Tennis has the same disease. 600 players capable of breaking even, 15,000 self-described professionals. The inevitable result: a carnival of match-fixing.

I disagreed as we are not going to get someone like Barry Hearn to invest in the chess world?

you also quoted this and i not agreed

These meetings are designed to instill in as many people as possible a shared sense of ownership over the decisions made there. Even if it wasn't what they personally wanted, and even if the meaningful decisions were made in private phone calls between the directors in advance of the meeting. It's the Abilene paradox. Since most of those people will return for next year's meeting, you will never get next year's meeting to vote for the opposite of what they voted for this year.

I always go to the meeting with a open view and always vote what i have been told as what i have been told to?
do you know that private phone calls are made between the directors?

it down to the members and they only have 18 votes to office holders
the Direct Members have over 40 votes?

do you think you can make the ECF better? because i always read on here saying what is wrong, but never give a solution?

have you got a motion to council?
do you think you can do a better job?

[Ian Thompson]

the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage.

And this is a perfect example of the ECF's long-term spinelessness in the face of grandmasters pleading poverty. Because the correct answer to that, is that if you aren't playing at a high enough level to generate the revenue, then what you are is an amateur, and you should get a job.

Do you know that grandmasters plead poverty? Perhaps they say to the ECF that they can earn £X doing something else, maybe chess related, maybe not. They then say to the ECF that they want expenses + £Y to play for the England team. The ECF then has to decide whether it can afford to, and wishes to, employ them or not.