John Robinson Trust

[Roger de Coverly]

Details of the John Robinson Trust are on the ECF website at.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _jul07.pdf

In terms of specific questions, the answers would appear to be:-

is interest from that trust freely available on an annual basis to be used as the board see fit

As a charitable trust, the income has to be spent on under 21s

Which meeting determined that the money (i) be placed in a trust and (ii) determined who would be appointed trustees.

BCF council June 2006 - the documents were prepared by David Anderton. The BCF council is the same as the ECF one except that it's restricted (I believe) to the London League, Manchester League, unions and counties.
There's a report on this meeting at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/0506/bcf.htm

What happens to the 'trust' if the ECF ceases to exist. There must be something written down somewhere.

The actual deed is
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _jul07.pdf

From which you can see that the charity has a broad direction towards chess education rather than to the financing of any particular body. Moreover the Trustees can only be changed by the BCF (not the ECF). This may just be because the bequest was to the BCF.

The deed is silent on what happens if the BCF ceases to exist - since the Trustees are then left in limbo.

It appears a board wishing to use legacies to finance spending plans opposed by the Trustees of the legacy funds would have to capture the council of the BCF as well as the ECF. The BCF council could then elect Trustees more in agreement with the CEO's wishes.

[Roger de Coverly]

Now another- who is actually on the BCF Council ? Where are the proper minutes of the meetings and record of attendance.

Minutes and things are presumably with the ECF office at Battle.

The SCCU site is useful for unofficial reports though at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/bcf.htm

This reports that the most recent meeting (October 2007)dealt with its business in 4 minutes flat and the meeting waited until enough people showed up.

I believe the membership of the BCF council is the same as the ECF council except that it only includes "territorial" affiliates. These comprise the London Chess League, the Manchester Chess League, the Unions (SCCU/NCCU etc.) plus the county associations. Congresses, leagues that aren't county associations and non-playing bodies ( Friends of Chess, Chess Problem Society etc.) are excluded.

When the ECF was set up as a Limited by Guarantee company to be the national chess federation, I wonder if it was realised that almost all the assets were left in the hands (indirectly) of the unincorporated BCF. If you get a conflict between different factions of the ECF board, then whichever faction holds the BCF money has an ascendency. If fact I suspect that you would need to OMOV both the ECF and the BCF if you wanted a directly elected board which also had spending and patronage powers.

[Roger de Coverly]

The BCF trust was given £129,000 from the bequest ,why was that necessary?
Could that trust not have been wound up ?

If I understand the position correctly:-

The BCF has capital assets which it calls the "Permanent Invested Fund" . This has been in place since 1906! This is held slightly at arm's length from the BCF so it cannot automatically be spent or wound up. There are no particular restrictions on how the income is spent once given to the BCF (now given to the ECF I believe), other than being chess related.

A general bequest or gift to the BCF would historically be placed in this fund.

In the case of the John Robinson bequest, it was apparent that if the bequest was split into 2 - part to the BCF PIF and part to the John Robinson Trust, then there was a considerable inheritance tax saving provided that the JR trust became a junior education charity.

Why do we have two trusts funds one in the BCF and the John Robinsons trust because both are stated to have the same purpose- junior chess.

I don't really know how many funds there are as the information doesn't seem to be that public. As you're dealing with legal and taxation issues, it's usually best to follow whatever legal advice you get.

[John Philpott]

Ernie

On the specific question as to why there are two junior trusts, the funding of the BCF Youth Chess Trust largely derived from a substantial donation by David Norwood received in 2001, which has now largely been spent. Unlike the Trust Deed for the John Robinson Youth Chess Trust, the Trust Deed of the BCF Youth Chess Trust did not contain any provision that would have enabled the BCF Council to remove the Trustees, and the Trustees of that Trust could therefore have chosen to remain in post for life if they so wished. There was a clear case (which I would rather have expected you to agree with) in favour of putting the much more substantial Robinson money into a different fund which did not suffer from this particular limitation.

[Roger de Coverly]

put another £129,000 into it



If I understood the proposal correctly - the £129,000 went into the BCF Permanent Invested Fund ( same place as the Chess Centre money). The PIF is not ring fenced for juniors.

When I last saw a statement of assets (when it was published in the BCF yearbook), the PIF was mostly invested in Unit Trusts and OIECs.

[Matthew Turner]

I can just provide you with some limited information. The Banwell legacy is very complicated. It was initially disputed, but I think the whole sum was received in the end and we are talking in the region of 20,000. However, it was left to the BCF and Stuart Reuben (sic). Therefore, Stewart had to have a big say in how the money was spent and it has gone primarily on International (adult) events such as Hastings. Given the size of the initially legacy I would assume there is very little left.
The BCF Youth Chess Trust was set up to deal with a donation from David Norwood. His donation was shares in his company, which were then sold, through his brokerage to raise £88,000 or so. This is a very, very good way of Executives, who are asset rich from IPOs to give money to charity. My father was, and is, a trustee of the Trust, he was very clear that this money should fund ADDITIONAL junior activity and should not be an excuse for the BCF/ECF to cut finances to the Junior Directorship. It may seem that £88,000 is a lot of money, but when we consider that it costs circa £2,000 to send an 'additional' player to the World (or European) Youth Championships then we can start to see that it will not last for ever. A number of years ago a decision was taken to spend the remaining monies over a four to five year timeframe, I believe this is close to completion.
I believe the resigning Directors wished (amongst other things) to start spending the capital of the John Robinson legacy rather than just using the interest. There are genuine arguments on both sides of this debate, but I believe the central point is this, legacies should not be used to cover up inefficiencies elsewhere and 'core' activity should be adequately funded from the ECF. However, if Directors have adequately researched proposals, then they are elected to do a job and I believe that John left the money to allow them to do it.

[Chris Majer]

Ernie wrote:

I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand why the ECF cannot be funded like any other business and in fact as we are doing in the CCA

The ECF holds an annual Finance Meeting at which activity/expenditure is balanced against expected income and fees are set. I think this covers what you describe.

[Malcolm Pein]

I note Ernie Lazenby's post and comments re the article in the Daily Telegraph. I also think litigation is unlikely as all articles are routinely processed by the Telegraph lawyers and a very cautious bunch they are too and rightly so.

The next editorial of CHESS is a little more detailed but I hope readers will agree it was written in the spirit of: opinion is free but facts are sacred. However, it seems I slightly underestimated the funds in Chess Centre Ltd as I was unaware of the ring fenced HG money. I found Martin's post very illuminating.

Having spoken to three of the Directors who resigned and read Mike Truran's letter I am saddened by how such capable and, at the outset, such enthusiastic people have become so disheartened. Like Mike I get a terrible sense of deja vu. Some of the blame can of course be placed on some individuals who have behaved very badly however it seems to me that the ECF is constitutionally not fit for purpose. The problem is a mindset of a generation of administrators not the actions of one or two and the potentially wrecking role of the Council.

I am not hopeful, finding people of the requisite quality to take the ECF forward will be extremely difficult. Anyone planning to become involved could look at the experience of previous Directors and wonder if it's worth the aggravation.

Although I have criticised Gerry Walsh and Alan Martin on the matter of Chess Centre Ltd in CHESS it's clear that if a way forward is to be found personalising the debate too much will not be helpful.

I really just want to see some transparency on the matter of CCL but it's just one small part of the general problem. In the July issue I will put forward some ideas for change in the hope of at least sparking a debate.

Ernie, although I don't believe we have ever met I just wanted to say I find your posts stand out as a balanced contribution to the debate.

MP

[Chris Majer]

Ernie wrote:

Thank you for that ; why was the BCF/ ECF always on the verge of bankrupcy if this excellent way of housekeeping was followed?

"Allways on the edge of bankrupcy" seems to me to be a gross exageration. Though there have been occasions when Directors have significantly overspent their budgets on activity leading to defecit years. More often there have been defecit budgets properly sanctioned by Council, i.e. Council deciding to invest money in chess activity.

[John Philpott]

Ernie Lazenby wrote

I doubt this has much to do with anything but information available to the public from Companies house show that one of the Directors of Chess Centre Limited and the Company Secretary have been unfortunate to have been Directors/secretary of 6 failed companies between them. It does appear that being associated with the ECF could make it number 7

Ernie - I would recommend that you should be very careful before making statements of this nature. If a company is dissolved, it may be because it has failed, but it may equally be because it has simply outlived its useful purpose, and can be struck off the Companies House register because it is no longer required. The word "failed" is a rather damning one, and should, I suggest, be avoided unless you have specific knowledge of the circumstances of the companies in question.

In any event, I make it four companies rather than six , as the two individuals you refer to (neither of whom, for the avoidance of doubt, is Gerry Walsh) had a common involvement with two of the dissolved companies in question.

[Chris Majer]

note Ernie Lazenby's post and comments re the article in the Daily Telegraph. I also think litigation is unlikely as all articles are routinely processed by the Telegraph lawyers and a very cautious bunch they are too and rightly so.

The next editorial of CHESS is a little more detailed but I hope readers will agree it was written in the spirit of: opinion is free but facts are sacred. However, it seems I slightly underestimated the funds in Chess Centre Ltd as I was unaware of the ring fenced HG money. I found Martin's post very illuminating.

Having spoken to three of the Directors who resigned and read Mike Truran's letter I am saddened by how such capable and, at the outset, such enthusiastic people have become so disheartened. Like Mike I get a terrible sense of deja vu. Some of the blame can of course be placed on some individuals who have behaved very badly however it seems to me that the ECF is constitutionally not fit for purpose. The problem is a mindset of a generation of administrators not the actions of one or two and the potentially wrecking role of the Council.

I am not hopeful, finding people of the requisite quality to take the ECF forward will be extremely difficult. Anyone planning to become involved could look at the experience of previous Directors and wonder if it's worth the aggravation.

Although I have criticised Gerry Walsh and Alan Martin on the matter of Chess Centre Ltd in CHESS it's clear that if a way forward is to be found personalising the debate too much will not be helpful.

I really just want to see some transparency on the matter of CCL but it's just one small part of the general problem. In the July issue I will put forward some ideas for change in the hope of at least sparking a debate.

Ernie, although I don't believe we have ever met I just wanted to say I find your posts stand out as a balanced contribution to the debate.

MP

Malcolm:

You have claimed that the “ECF is constitutionally not fit for purpose”. You should back up this claim with evidence and in particular evidence from the last Council meeting. The facts of the last Council meeting refute your charge in particular:

1) Council approved the Business Plan proposed by the Board.
2) Council approved the budget that the Directors asked for. This included a significant increase in the budget of the International Director.
3) Council amended a proposal of the Board such that the assets of Chess Centre Limited were to be put into the Permanent Investment Fund rather than the general fund. The Directors made no objection to the amendment at the meeting. As no planned chess activity was contingent on the use of this funding, this could be seen as a prudent view by Council - certainly not a wrecking role
4) The remaining major item was the following:
“The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme and gives Council notice that it will present such a scheme for consideration to the AGM in October. The Board also believes that such a scheme should carry some element of direct empowerment - ie an element of One Man One Vote. Both clearly carry major policy issues so the CEO takes the opportunity to give Council the chance to discuss the principles behind the concept and for members to take soundings from their constituents."
As Richard Haddrell has expressed on the SCCU website: “it can't have been seriously supposed that Council would suddenly swing 100% behind a mandatory membership scheme. “ One might add to that: Where was the supporting paper explaining why the ECF needs to change? Where was the analysis of the cost benefit/risk to the Federation…I could go on. Indeed two days before the Council meeting, Martin Regan sent round an email in which he sought to broaden the debate away from the proposal: “The Federation has existed for many, many years and perhaps now is the time to ask... What is it for? And what do its various stakeholders wish it to achieve?” Strange questions for a CEO in post for 18 months to be asking.
In conclusion, Council adopted all of the Board’s proposals – in what way was this a “wrecking role”? On the contrary, perhaps the ex-Board members were constitutionally incapable of dealing with democratic processes. Certainly, I think there was a lack of understanding of the need of the ECF for local organisations to help achieve its overall goals.

[Sean Hewitt]

I have no doubt that if the ECF brought in a mandatory membership scheme in order to get a national grade many players will not sign up to it and why should they.

Do you really believe that? Surely its a matter of cost. If such a scheme cost £2 per year, I reckon 99% of players would join. If it cost £100, 3% of players might join. In which case its not the philosophy of a mandatory membership scheme that is the issue - its what would the cost be!

There are many other issues that are of concern such as the ECF giving money to help those who frankly dont help themselfes or the game by their behaviour.

Such as?

[Paul Stimpson]

Sean,

Do you really believe that? Surely its a matter of cost. If such a scheme cost £2 per year, I reckon 99% of players would join.

I am not sure why £2 has been considered as an option, would it be feasible in costs to the ECF to collect such a small fee for a National Federation?

I think most people would agree that the lowest possible charge (to be worthwhile) is likely to be at least £10.

Otherwise would it be worth the admin and hassle to collect £2 from each of all of the membership, some 12,000 possible players?

[Roger de Coverly]

Clearly the rank and file are those who are required to pay more but exactly for what;

The major expenditures go on

(a) the Battle office - but this is offset by the government grant
(b) junior events
(c) international

You could add subsidies to British Championship top players to the list.

As far as international is concerned, the principle of paying players for England appearances was established 30 years ago by the late Tony Miles. If the chess players of Cleveland want to drop this principle, the consequences are that the team would be selected on 3 criteria - chess strength, finance to cover the travel and hotel bills and free time available to play.

In the absence of external sponsorship, donations or legacies, the International Expenditure is supported by League and Congress players.

That hasn't always been the case, for about 20 years from 1980, the BCF international team was sponsored by Duncan Lawrie.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean,

Do you really believe that? Surely its a matter of cost. If such a scheme cost £2 per year, I reckon 99% of players would join.

I am not sure why £2 has been considered as an option, would it be feasible in costs to the ECF to collect such a small fee for a National Federation?

I think most people would agree that the lowest possible charge (to be worthwhile) is likely to be at least £10.

Otherwise would it be worth the admin and hassle to collect £2 from each of all of the membership, some 12,000 possible players?

Paul - I dont think that either £2 or £100 are viable options. I was trying to highlight, by reductio ad absurdum, that the issue for most players is purely one of cost to them.