Chief Executive 2021

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Do you think that the chess would benefit from Government or lottery funding?"

Yes, but I warned BCF for several years beforehand that Government funding would stop. (People were not getting funding for science related to serious health issues, so what chance did chess have?) Nobody seemed to believe me and they were still surprised when suddenly the funding stopped.

"Roger , You are correct , but that doesn't mean that the ECF shouldn't do its part and remodel in anticipation, the Govt has shown recently that it can get things done quickly if it is minded , time is of the essence and one would hope to ride on the wave of interest created by "queens Gambit""

The Govt can do things quickly, if for example, lots of people are dying. They may not have done it perfectly (but who would?), but that really was important.

As a result of all the extra spending, they are not going to fund things like chess; as I've said before, Olympic sports are not getting as much money as before.

Having said that, I agree we should ask for the money as it's better than not asking. But we won't get it.

[Ian Thompson]

there is no chess in England that doesn't fall within the scope of Chess In Schools And Communities.

That statement is probably true. One of their objectives is:

The advancement of amateur sport, including the encouragement of community participation, for the public benefit, through the promotion, teaching, coaching, playing and competition of chess.

The unanswered question is whether "Malcolm raised £4,000 for the Northumbria Masters norm events", as he claims in his Election Manifesto, or whether the charity of which he is CEO made a contribution of £4,000 out of existing funds and no new money was raised.

[Mick Norris]

I was browsing the Council papers and had a look at the 2015 AGM, notably Malcolm's election address - C23.11.5.4 Director of International Chess, when he was standing against David Openshaw

You can read the whole shebang, but I was struck by the following:

I am firmly of the opinion that the major role of International Director is to raise money for the international teams in order to be able to send the calibre of team that the ECF Members and Council want to see representing England. The other key function is to act as a collegiate member of the Board of Directors to ensure the good working of the Board and thus the ECF

Not quite seeing that Malcom has done that, myself

If elected, I will use my best efforts to raise sufficient funds to send our best possible teams to forthcoming events, both men and women. If I fail in this I will not seek re-election to the post of International Director in 2016.

Not sure that's really happened

I have also been concerned at the actions of the incumbent at Board level. Most recently he tabled what was effectively a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive and after lengthy debate withdrew it. The meeting achieved little as a consequence and I feel that in that circumstance he should have resigned. This was the culmination of many months of conflict which he has instigated and which has limited the effectiveness of the board.

Pot and kettle, based on recent events?

[Roger Lancaster]

I think there's something of a fundamental misconception here in that it's being assumed that the ECF [and perhaps other national agencies such as CSC] is/are the only organisation/s which can obtain funding from bodies such as the National Lottery. That's far from being the case. The national lottery, for example, periodically sets out the broad nature of those good causes which it will support [for example, for the year to 31 March 2021, 20% went to each of sport, art and heritage and the remaining 40% to health, education, environment and charitable causes] but these good causes can usually be national, regional or local.

National projects, all else being equal, are likely to require more funding than local projects although even the latter aren't necessarily insignificant. My personal experience is now somewhat outdated but, back in the mid-1990s, I was able to raise £0.25m from the National Lottery [and a matching amount from other sources] to fund a housing project local to Watford. I suppose that's rather over a million in today's money. However, putting forward a credible proposal to the National Lottery or anyone else requires a fair amount of time as well as a little know-how - and I was in the fortunate position, as Malcolm Pein is today, of (1) being paid a decent salary to achieve results and (2) being able to show that I had the support of an organisation with the apparent capability to implement the proposal in question. It's always going to be more of a struggle for volunteer organisers but, in principle, I see no reason why local or regional chess organisations should be any less successful than national bodies. That's no promise of success and, in fact, my own a priori evaluation 25 years ago was that there would be sufficient credible alternative proposals that mine stood no more than a one-in-three chance of success.

[Nick Ivell]

Fundamental misconception also that there is a magic money tree that somehow Malcolm can shake and Mike cannot.

[John Reyes]

I was browsing the Council papers and had a look at the 2015 AGM, notably Malcolm's election address - C23.11.5.4 Director of International Chess, when he was standing against David Openshaw

You can read the whole shebang, but I was struck by the following:

I am firmly of the opinion that the major role of International Director is to raise money for the international teams in order to be able to send the calibre of team that the ECF Members and Council want to see representing England. The other key function is to act as a collegiate member of the Board of Directors to ensure the good working of the Board and thus the ECF

Not quite seeing that Malcom has done that, myself

If elected, I will use my best efforts to raise sufficient funds to send our best possible teams to forthcoming events, both men and women. If I fail in this I will not seek re-election to the post of International Director in 2016.

Not sure that's really happened

I have also been concerned at the actions of the incumbent at Board level. Most recently he tabled what was effectively a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive and after lengthy debate withdrew it. The meeting achieved little as a consequence and I feel that in that circumstance he should have resigned. This was the culmination of many months of conflict which he has instigated and which has limited the effectiveness of the board.

Pot and kettle, based on recent events?

Never knew this as people forget what happen in past meeting

[Angus French]

I was browsing the Council papers and had a look at the 2015 AGM, notably Malcolm's election address - C23.11.5.4 Director of International Chess, when he was standing against David Openshaw

You can read the whole shebang, but I was struck by the following:

I am firmly of the opinion that the major role of International Director is to raise money for the international teams in order to be able to send the calibre of team that the ECF Members and Council want to see representing England. The other key function is to act as a collegiate member of the Board of Directors to ensure the good working of the Board and thus the ECF

Not quite seeing that Malcom has done that, myself

If elected, I will use my best efforts to raise sufficient funds to send our best possible teams to forthcoming events, both men and women. If I fail in this I will not seek re-election to the post of International Director in 2016.

Not sure that's really happened

I have also been concerned at the actions of the incumbent at Board level. Most recently he tabled what was effectively a vote of no confidence in the Chief Executive and after lengthy debate withdrew it. The meeting achieved little as a consequence and I feel that in that circumstance he should have resigned. This was the culmination of many months of conflict which he has instigated and which has limited the effectiveness of the board.

Pot and kettle, based on recent events?

There's also this:

I have watched aghast at the correspondence in which other Directors have been implored to raise money themselves. I view this as an abrogation of the ID’s responsibility. There is a danger that the shortfall will have to be met by increasing Members fees and I very much want to avoid that.

... and what happened? Yes, sponsorship was found but it was dwarfed by *increases* in expenditure (presumably much of it on player appearance fees though Malcolm has declined to say) resulting in greater net expenditure from ECF funds and arguably (depending on how you want to attribute it) a depletion of the reserves and/or increases in membership fees. In effect, I think Malcolm is now requesting that monies from trust funds be used to plug a gap he helped create. Figures and chart here.

[Chris Goodall]

Yes, sponsorship was found but it was dwarfed by *increases* in expenditure (presumably much of it on player appearance fees though Malcolm has declined to say) resulting in greater net expenditure from ECF funds and arguably (depending on how you want to attribute it) a depletion of the reserves and/or increases in membership fees.

This is what I've been getting at - no sponsor wants to feel that they're paying for something so that the members don't have to. In practice any commitment from sponsors will be on a "matching" basis, i.e. it needs to be matched by at least an equal commitment from the members. To "unlock" £100k in sponsor cash would take Malcolm at least £100k of member cash. So bringing sponsors on board is equivalent to shopping at an "up to 50% off" discount store.

Those stores are nice, but they are not free money, and if you go mad with a trolley you'll go broke.

[Roger Lancaster]

Yes, sponsorship was found but it was dwarfed by *increases* in expenditure (presumably much of it on player appearance fees though Malcolm has declined to say) resulting in greater net expenditure from ECF funds and arguably (depending on how you want to attribute it) a depletion of the reserves and/or increases in membership fees.

This is what I've been getting at - no sponsor wants to feel that they're paying for something so that the members don't have to. In practice any commitment from sponsors will be on a "matching" basis, i.e. it needs to be matched by at least an equal commitment from the members. To "unlock" £100k in sponsor cash would take Malcolm at least £100k of member cash. So bringing sponsors on board is equivalent to shopping at an "up to 50% off" discount store.

Those stores are nice, but they are not free money, and if you go mad with a trolley you'll go broke.

Whilst I broadly agree with the sentiments expressed by Chris and Angus, it's not the case that all sponsors require matching funding. If that were true, the poorest in our society would never receive funding because they weren't able to contribute 50% towards the cost of a project. However, sponsors do need convincing that applicants are committed to the projects for which they seek funding so, if an applicant organisation with cash reserves is unwilling to commit any of its own cash to a project, that's understandably likely to be seen as a negative indicator.

[John Upham]

(If this message from MCT has already been posted in this place then I will remove it)

Message to Council members from Mike Truran 19 September 2021

Now that nominations for the election for the post of Chief Executive at the ECF’s AGM on 16 October have been made, I’m taking the liberty of attaching my election address for your consideration and the consideration of the organisation you represent in the hope that it may assist in your consultation on how to cast your organisation’s votes.
While writing, may I draw to your attention to a few matters?
1. In his own election address Malcolm Pein writes: “It’s important Council members understand I have tried to avoid a contested election. I wrote to Mike Truran to try and resolve our differences before standing for CEO.” That is not the full story. In fact Malcolm’s decision to stand for election, together with his election address, was made public before the deadline for nominations while the matter of a meeting was still under consideration. This is what I wrote to Malcolm at the time:

Unfortunately, discussions towards arranging the meeting you refer to in your email below have been overtaken by events, your candidacy and election address having already been disclosed publicly before the nomination deadline of 9 September.

Of the main issues you raise in your election address, the second main point regarding trust funds proposes fundamental changes to what was agreed by Council in 2018, so (regardless of my view on the matter) any such fundamental change to that agreement needs to be approved by Council. Your first main point in your election address, if I understand it correctly, is that the ECF needs a fundamental change of direction from the strategy currently approved by Council, which in turn requires a change of Chief Executive. This would also require approval of Council, again regardless of my views on the matter.

In the circumstances, I think we need to put these matters openly to Council to decide.

2. Regarding one of Malcolm’s main proposals in his election address, namely the transfer of around £200,000 of Permanent Invested Fund (PIF) assets into the ECF, may I make the following points?

• The transfer of PIF assets to the Chess Trust was approved by Council in 2018. The transfer of all the PIF assets to the Chess Trust was put on hold at the time following the vociferous objections of two Board members in particular. But nothing has fundamentally changed between then and now to justify reversing Council’s 2018 decision.
• Holding assets in a trust such as the PIF or in the Chess Trust brings with it a vital element of additional oversight on the part of the trustees as to the use of those assets. That is one of the principal purposes of holding assets in trusts. Malcolm proposes to remove that oversight by transferring the assets directly to the ECF so that they can be spent by future Boards without the external scrutiny that the trust mechanism provides.
• It is likely that transferring assets directly to the ECF rather than to a charitable trust such as the Chess Trust will incur an entirely unnecessary and potentially very substantial tax bill on capital gains on the transfer. Malcolm’s election address makes no mention of this.
• To state the obvious, once the trust assets have gone they have gone. The PIF assets, once transferred to the Chess Trust, will be held in the Chess Trust on the same terms as they are currently held in the PIF. Expending the assets on uncosted tactical adventures with no demonstrable positive financial upside would run counter to the principal purpose for which the assets are held.

3. Although not mentioned in his election address, Malcolm has recently stated that if he wins the election he intends to remain in post on a time-limited basis until a new Chief Executive is recruited. Malcolm needs to clarify whether that does or does not remain his intention, either before or at the AGM.

4. Your organisation may wish to consider how potential conflicts of interest and governance issues would be managed should three employees of the same company be elected as Chief Executive, Chair of Governance and Director of Women’s Chess at the AGM.

5. It has been suggested in certain quarters that I was instrumental in arranging a contested election for the post of Director of Women’s Chess. I’m pleased to be able to confirm that that was categorically not the case.

[Paul Cooksey]

Mick posted Mike's email in the BCN thread. Shame on John for not following it...

Tim has written another blog in support of Malcolm and Chris. https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... status-quo

I'll be interested to hear more about how Malcolm would spend money raised.

[Roger de Coverly]

Tim has written another blog in support of Malcolm and Chris.

That's mostly quoting his report to Silver members as posted earlier by John Reyes.
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=12113&start=75#p272702

[Mick Norris]

Mick posted Mike's email in the BCN thread. Shame on John for not following it...

Tim has written another blog in support of Malcolm and Chris. https://www.chess.com/blog/timpeterwall ... status-quo

I'll be interested to hear more about how Malcolm would spend money raised.

The comment below is fun

I personally very much favour the Status Quo. In particular I think it would be a completely unacceptable monopoly of power if the editor of the most widely read chess magazine in England was also the most important figure in the English Chess Federation

[Nick Ivell]

At the risk of being dismissed as that most odious of individuals, a 'Truran propagandist', (good morning, Mr Emerson!), let me cut to the chase.

Very little of substance has come from the opposition. When it comes to the issue of moving money around, the problem of capital gains tax has not been properly addressed.

As to the 'compromise', it's a shoddy little thing. Not much more than a shabby attempt to shunt aside a distinguished incumbent before he is ready.

We are lucky to have a volunteer of Mr Truran's calibre.

This campaign has been a disgrace. Let me therefore frame the 'compromise' in different terms.

Not: would you like to resign, Mike? Rather: Malcolm, would you like to withdraw?

You have been a great servant of English chess, but your acolytes have been an embarrassment. Perhaps it's time to cut your losses before the reputational damage builds up to a crescendo.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the risk of being dismissed as that most odious of individuals, a 'Truran propagandist', (good morning, Mr Emerson!)

Is there not an element of score settling going on from some quarters? I believe Roger Emerson was a member of the Pearce committee which reported on ECF governance. Amongst its comments was criticism of the role of a "Strategic Adviser" or similar title who attended Board meetings but whose legitimacy only seemed to arise from a personal appointment by the then CEO and not ratification by the entire Board.