Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Ian Jamieson · Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18

I think any compensation should be paid by Matthew rather than CS so if they did demand the maximum Matthew would have to pay it rather than CS.

Ian

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Ian Jamieson · Knight Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18

Alex said it will be an ECF management board decision.

I don't know when the next board meeting is although they do have teleconferences these days via Skype (?). It is also currently the second week of the British (English?) Championships.

ECF also have bigger things on their mind in particular how they are going to address their financial position.

Ian

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

David said

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

There are no full time employees. There are three paid people within the organisation to cover the critical areas of membership, grading, website and magazine.

The combined wages to these three people is under 10k per year. These people work from home. ie flipping burgers in MacDonalds would be a step up financially. CS may be in breach of minimum wage legislation if it wasn't for the fact the positions are held on a self-employed basis.

Yes you could save money by shifting this work to volunteers - if anyone would take on the tasks.

In contrast the ECF has three staff who get wages of £54,000 and who work from an office which costs about £31,000. http://englishchess.org.uk/farthing/

Of course there are more players in England but the level of work isn't 9 times as great. There is only one website, membership system, grading system.

I think we've got a bargain!

AMcHarg · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject:

Further to what Andy said, I'm not one of the above mentioned. For the work I did to the website and grading system I charged a very modest fee of £200. Realistically I could expect to receive over £7000 for the same work if I did it for one of my clients.

So for me it's not about money, it's about helping CS, particularly in times of financial difficulty. Without deviating too much from the original topic, I think a more powerful membership system will have its rewards for our level of membership, and thus an increase in funds.

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

I am a huge fan of CS and all the unselfish massive efforts of a relatively few enthusiastic people. I laughed at Andy mentioning MacDonald's. The only time I ever eat one is when I am away at chess tournaments and there is virtually nowhere to get a bite to eat on Sunday morning or after play on the Sunday evening on the way home. Maybe we should ask them for sponsorship !

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Typically instead of debating the point with fact ie the number of hours people work and the exact figures. CS provides us with the usual defense of look at the ECF and what they do with there money. We get a great deal by comparison.

I'm not convinced and the population of England is 10 times bigger so I would expect costs to be higher. There may only be one website, membership system and grading system but the volume of entries must be higher.

The debate should be about value for money rather than who spends more. At the end of the day instead of seriously debating the points and actually entertaining a discussion on could we do it for less or in a more efficient means freeing up funds we get the usual no-one makes money and working in McDonalds would pay more.

I don't think I suggested anyone profited from CS work but I did suggest perhaps we could do things more efficiently and save money. Ooooh well back to a different noticeboard where the officials are less tetchy and petulant about serious discussions. Wink

_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

David,

I think only the three paid officials could say how many hours work they do for CS, though probably even they don't know - but as Andy suggests, their effective hourly rate is certainly well below the Minimum Wage. As far as payments are concerned, the exact figures are probably in the annual accounts but they are in the order of £3K for each of the officials.

Suppose we chose not to pay one or more of them:
- if we didn't pay Douglas, we would have no website and no grading system (nobody has ever come forward and volunteered to do all that work for free);
- if we didn't pay David, we would have no magazine;
- if we didn't pay Dick, we would have no membership system, i.e. we would have no members.

In short, Chess Scotland would cease to exist.

I accept that Leagues and Regional Associations would continue, would run competitions, and would even try to maintain their own local grading systems. But these systems would rapidly drift out of line with each other, so that a grade of 1400 in Glasgow might equate to a grade of 1500 in another area - I wouldn't want to try running a congress where a player could enter the Minor if he came from Glasgow but would have to play in the Major if he came from Aberdeen.

On your earlier question, about wee Moira from Carlisle wanting to play for Scotland - well, actually, this has been answered: there's a boy in Carlisle who is about your brother's age and has played for Scotland in the Glorney competitions.

Going right back to the start of this thread, I think the ECF's action is illegal: FIDE grades are allocated by FIDE to individual players who earn them, and no national association can take those grades away. Let's say a tournament organiser in Birmingham arranges a FIDE-rated tournament, and a player (an ECF member) who needs one more partial rating to get a FIDE rating enters; he plays four FIDE-rated players and scores 3/4, thereby qualifying for a full FIDE rating; but two of those four are not ECF members, so the ECF doesn't report those results to FIDE. The ECF has thereby denied one of its own members a FIDE rating which he has earned. That member is then entitled to sue the ECF, and if the case ever went to court the member would win.

The most the ECF can legally do is say it doesn't recognise non-members as English. Since that hurts nobody but the ECF, let the ECF do just that!

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

For the last time I am not saying anyone does a bad job. Geez why are people so tetchy when you question something on here! Grow a thicker skin.

I could debate this for hours but I suspect that as a member I do not currently receive VFM from CS. Also just because roles have been carried out in the same way for years does not mean there is not scope for improvement or for efficiencies. Andy, out of curiosity what external companies did you look at?

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Duncan Grassie · Rook Joined: 25 Feb 2007 Posts: 64

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98