English Chess Forum

These are the questions the ECF is asking. http://www.englishchess.org.uk/charitab ... us-survey/

Respondents are asked to rank on a 1 to 8 scale, 1 being complete approval and 8 being a veto.


Section 1: Source of financial support for International Chess

1 The ECF should continue to financially support International Chess at the current level *
2 All sections of membership should financially support International Chess *
3 Only Gold and Platinum members should support International Chess *
4 Only Silver, Gold and Platinum members should support International Chess *

Section 2: Dual membership

5 A dual membership scheme makes the existing membership scheme too complicated *
6 A dual membership scheme should require separate payments for each organisation *
7 Members of the ECF should pay membership fees and receive no benefits – the level of the membership fee should be at a level of approximately 80% of the current fees *
8 Members of a non-charitable chess organisation would receive benefits for their membership fee – the level of which should be at a level of approximately 20% of the current fees *

Section 3: Junior Chess

9 A separate charity should be set up for junior chess *
10 Junior membership income should only financially support junior chess *

Section 4: Non-charity entity activities

11 The Non-charity entity should take over the activity of grading *
12 Only members of both organisations should be allowed to have their games graded *
14 The British Championships should continue to break even *
14 The British Championships should seek to make profits and use these for other ECF activities *

The question this survey does not ask is 'to what extent the ECF should support professional chess'. Is support for professional chess compatible with charity status?

In Section 1 should 'International Chess' read 'Professional Chess'; i.e. the ECF financially supporting teams of professional players in international competition.

Section 2 , 'Dual membership' - what does this mean? Surely the charitable ECF would need to be quite separate from a professional organisation. In Qns 7 and 8 for 'benefits' read 'grading' - the one real benefit 90% of ordinary club members receive.

Section 3 Junior Chess. A separate charity for junior chess - why not? Junior membership income to support Junior chess. Unless things have changed since last year Phil Ehr receives a zero budget for Junior Chess. Qn 10 is a good idea.

Section 4. Qn 11. No, no, no! What would be left for the ECF to do?
Qn 12. This is simply wrong. (R de C would would say the ordinary club member would have to pay a tax to support chess professionals in order to get a grading!)
Qns 14(!) + 14. Do these imply that the ECF would retain control of the British Championships? I had assumed that they should come under the professional organisation.

I don't want to give the idea that I am against professionalism in chess - in part it is because I want to support England players in international competition that I am a platinum member. (And indeed until I retired a year ago I had been for 20 years a professional chess teacher myself). But if chess is to become a true profession, then professional players should support themselves, not depend on hand-outs from amateur club players.

Paul Bielby wrote: Is support for professional chess compatible with charity status?

It's established wisdom that it isn't. Although that doesn't explain how the London Chess Classic and Chess in Schools and Communities work together.

The background is, or is believed to be, that the financing of International teams and providing worthwhile prize funds and expenses for the British Championship are not compatible with charitable status. Hence the proposal to cut the ECF into at least two parts.

In my chess lifetime, England teams went from being outside the top 20 to challenging the Soviet Union to top spot and arguably back down again. The challenge to the Soviet Union relied on players playing full time and the growth of events with big prize money in the 1970s contributed to this. Whilst sponsors certainly helped, the numbers of amateur players prepared to pay entry fees to these events enabled worthwhile prize funds.

The ECF's proposal at the April Council meeting for how to handle the financing was that all players would be required to join both bodies. They may now be having second thoughts hence, presumably the questions about confining the "professional/international" body to Gold or Gold and Silver.

There are no questions about Gift Aid, but I find it difficult to accept that making a payment to a body to for permission to take part in an event, or even just to protect an international rating has any element of "giving" about it.

The major expenses of any chess national body are always going to be running itself ,paying for International teams and financing prizes and expenses for the British Championship. That's independent of the method of financing and in the absence of sponsorship will fall on those the national body can raise money from.

Maybe it's the pedantic Business Analyst in me, but I guess before asking questions about supporting 'International Chess', you need to define exactly what that means.

Ray Sayers wrote: but I guess before asking questions about supporting 'International Chess', you need to define exactly what that means.

In the context, at a minimum it means paying fees and expenses for the participation of top ENG players in the Olympiad and European team Championships. Beyond that, it might include support for ENG players in events like the World Cup, European Individual and other tournaments. If you had enough sponsorship income, it might also include participation in World and European Senior events.