Director of Finance

[Roger de Coverly]

So, whoever the Directors of CCL are, the shareholders, Richardson and Moore, can prevent CCL funds being transferred to the ECF?

I would expect so - I suppose they would be bound by the terms of the 1929 deed so it's really the deed that is the issue. David Sedgwick suggested the CCL assets were outside the scope of the deed though.

Is there anything to stop Messrs Richardson and Moore just keeping the money?

Quite a lot as it would presumably be paid to "the Trustees of the BCF Permanent Investment Fund" and not to them personally.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
Many thanks for that explanation.

Can anyone help me with this one?
Most of the money in CCL comes from the Sale of BCM (in 1992?) Who actually bought it?

[David Sedgwick]

Can anyone help me with this one?
Most of the money in CCL comes from the Sale of BCM (in 1992?) Who actually bought it?

That's an easy one. The answer is Murray Chandler.

Murray had previously bought 20% of BCM from the BCF. In 1992 he bought the other 80%.

In 1999 he sold BCM to a consortium including John Saunders, who succeeded him as editor.

Please don't ask me what happened to the money that the BCF received from Murray for the first 20%. That was in the late 1980's (or it might have been 1990); it was before my period of active involvement.

[Matthew Turner]

David,
Many thanks for that.

It now appears to me that
1. CCL is controlled by the Trustees of the PIF (the Directors of CCL really don't do anything)
2. Council (and the previous board) wanted CCL funds transferred to the PIF?
3. The Trustees of PIF obviously feel that the CCL funds are invested appropriately, otherwise they would make a change in strategy

Therefore, one seems drawn to the enevitable conclusion - what is all the fuss about?
Am I missing something?

[Roger de Coverly]

Therefore, one seems drawn to the enevitable conclusion - what is all the fuss about?
Am I missing something?

Did the Regan board want to spend the CCL cash on something? - I'm not sure we ever found out. It might have been to entice GMs back to the British Championships who would otherwise have stayed in Greece, Somerset or even Norway.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
Spending money on that may well be a noble aim.
However, it is really a question about withdrawing capital from the PIF to fund current expenditure and talk about the CCL is just a convenient hook to hang it on.

[Stewart Reuben]

Precisely. Council voted on something over which they had no control.
There are 3 PIF Trustees as I have said before. Ray Edwards is one of them.

If memory serves me correct:
The BCM was bought with money supplied from the PIF and a loan from Brian Reilly, owner of the BCM company. Brian was paid back his loan from the income the BCM generated. The BCF also received a dividend of £1500 a year roughly.
Then the company was sold to Murray Chandler. It was my opinion, and that of David Sedgwick if I understood correctly, that it would go into liquidation in a couple of years if it stayed in our hands. An investment of £5000 by the PIF had become about £25000 in about a decade and we kept the BCM going.

The money the PIF had loaned the CCL was never repaid. It stayed in the CCL. So why shouldn't the trustees decide on the disposition of those funds? Why the Harry Golombek bequest was put there I don't remember. But if it were to be put into general ECF Funds it would still be earmarked for the library.

The Board in April 2008 wanted the funds to be transferred to the ECF itself. That was perfectly reasonable, in fact I think I was in favour. 18 months afterwards the ECF has about £35,000 cash which is not really adequate for cash flow purposes.

Alan Martin feared and fears that the CCL money would be frittered away. He is quite wrong. There are safeguards in place to prevent that happening. The budget is agreed by Council. There are safeguards concerning variance.

Stewart Reuben

[Matthew Turner]

It seems like Martin Regan (and Council) have two issues with the CCL.

1. It's the ECF Money and they would like it back.

2. It is just stagnating and could be earning a better rate of return

These are both perfectly sensible points of view, but there are equally sensible arguments for the exact opposite.
However, I am not sure whether Martin Regan would like the CCL subsumed into the PIF or not. This might enable it to get a higher rate of return, but it would appear to make less likely (or indeed impossible) for the money to go in the the ECF general coffers.

[Matthew Turner]

Martin,
I sympathise with your views, but I am still unclear whether you (and council) wanted Chess Centre Limited funds to go into the ECF or the PIF. The shareholders and director of CCL could, as far as I can see, reasonably claim that they were unsure what council wished them to do, because putting the money into the ECF general coffers and putting the money into the PIF are contradictory aims.

[Matthew Turner]

It certainly helps. However, transferring the CCL money to the PIF is not really a compromise. If the ECF Board wanted the CCL monies to go directly into the ECF coffers, then transferring them to the PIF prevents this in future. The shareholders and directors of CCL could reasonably claim that the idea of transferring funds to the PIF was an impromptu decision of council, based on a limited number of facts and that actually this was contradictory to the Board's objectives.

[Sean Hewitt]

It was me who brokered the compromise. Like Martin, I had the clear impression that council would not have supported the attempt to transfer the CCL funds to the ECF after Alan Martin accused the board of "wanting to fritter away the cash." Whilst I felt that if the board wanted to use the cash they should be allowed to do so it was clear that Mr Martin and co would not allow that. So I asked first the board and then Alan Martin if they would accept, in principle, the idea of transferring the money to the PIF instead. That way at least the proceeds could be used by the board (which wasn't the case at the time of the 2008 finance meeting). Both parties agreed and so I put the amendment and council voted in favour.

Of course, we all know now what happened after that!

[cjdemooi]

In the spirit of 'action now', I'll wait until I've spoken to various board members tomorrow but I hope to be announcing a candidate for the post of Finance Director very soon.

I have a friend who is willing to and interested in the work and who has been in an appopriate professional field. He also has something of a public image so hopefully this can only add to the profile of the ECF.

Watch this space!

CJ

[cjdemooi]

I've put forward a suggestion for someone to fill this post to the Board as we're hoping for an appointment to be made on 31st October.

However, I would still encourage everyone to try and think of anyone who might be suitable and willing, so hopefully we can move forward (especially in light of the DCMS situation) with a new and eager FD.

[David Pardoe]

I`ve written recently on other threads about matters ECF...BCF....etc. with a healthy smattering of mixed metaphors to keep people on there toes.

The FD position....and what is needed.
Someone who (vaguely) understands what is going on in the UK chess world is required...stating the obvious possibly.
But more importantly.....someone who can see the potential for British chess scene....
This isnt just a job for a book/budget balancer/cutter.., although that is important.
Can we pull together the various resources more effectively, for instance.
What are our resources....ECF/BCF head office, Unions, Counties, Leagues, Congresses, International, professional(s), Junior....4NCL, Internet (vast numbers play on the web, and are missing out on the joys of OTB chess)...and so on.....
I keep mentioning the BCF....Why, you might think..
Its very simple...if we`re to be seen as a world class organisation...we must have a world class brand name, with world class aspirations....and not be seen as some micky mouse banana republic (Semi detached backwater..)......, with minimal resources, stunted ambition (dogged by negativity...), trying to compete with the big guns...China, India, USA, Russia...etc..etc... They have a major, inbuilt `numbers` advantage.
A British team I think is the way to go (with fair representation across the pieste)....pool our resources and talents more effectively.......maybe we need to restructure the European/FIDE/World/Commonwealth tournaments to make them more viable....with fewer, and larger teams. Maybe we need to be organised along the lines of world tennis...with zones, and with divisions. I see team GB is struggling currently in tennis terms...despite vast amounts going into coaching.....?
Publicity, media involvement, sponsorship......and remembering of course, that chess is a primarily a participation sport.
Anyway, I`m sure that consolidating our UK teams could be a great money saver....and we need to look at budgets....and might be one area where we can better cut our coat according to our cloth....so to speak. This might be attractive to those providing grants, etc.... Some might argue differently, of course.
At present our 4 countries (at great cost..), put out fairly avarage teams, which must be costing a fortune...for which we get little meaningful benefit (perhaps that sounds a bit harsh.....if so, we need to spell out the tangible benefits effectively, and persuasively), ....but we dont seem to get a great deal in public recognition, which might translate to greater interest in UK chess...as far as I can see (speaking from a distance, of course....). Thats not to take away from the excellent efforts of our top players... Can we get more mileage from all this....?
In terms of funding, I dont know what proportion comes from `grants`, etc...and what from sponsorships....the latter seems a dark subject, shrouded in secracy, many might percieve.
Talking of funding...we are challenged at all levels.....and it requires all levels to respond (collectively and effectively),...preferrably with some positive `can do` initiatives.
What do you mean...I hear you say...
....well, take a look at the Congress Diary. You`ll see this weekends Scarborough Congress mentioned. Click on there website and have a look at the presentation, entries, organisation, etc....and the positive vibes this gives.....it oooses with success and expectation of a good event, at a time when many seem to be struggling.
What can we learn from that.....and I hope it continues to be a great event on the chess calander. Thats one of the things we need...great events on the chess calander....that players can look forward to...
As Brian Clough once said....its all about bums on seats......how can we tap into this and generate more events that stir up interest.....with great venues (by the seaside in late October, or whenever...). We need to encourage more well run, well supported events, that bring in the crowds at all levels, generate some real interest, are good fun..., and get the tills ringing. And I wouldnt mind betting that Scarborough Council come into this somewhere...they must clearly realise and appreciate the importance of visitors to there town, and the area...so, ..do there utmost to ensure these events are given the right financial support.
Another area to consider.......MO`s. Are these functioning effectively....are they bringing in the required funds, and delivering good value to the members....and does the ECF get its fair `cut`...or are some `rebals` still holding out and demanding the lions share....an audit of that area might be in order.....as also might that of graded games for game fees....are we encouraging enough chess...can the ECF or others make these schemes more effective.
We have talk of declining numbers/ leagues, etc. Are our county and league bodies doing enough to promote local chess...and encourage new people to join...and new clubs/leagues...or do we need more grass roots Press publicity....showing a few league tables, etc..
Unfortunately the ECF suffers like other bodies from a certain level of disfunctionality...if all the parts of the organisation arnt pulling together, the whole beast will under perform...this is one reason for the `decline`.......
But more vitally, there has to be a sense of purpose, which the membership can buy into.....and we cant have vast domains like Yorkshire (and others...), `opting out`, so to speak. So how do we build this greater sence of `inclusivity...` its a vital ingredient.
Getting that buy-in... I`ve mentioned at the junior level, where Mike Basmans `Mega Finals` create vast amounts of interest amongst our youngsters...... 80,000 or so in recent times. We need a grading database for these youngsters, that can be updated more frequently from varying sources..maybe automated (minimum) grades for all who reach the Mega Final stages (as part of the prize/reward for reaching these stages)...with a nominal cost.
Maybe we need a John Robinson junior grading database...or something. Give these youngsters some sense of `recognition` in the system....but continuity is where we need to focus...our teenage juniors need to be more welcomed at our local chess clubs (so do others...)....maybe we need junior evenings. Breaking down the barriers to entry for joe-public..namely, that you dont actually have to be some GM geek to play and enjoy ye olde noble arte of chess....contrary to the spoof put out by the media....
Many strands to this bow...but its a common reason why many dont join local clubs of all sports, not just chess. Our people are missing out on tarrific social and sporting opportunities, because they feel disaffected. Too many are `conditioned` to feel `they are not good enough...` ...and they miss these great opportunities to escape hours of mindless `soap operas`, when they could be out there taking part in numourus sporting/social activities, at pretty inexpensive rates in many cases.. Its called ...quality of life.......dont miss out...!!

[Roger de Coverly]

A British team I think is the way to go (with fair representation across the pieste)....pool our resources and talents more effectively.

I'm struggling to think even of Scottish players who would have won places in an England/UK team over the last forty years. Certainly no Welsh players and the Irish Republic is an independent country. Levy, Pritchett and McKay perhaps in the Keene/Hartston era maybe although there were a lot of young strong English players even before Stean, Miles Nunn etc.. More recently John Rowson and Ketevan in the womens' team.

In fact during the "supremacy" days of the eighties, I wonder if the BCF didn't miss a trick by using the Jack Charlton model in trying to make Scotland, Wales and perhaps Ireland into England 2,3 and 4. I expect they didn't want to provoke a fight with the other national federations.

Another area to consider.......MO`s. Are these functioning effectively....are they bringing in the required funds,

If you take a look at the notes at the end of accounts, you will find they detail the total amounts collected under MOs. It's well less than the annual deficit and a relative drop in the ocean compared to the Government grant of £ 60000 per year.