Board Meeting : Saturday, January 10th 2009

[Simon Spivack]

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?

I hope no-one lauded this proposal.

I can just see it, with our luck, the ship, en route to the Suez Canal, would be captured by Somali pirates. Imagine Jimmy, chief of the hostage takers, intoning "no bishop, no king"!

[andrew martin]

Looks like I was wrong about Holloid; apologies.

Well, good luck getting the sponsorship and to Holloid and the ECF in the production and distribution dept. Going to be a LOT of work sorting it all out.

[Carl Hibbard]

For the benefit of this slow witted uneducated numpty from the north of England can someone please put that into plain English

The statement is simply waffle to overcome some uncomfortable facts. It is shameful.

Has to be said Ernie a Labour press release could not be done better than that

[Peter Turner]

From Chris's statement on the ECF website:

"The response from schools has been significant and both Holloid and the ECF will be working closely to establish a logistics process to provide the sets to schools, based on a sponsorship model to cover the raw material and other costs, with some further financial support from Holloid."

Some impressive negotiations seem to have taken place!! I'm in Ernie's camp here - what does this actually mean in plain English? You'll be pleased to learn that I've just collected my first state pension so could well be having a 'senior moment' since I now see that initially ECF were approached with offer of 250,000 free sets, which has not happened BUT NOW ECF has undertaken to pay for the sets by raising £300,000 sponsorship!! No problem now for Holloid because any failure to deliver will be ECF's fault. Surely if we are paying go along with Andrew's plan which minimises risk and does have a distribution idea.

Or am I just getting too old for all this nonsense? (Don't need to answer that one)

Regards

Peter T

[Nick Thomas]

Peter.
Don't worry I am also having a senior moment. Could someone brighter than me (that's most of you) explain why the ECF need £300,000 sponsorship (gift) in order to sell 9000 schools 90,000 chess sets at £3 each set

[Carl Hibbard]

The way it's been worded as "The response from schools has been significant and both Holloid and the ECF will be working closely to establish a logistics process to provide the sets to schools, based on a sponsorship model to cover the raw material and other costs, with some further financial support from Holloid" gives the impression of there being no issues beyond logistics and all is well does it not?

Let's wait and see what sort of emails the schools get then as an update, if that occurs...

[Mike Gunn]

David Robertson (and possibly one or two others on this forum) who doubted this scheme from the start were absolutely right. A company like Holloid was never in a position to be able to afford to donate 250,000 free chess sets (even before the credit crunch). Apart from the pre-production costs you have to pay the wage of the person operating the machine that makes the pieces and also you have to assemble ten sets, ten boards, ten boxes and the supporting documentation into a box for each school. The labour and/or machinery costs to achieve this are not insignificant. Even if the raw material (plastic) is free/sponsored it is difficult to see this costing Holloid less than £1 a set (probably more). Indeed the true cost of producing the sets can now be judged from the fact that sponssorship of £300,000 is needed to pay for approximately 100,000 sets.

It's not just the ECF officers immediately responsible lfor the scheme who are guilty of naivety it is the whole board of directors, the Council, indeed ALL OF US who learned the details of this scheme. As I said earlier, the main priority now must be to get chess sets into schools and we need an action plan along the lines of the suggestion by Andrew Martin and/or local sponsorship/initiatives as suggested by Jack Rudd.

Holloid have proved to be an unreliable partner in this scheme and it is difficult to see why we should continue to talk to them. They have supplied what they offered - why should we trust them any further?

[Mike Gunn]

Obviously I meant they have NOT supplied what they offered ...

[John Upham]

I visited the Surrey Congress (Easter 2008) to discuss my concerns with this project with various persons.

During this visit I spoke with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and brought to his attention the content of the publicity leaflet being sent to County junior organisers requiring the schools to sign-up to a financial commitment before they would receive any free sets. I felt that this material would alienate both schools and junior organisers toward this project. Both the Hampshire and Berkshire JOs wanted nothing to do with this project.

My words to the CotFC were "CSfS will be the most embarrassing episode for the ECF in the last n years (where n = last embarrassing episode that I can't recall) and that schools would never trust us again."

I was advised not to be so negative.

[andrew martin]

No thought whatsoever seems to have been given to the transporting and distribution of the sets. This is where Charles Wood ran aground. Are they really intending to POST these sets ?

[andrew martin]

Well, I am as confused as you Ernie. I am TRYING to look forward to a point when sets are produced.

I am struggling to understand the timescale of the current ECF model and the reasons why the ECF still continue to side with Holloid, let alone intend paying them to manufacture sets.

I know Chris Majer is an honourable person,so I am assuming the statement isn't just nonsense.

Here we have a clear case where the ECF has MADE A COMMITMENT to supply free sets to schools. You have to be blind not to see that. Yet we have what we have. I don't understand it; thats the truth.

[Peter Sowray]

Apart from the fact that the published statement is hard to fathom, I am struck by a couple of things.

1) There is no hint of remorse.

2) Holloid are not willing to have any of their senior people associated with the statement.

Folks are not stupid and will draw their own conclusions.

I think we should spare a thought for CM, PW, GW, Cynthia and everybody else associated with this debacle. It must have been a great disappointment for them as well. No doubt they anticipate an unpleasant meeting when Council next convenes. I don't think that anyone wakes up in the morning and thinks "how can I screw up the ECF today?" but they have been naive. Whilst some of the aggressive comments on this forum and elsewhere are understandable, they don't help the situation. Let's keep it civil.

It is going to be a difficult couple of years for the ECF. We're in the midst of a severe recession and our government funding (that's roughly a third of the Federation's income) must be at risk. There are some tough choices ahead (increase fees, make staff redundant, reduce activity, or maybe all of these) and it will need some determined leadership to get us out of this mess. Putting together an alternative ticket is irrelevant unless there is someone credible at the helm.

Peter

[andrew martin]

We certainly need a set of faces who can mobilize the good will among our chess community to best effect. Instead of fighting amongst each other,we have to work together to make things happen, including the delivery of this project.

It simply is no good refusing to communicate when things go wrong. For me ,this is one of the most striking aspects of this whole affair.

[Matt Harrison]

The public message going out via the ECF website is appalling. It still states (if you open the links provided) that Holloid will be providing 250,000 free sets to all schools. It also has a powerpoint presentation stating that Holloid will have a turnover of 5million pa by the end of 2008 (ie. now).

Surely the only honourable course of action is to pull all the stuff from the website and replace it with a new statement. The current statement is unrealistic unless a sponsor can be found in the imminent future.

I was thoroughly depressed by this, then I read David Sedgewick's notes of the meeting on the SCCU website and it seemed clearer, but this statement makes things look worse again. It seems to me increasingly unlikely that any schools (beyond the 'lucky' 50) will get any free sets. And the 500 free sets seem to me to more embarassing than anything else.

[John Upham]

How will the schools perceive this latest announcement?

Let us take a moment to review what has happened to them:

1. They were invited to register for free chess sets
2. 9 - 10,000 schools registered
3. The ECF have a "database" (not a proper one but merely a mailing list) of those schools
4. The registered schools are now being invited to pay for their free sets
5. The schools start talking to each other
6. Schools decide that the ECF is a joke and should never be trusted again.
7. The CfS project is irrevocably damaged
8. The reputation of English chess is tarnished and lambasted

I hope the above goes no further than 4. but I fear it will reach 8.
I await the national press reporting with trepidation.
I gather the local journalist for GFWs patch is researching an article as we speak
Where does it stop?