ECF Accounts

[Roger de Coverly]

Not much of a topic, as there aren't any.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... counts.pdf

Unfortunately, there are sections of the accounts where there are unresolved issues concerning the allocation of income and expenditure between financial years, and these will take time to bottom out.

[Carl Hibbard]

Farce!

[John Townsend]

The bottomfulness is terrific ...

[Richard James]

The bottomfulness is terrific ...

Perhaps they're expecting a Postal Order.

[Andrew Camp]

1. d4

[Angus French]

Is the recently-approved budget for 2012/13 also affected?

[Roger de Coverly]

Is the recently-approved budget for 2012/13 also affected?

I was trying to think of issues which would cause end of year allocation difficulties and possible debates over accounting treatment.

One would be the treatment of Game Fee income for events taking place before 30th April 2012, but where the receipt of payment was after 1st May 2012. The other would be the treatment of membership income received between 1st May 2011 and 30th April 2012 as to whether it should be all reported as revenue in the 2011-12 year.

Both would effect the 2012-13 budget which contained some confusing statements about projected income and for that matter seemed unclear whether it was a 12 month budget or a 16 month one.

[Ernie Lazenby]

The final paragraph of the statement is astonishing.Perhaps someone at the AGM will ask exactly what the unresolved issues are and why the situation was allowed to develop in the first place.One must ask if the issues are directly related to what was mentioned in the shocking finance report issued earlier this year. It's hard to believe that the federation has been allowed to get to this situation. Many organisations run by volunteers seem to do much better. Maybe it's the structure that's at fault.

[Angus French]

There is further information in The Report of the Chairman of the Finance Committee. This bit seems most relevant:

To my mind the reasons for this failure remain essentially the same as those intimated in my earlier report:
1. Unrealistic expectations on the part of the ECF of a Finance Director who, as it transpired, was unable to devote enough time to investigate the underlying records - if indeed, as I suggested in my earlier report, this should ever have been an appropriate expectation of a Finance Director.
2. Inadequate financial and operational support by the ECF for the staff at the Office to provide them with sufficient training, resource and expertise to maintain complete and accurate accounting records.
3. Inadequate attention on the part of the ECF to ensure that robust procedures and governance are in place in respect of financial transactions.

May I say in respect of points 1. to 3. above that when I refer to the ECF I do not refer to the ECF Board alone. The financial failings I have commented on above and in my earlier report represent, I suspect, a collective failure on behalf of the ECF as a whole, whether it be a Board that has been distracted and in some cases side-tracked by numerous other issues (some of its own making, and some not), a Council that has devoted too much time to procedural minutiae and insufficient time to giving the Board proper guidance and holding the Board properly to account, and a constituency that has been unwilling to resource its federation appropriately. None of of this is intended to blame any particular element of the ECF for failures in financial control; as I said above, we are where we are. However, poor financial control and governance is more rather than less likely in such an environment.

[Roger de Coverly]

The issues would only need to be minor if Gareth Caller is simply unavailable to look into them.

End of year was 30th April. If the issues are trivial and cannot be looked at in a five month period, would it not have been better to ask the ECF Board to look for a stand in? There is the concept of alternate director which the International Director used when abroad on coaching duty.

I still find it odd that last year's supposed shortfall of Congress Game Fee income couldn't be broken down by Congress. This was notwithstanding that the underlying results data was used without problems for grading and for that matter to establish voting entitlements.

[John McKenna]

Perhaps the "transformation" maths is even more difficult in this case than in the grading one.
The above analogy - 1.d4, although closed, is far too open so may I suggest - in the spirit of the now-defunct Arthur Andersen - 1.a3 as a better one as it reveals as little as possible and as in Anderssen-Morphy it momentarily delays the main debate. (Having said that, 2.h3... could safely follow no matter what.)

[Andrew Camp]

[Alex Holowczak]

Farce!

There is a certain irony to someone complaining about someone else's inability to do a task, when they themselves had been set a task (e.g. grading enhancements) and didn't actually do it for several months, before leaving it to someone else to do.

Pot, kettle etc.

[John Upham]

Farce!

There is a certain irony to someone complaining about someone else's inability to do a task, when they themselves had been set a task (e.g. grading enhancements) and didn't actually do it for several months, before leaving it to someone else to do.

Pot, kettle etc.

Are we comparing like-for-like?

The DoF, although a volunteer, has a definite role (and consequent obligations) whereas a volunteer such as Carl did not have an official ECF role (AFAIK) and is not obliged to do anything.

Until the ECF is properly funded, and the cycle of everyone being expected to work pro bono, this situation will persist holding back the development of chess in England.

Geoffrey Borg's view of English chess development were interesting but not surprising in the least.

[David Sedgwick]

Geoffrey Borg's view of English chess development were interesting but not surprising in the least.

Are you able to enlighten us?