Membership Renewal

[Roger de Coverly]

They then say to the ECF that they want expenses + £Y to play for the England team.

Although Malcolm declined to indicate what the relative values of £ Y might be, it is presumably clear from general reasoning that the figure is much higher for the Open team than the Women's.

[Chris Goodall]

the other more serious one as to how the professional side would be financed if it didn't raise enough income by sponsorship and patronage.

And this is a perfect example of the ECF's long-term spinelessness in the face of grandmasters pleading poverty. Because the correct answer to that, is that if you aren't playing at a high enough level to generate the revenue, then what you are is an amateur, and you should get a job.

Tennis has the same disease. 600 players capable of breaking even, 15,000 self-described professionals. The inevitable result: a carnival of match-fixing.

I disagreed as we are not going to get someone like Barry Hearn to invest in the chess world?

you also quoted this and i not agreed

These meetings are designed to instill in as many people as possible a shared sense of ownership over the decisions made there. Even if it wasn't what they personally wanted, and even if the meaningful decisions were made in private phone calls between the directors in advance of the meeting. It's the Abilene paradox. Since most of those people will return for next year's meeting, you will never get next year's meeting to vote for the opposite of what they voted for this year.

I always go to the meeting with a open view and always vote what i have been told as what i have been told to?
do you know that private phone calls are made between the directors?

it down to the members and they only have 18 votes to office holders
the Direct Members have over 40 votes?

do you think you can make the ECF better? because i always read on here saying what is wrong, but never give a solution?

have you got a motion to council?
do you think you can do a better job?

I've given at least two solutions upthread.

1. Reduce the International budget to £0. This will mean England being represented by keen amateurs. England is already represented by keen amateurs, so that will not be a problem. In 1970 we had 0.5 professional players, and that was when tournament organisers had a more marketable product than they have today.
2. Insist on strict itemisation of the International budget. If you can't tell us what you're spending the money on because it's commercially sensitive, find something to spend it on that isn't.
3. Do 2, and then cap both the men's and women's budgets at the level of the women's budget from the last 2-year cycle, plus inflation. Make England one of the handful of countries where the women and men are on equal terms. This would be a great story for the Guardian.
4. 8-year rule. If, after 8 years of receiving ECF funds as an adult, you haven't cracked the Candidates' tournament and your grade has declined from its peak, then you're done. You are not going to be the player who gets English chess onto the back page. Time to give that money to someone who's on the Candidates' trajectory. (Reaching the Candidates' resets the clock.) Tim Henman may be a household name, but there would be a scandal if the LTA were spending funds on him in 2020 instead of an emerging youngster.
5. Parents who care enough about their kids getting into national teams, can deal directly with the ECF. Coaches who are in reality agents with stables of juniors, can only make that process less transparent and more of a postcode lottery.

[Paul Cooksey]

Aren't rules 2, 3 and 4 redundant if the budget is £0?

[David Sedgwick]

Does the content of the BICC agreement matter? I am trying to understand if we are discussing an administrative delay or matter of substance.

Unless and until the Agreement is published, only the privileged few who have seen it know whether the ECF are responsible for the British Championships, whether the BICC are, or whether responsibility is split between the two bodies.

In my opinion that does matter.

[John Reyes]

And this is a perfect example of the ECF's long-term spinelessness in the face of grandmasters pleading poverty. Because the correct answer to that, is that if you aren't playing at a high enough level to generate the revenue, then what you are is an amateur, and you should get a job.

Tennis has the same disease. 600 players capable of breaking even, 15,000 self-described professionals. The inevitable result: a carnival of match-fixing.

I disagreed as we are not going to get someone like Barry Hearn to invest in the chess world?

you also quoted this and i not agreed

These meetings are designed to instill in as many people as possible a shared sense of ownership over the decisions made there. Even if it wasn't what they personally wanted, and even if the meaningful decisions were made in private phone calls between the directors in advance of the meeting. It's the Abilene paradox. Since most of those people will return for next year's meeting, you will never get next year's meeting to vote for the opposite of what they voted for this year.

I always go to the meeting with a open view and always vote what i have been told as what i have been told to?
do you know that private phone calls are made between the directors?

it down to the members and they only have 18 votes to office holders
the Direct Members have over 40 votes?

do you think you can make the ECF better? because i always read on here saying what is wrong, but never give a solution?

have you got a motion to council?
do you think you can do a better job?

I've given at least two solutions upthread.

1. Reduce the International budget to £0. This will mean England being represented by keen amateurs. England is already represented by keen amateurs, so that will not be a problem. In 1970 we had 0.5 professional players, and that was when tournament organisers had a more marketable product than they have today.
2. Insist on strict itemisation of the International budget. If you can't tell us what you're spending the money on because it's commercially sensitive, find something to spend it on that isn't.
3. Do 2, and then cap both the men's and women's budgets at the level of the women's budget from the last 2-year cycle, plus inflation. Make England one of the handful of countries where the women and men are on equal terms. This would be a great story for the Guardian.
4. 8-year rule. If, after 8 years of receiving ECF funds as an adult, you haven't cracked the Candidates' tournament and your grade has declined from its peak, then you're done. You are not going to be the player who gets English chess onto the back page. Time to give that money to someone who's on the Candidates' trajectory. (Reaching the Candidates' resets the clock.) Tim Henman may be a household name, but there would be a scandal if the LTA were spending funds on him in 2020 instead of an emerging youngster.
5. Parents who care enough about their kids getting into national teams, can deal directly with the ECF. Coaches who are in reality agents with stables of juniors, can only make that process less transparent and more of a postcode lottery.

1) Really ............................................ you talk about keen Amateurs, but if you look at other Federations, you need to adapted. people think so much in the past and look at what malcolm has done in his time. we need a national team, however you talk about keen amateurs, but how many top keen amateurs (let say players over 220 plus) do we have in the uk and how many would be good enough to be select and who is the next adams????
2) you see on the last budget that he did under spend and has brought in sponsorship.
3) do you know how much each player get paid and also what go behind the scenes
4) have you read this https://www.englishchess.org.uk/international
5) Players need coaches (you see that at darts, and tennis)

many years ago, i would have agreed with you, however when you look at what Malcolm has done, do you wanted English chess to envolve?
look at henman, then Murray, but who is after murray? sometimes you need to look towards the future and you need funding to get the right system in place.

i know you have a view, but speak to malcolm pein and your option will maybe change.

look at darts and what happen with the BDO/PDC spilt and where is the bdo and where is the PDC??

[Nick Ivell]

I ask myself who the 0.5 pro was in 1970. Raymond Keene, perhaps? Was he only half a player?

[Roger de Coverly]

I ask myself who the 0.5 pro was in 1970. Raymond Keene, perhaps? Was he only half a player?

Keene and Hartston were full time students. At the time, that was a good method of having plenty of free time for chess, particularly with the shorter Oxbridge terms. Admittedly they could supplement their income by chess writing,

I imagine he means Bob Wade, who was undoubtedly a chess professional, but as coach and writer as much as player.

[Nick Grey]

Unless and until the Agreement is published, only the privileged few who have seen it know whether the ECF are responsible for the British Championships, whether the BICC are, or whether responsibility is split between the two bodies.
o
In my opinion that does matter.

And if membership renewal is so low will the British Championships be viable in 2021, and the short term of Directors on the two bodies.

[Mick Norris]

Does the content of the BICC agreement matter? I am trying to understand if we are discussing an administrative delay or matter of substance.

Unless and until the Agreement is published, only the privileged few who have seen it know whether the ECF are responsible for the British Championships, whether the BICC are, or whether responsibility is split between the two bodies.

In my opinion that does matter.

Hi David

Can you remind me who is on the BICC (ideally, who has signed and who has yet to do so)?

What happens if it doesn't get signed?

[Roger de Coverly]

And if membership renewal is so low will the British Championships be viable in 2021

The issues aren't really connected as the Congress as a whole is designed to be self financing. If there is a 2021 British Championship Congress, it encourages membership renewal given the need to be a member to take part.

There are mutterings that staging the European Nations football in 2021 might not be a given, so allowing a chess tournament with 500 present at any one time might still not be allowed. There also remains the risk to the ECF that the older end of the demographic at the Congress continue to voluntarily self isolate.

[Nick Grey]

The issues aren't really connected as the Congress as a whole is designed to be self financing.

Of course they are connected. Football is not.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course they are connected. Football is not.

As the Championship Congress is expected to be financially self supporting, a shortfall of ECF membership income only matters if the ECF itself fails to survive. If on the other hand, restrictions on gatherings remain in place next summer, the Congress may not be able to take place at all or at least not in a financially viable format.

[Ian Thompson]

Can you remind me who is on the BICC (ideally, who has signed and who has yet to do so)?

The 2007 agreement from the ECF website will tell you which organisations constitute the BICC, but, obviously, nothing about the 2017 version.

[Nick Grey]

So is it equal 1/8 th liability or 100/100 with ECF?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Professional chess players are just that. Professionals. The game is their livelihood and they have the right to charge for their services. As in any profession they go where the money is. That's the reason so many British grandmasters spend so much time on the continent where prestige events are available to them. The British tournament scene is generally not worth their while.

Obviously it's a buyers market as well and if we (as a chess playing community) don't wish to pay our top players the going rate then that's our choice. But we shouldn't then complain when they take their business elsewhere. It's also true that nobody is obliged to make chess their profession; anybody with the intelligence to play chess to master standard is likely to also have other skills and indeed many of our top players (Conquest, Norwood, Sadler, McShane) have made lucrative careers elsewhere.

Here is the rub. It seems to be a peculiarly English attitude that we don't mind grandmasters making money from chess but we're damned if we'll pay. Only in England do we treat our top players with such contempt that we effectively tell them they are not worth our money and if they don't like it they can find another job. Ironically, if a Grandmaster washes up in our local area we then expect them to turn out for our club and/ or support with junior coaching and do it for the love because we think they owe us something.

An even worse irony is that some nations would happily meet the going rate of our top players and switching national allegiance is easy enough. If we ended up with a situation where we turned up at the Olympiad with a team of flush IMs while our top players represented other countries we would look pretty silly.