English Chess Forum

The ECF Budget is now at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... dget1.xlsx

The structure of the presentation has been revamped.

Remembering the headlines of eighteen months ago, when Congresses were accused of short changing the ECF on Game Fee, I note the following in the history columns


Game Fee Congress 2010-11 9,038
Game Fee Congress 2011-12 10,968

So the supposedly "lost" income reappears in 2011-12 and there was never much of a shortfall in the first place.

Richard Haddrell reported on the 2011 meeting at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/bcf.htm

Apparently a major cause is a £10,000 shortfall in receipt of Game Fee from congresses. It seems odd. These are congresses which should have paid at least five months ago. The Director has conducted a review of non-payers, and bills will be sent. But shouldn't something have been done about it before now? Never mind, it will be all right when we're collecting Membership fees instead.

That was what the meeting was told, but it subsequently transpired it was a change in accounting convention that had the convenient side effect of helping to rubbish the ECF's previous system of fund raising.

Roger de Coverly wrote

That was what the meeting was told, but it subsequently transpired it was a change in accounting convention that had the convenient side effect of helping to rubbish the ECF's previous system of fund raising.

There is nothing like a good conspiracy theory. However, where there are alternative interpretations of "cock up" or "conspiracy", I know where my money would generally be.

John Philpott wrote: However, where there are alternative interpretations of "cock up" or "conspiracy", I know where my money would generally be.

The then Finance Director is on record as favouring individual membership schemes over Game Fee. Had he favoured Game Fee, presumably there would have been a coherent explanation for the apparent shortfall. Even on the final approval of the Accounts, the shortfall remained unexplained and the approving voters were invited to regard the shortfall as not material in the context of the overall Accounts. I though it a slur on the collective good names of Congresses in general to announce a shortfall without being able to back it up by saying which Congresses they were.