Thursday, October 13, 2011

Some questions for the ECF AGM

It's the English Chess Federation AGM on Saturday. It seems that they've got themselves a pretty full agenda, but in the event that they find themselves with some dead time to fill perhaps they could discuss some of the issues that arise from the subjects of our recent series of posts  (This is not a blogpost; Nor is this; Carelessness?). For a start, here are three questions the answers to which I would be rather interested to hear.


QUESTION ONE:
Accounts were promised but not delivered for both the Staunton Memorial Dinner and the first Nigel Short simul tour. The amount of money raised for the British Championships by the former was originally said to be £7000+ and later revised to £1500 while the figure for the latter was originally given as £1500 and later revised to £500, then £0 before finally being called a "significant" amount.

Q. Is the ECF confident that it knows the origins of the money that paid for Sheffield 2011?


QUESTION TWO:
I believe it is reasonably common knowledge that one particular person has said that he was not offered conditions for Sheffield because he wasn't liked. I've no idea if this is true or not, but the claim together with this post:-

Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:39 am


... I'm sure everyone will understand that where I choose to spend my own money should remain confidential.

got me wondering.

Q. Was the basis for awarding conditions for Sheffield agreed within the ECF beforehand? Is anybody other than CJ even aware what the criteria were?


QUESTION THREE:
The Staunton Memorial Dinner and the Nigel Short simul tour were both said to be private ventures. This despite the fact that the invitation for the Dinner began,

English Chess Federation President, CJ de Mooi, cordially invites you to ...

and that the contact email address was given as "president@englishchess.org.uk". Similarly, the Nosher tour was announced in the EC Forum's "ECF Matters" section on the 6th October 2010 but was not declared to be a "private initiative" until 29th January 2011. The second tour (which I assume is also a private affair, although there is nothing to say so), is also being run via the presidential email address.

Q. Should the ECF be more forthright in ensuring that clearer boundaries are drawn between its officials' private business and public roles?



6 comments:

Mike G said...

As I have indicated on the EC Forum I am happy to table these questions as the Surrey rep (although I will also be chairing the meeting, so it might be better if somebody else did, so I don't end up arguing with myself).

(This is assuming that Streatham members want these questions tabled.)

Jonathan B said...

Thanks for the offer Mike.

However, the post is by me. I wrote it alone and am the only person responsible for its content. Also, the blog isn't a Streatham Chess Club blog and has been independent for a while now.

As a result I can't say that "Streatham members" want the questions tabled. This Streatham member - singular - however, would be interested to hear the answers. More than getting an answer to the question, though, I'm hoping that the discussion would lead to progress being made on the subject of the ECF's relationship with its President.

Thanks again for the offer. I look forward to hearing the results.

Mike G said...

The questions were answered by Adam Raoof in his role as Director of Home Chess:

Q. Is the ECF confident that it knows the origins of the money that paid for Sheffield 2011?

A. From the ECF's point a view a single payment was received from CJ and we do not know how much each event/ activity contributed to this.

Q. Was the basis for awarding conditions for Sheffield agreed within the ECF beforehand? Is anybody other than CJ even aware what the criteria were?

A. All (active) GMs were offered conditions and there were no exceptions. This is a matter for the Congress Management and wasn't discussed by the board.

Q. Should the ECF be more forthright in ensuring that clearer boundaries are drawn between its officials' private business and public roles?

A. Yes.

In the discussion which took place several people (including Nigel Short) made the point that in practice you couldn't forecast the financial outcome of events like simul displays in advance and it was probably a mistake to issue any predictions of what sums would be raised.

(This is based on my memory of what was said - I didn't take notes and apologise if there is any inaccuracy in my report.)

Jonathan B said...

Thanks for this Mike, and thanks to Adam for raising the questions.

I'll be returning to this topic in due course, but for now

... it was probably a mistake to issue any predictions of what sums would be raised.


Seriously? Is that what was said? The posts from CJ that I quote were placed on the EC Forum weeks after the simul tour concluded. How is that a "prediction" or saying "in advance" how much money would be raised?

ejh said...

What is true, and I imagine it's a problem for all tournaments that need both to offer conditions and raise sponsorship, is that it's difficult to know how much money you're going to have for conditions in advance, because you don't know how much sponsorship you'll attract, which in turn is difficult to know because the sposors don't know for sure you'll be playing and hence how much attention the tournament will attract, which in turn...and so on.

A real problem. But that wasn't really what all the queries were about.

Do I take it though (and I appreciate I'm asking at least thirdhand here) that all the sponsorship money was raised privately through CJ and then handed over as a single lump sum? If that's so, then it would be an arrangement which is less than transparent. And less than satisfactory.

Alex McF said...

I'm not sure on the accuracy of the answers attributed to Adam Raoof.

No discussion took place between the Managers of the British with a view to setting conditions. I have no idea what arrangements were made. I know of the condition offered to only a few players and only because they chose to tell me.
I do not believe that all the condition offered went through the official accounts. If there was a private deal then I would not expect the event accounts to reflect it.

I suggest Adam should be contacted to check the accuracy of the statement attributed to him.

Alex McFarlane