Board Meeting : Saturday, January 10th 2009

[David Sedgwick]

From the SCCU report

At the start of the Meeting we discovered that we were locked in the meeting room. After a short delay the hotel staff freed us

Agent Lazenby you have failed in your task

Martin, thank you for this revelation. At the Meeting someone pointed the finger of suspicion at John Upham.

[Carl Hibbard]

At the Meeting one person was suggested that the ECF apply to the John Robinson Trust for £100K to be used to purchase sets, or to enable their manufacture. Another person said that £25K was the maximum he thought appropriate. After discussion the Board decided not to make such an application for any sum.

Who suggested to chuck another £100K at the project then?

[andrew martin]

I offered to deliver this project IN FULL and could still do so within 2/3 years involving chess professionals.

Whilst Director, I negotiated a deal as a back-up plan to buy the sets 10,000 at a time for distribution to 1000 schools at a time.


The sets/boards/boxes would be free and embossed with the logo 'ECF Chess for Schools 2009. They would be transported FREE OF CHARGE to various hubs ( new academies/chess retail outlets/major tournaments/via junior organisers ) of my choosing for distribution as part of the deal. I already set up 2/3 opening venues whilst Director should the plan be adopted.

At each distribution hub I was going to organize a free GM simul,free lectures and friendly tournaments for kids and teachers to help ease the burden of collecting the sets for schools.

No further purchase by the ECF would be made until the entire consignment of 10,000 sets etc had been exhausted.

I have been preparing a pack to go into schools for which the ECF proposed to charge £35. If each school purchased one pack the ECF would recoup the entire outlay for the sets immediately less royalty payments to myself, Chessbase and Richard James plus the cost of producing the pack. If 10 children from each school took one online Certificate of Merit exam in the first year we get the calculation : £5 x 10 x 1000 = £ 50,000, of which £ 35,000 would be PURE PROFIT to be ploughed back into chess. Multiply that by nine over a couple of years and then take into account the good will the project would engender seeing the promises delivered. I saw a situation where £ 300,000 could be made for the benefit of chess in this country and the reputaion of the ECF massively enhanced.

What would happen if 50 kids from each school took an online exam?

I will also mention that the setting up of this reserve scheme,plus attention to the actual intentions regarding Holloid at that time,took a great deal of unpaid hard work.


For some reason, these suggestions have been rejected.

Andrew

[Carl Hibbard]

Chris Majer has a meeting in the near future with someone who is anxious to try and help. I know who it is, as I played a part in setting up the meeting, but I've been asked to keep the name confidential.

We of course wish everyone the best of luck with what seems like the last chance on this one

However how Holloid remain in place (if they do...) is totally beyond me

[Sean Hewitt]

Holloid should clearly be binned as they have no credibility whatsoever. If the sets have to be purchased so be it (as long as a sensible business plan can be agreed to recoup the outlay) but on principle the sets should not be purchased from Holloid.

[William Metcalfe]

These are questions for the game fee areas of the country @what cost per board does game fee become prohibative and detremental to the playing off chess.
@what price would it make membership a more viable option.

Or is membership never going to become a viable option to some areas of england

[David Sedgwick]

Chris Majer has a meeting in the near future with someone who is anxious to try and help. I know who it is, as I played a part in setting up the meeting, but I've been asked to keep the name confidential.

We of course wish everyone the best of luck with what seems like the last chance on this one

I agree - it looks like the last chance to me.

Who suggested to chuck another £100K at the project then?

I was present at the Meeting by invitation, as were the other observers. Where Directors were reporting on their responsibilities, I've identified them. I don't think that I should name names where individuals (not necessarily even Board members) raised discussion points, particularly where the suggestions were not pursued.

Sorry.

[Matthew Turner]

Andrew,
If I am reading things correctly, then the ECF scheme is simply your scheme in disguise. You were proposing to buy sets from a British business who would have the sets made in China (I presume). It looks to me like the ECF are cutting out the middle man. I pass no comment on whether this is a good idea, because it seems clear that whilst this might save some money it will also create issues with distribution.
With your scheme the ECF would initially purchase 10,000 sets, this seems to be the same with the ECF scheme. I assume that Robert Richmond is talking about spending £25,000 from the JRT because this is (about) the cost of the first 10,000 sets.

[andrew martin]

I genuinely don't know Matt whether the current idea is a modification.

If it is, it has stripped the entire operation of any good will.

[andrew martin]

Yes, I agree Ernie, let us hope it all works out.

But who on earth could this rich person be?

[Mike Gunn]

I would like to support the Andrew Martin plan. To my mind the main priority must be to get the chess sets into schools. I have read those posts which say the schools don't actually need sets but we have promised sets to 9000 schools! I'm astonished to see people on this forum suggesting that because Holloid have failed to deliver we should use this as an excuse to walk away from the Chess for Schools project and indulge in a bit of blood-letting within the ECF. We might not agree with how we have got here, but collectively (through the body that represents us) we have made a commitment to these schools.

The Chess for Schools project is just the sort of thing the ECF should be doing. When the Victorians had a great vision to do something worthwhile they would launch an appeal and get businesses and individuals to subscribe. Why don't we do the same sort of thing for the Chess for Schools project? Even if we raise only £10,000 rather than £300,000 it's surely worth a try?

By the way, it's difficult to see why raising £300,000 for the Holloid sets (£300,000/90,000 = £3.33 a set) is a better idea than buying the sets from China for £2.90 a set.

[andrew martin]

Thank you Mike.

Please bear in mind that this was at all stages a backup plan, designed for possible operation if all avenues with Holloid became exhausted.

I thought that was the case back at the end of November; nothing seen since has changed my mind.

[Carl Hibbard]

By the way, it's difficult to see why raising £300,000 for the Holloid sets (£300,000/90,000 = £3.33 a set) is a better idea than buying the sets from China for £2.90 a set.

Plus the distributions costs of 10 sets and boards a school is £30 plus what?

[Carl Hibbard]

The ECF web site statement has now been made

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/

[Matthew Turner]

If you look at David Sedgwick's posting he said

"It may indeed be improbable that £300K will be raised as a result. However, I think it is plausible, for example, that a number of local businesses may each be prepared to contribute £3K-£5K"

I would assume the 'sponsor' we are talking about is something like Rotary International, where something might happen at a local level. I would not expect a huge amount of financial support, but if a small amount were forthcoming it would be much appreciated.