|
Chess Scotland Noticeboard A place for chess nuts to boast over an open forum
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Ian Jamieson Knight
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David Deary Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AMcHarg wrote: |
Ian, I don't think it would be in anyone's best interests for the ECF to demand the maximum level of compensation (if any compensation), irrespective of their financial situation. It's not like Chess Scotland is owned by the Sultan of Brunai, and the ECF well know that they are unlikely to get a substantial amount of money from us. I therefore imagine that they will not demand any compensation. |
I was pondering over this today and surely it cannot be that difficult for the ECF to state their position on this? Or are they even more bloated and bureaucratic than CS? Someone get on the case if this has been expected for months, why has no-one in CS sought the ECF's position?
Also, if I was a member of the ECF would I be demanding maximum compensation? I just don't know. Its a tough one. In the event of any compensation being paid it should not be paid by CS as we don't have the funds available.
P.S. Andrew we will need to agree to disagree on what is more valuable actually playing chess or training.
To state my position:
I have no aversion to Matthew becoming a fide registered SCO player providing:
He has scottish grandparents - lets see the birth certificates!
The rules on eligibility are changed to include scottish grandparents but also a residency requirement for the Olympiad or the title of Scottish Champion.
CS has it in writing from the ECF that it will not seek any compensation for Matthew's switch. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ian Jamieson Knight
Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 18
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mike Scott King
Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David said
Quote: | but also a residency requirement |
Is this meant to apply only to SCO players who aren't considerd true SCO because they only qualified via grandparents? Or does it apply to one and all - including Paul Motwani?
BTW I am curious just how big CS you believe CS? How many full time professional employees do you think there are? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AMcHarg King
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
robin moore King
Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David Deary Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mike Scott wrote: | David said
Quote: | but also a residency requirement |
Is this meant to apply only to SCO players who aren't considerd true SCO because they only qualified via grandparents? Or does it apply to one and all - including Paul Motwani?
BTW I am curious just how big CS you believe CS? How many full time professional employees do you think there are? |
On point 1 I never said someone was not a true Scottish player nor have I suggested it. I believe personally that the residency requirement should apply to everyone for the title of Scottish Champion.
On point 2, CS isn't massive and I have never suggested otherwise nor did I suggest there are full time employees but the equivalent of one third of the block grant is spent on salaries and expenses. How many organisations spend so much of their revenue on salaries? _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David Deary Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Donald Wilson Queen
Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David Deary wrote: | On point 2, CS isn't massive and I have never suggested otherwise nor did I suggest there are full time employees but the equivalent of one third of the block grant is spent on salaries and expenses. How many organisations spend so much of their revenue on salaries? |
David, I think if you look around, you will find we are at the low end of salaries to turnover percentage.
I was answering Mikes Question. Why not compare to the ECF? I have the recent figures for FIDE as well if you want a comparison there. They are more than 1/3 Salaries to turnover.
Do we get Value for money? Well is it an accident that all three posts that are paid in Chess Scotland are interviewed for, and are positions that bring in money. Our budget is roughly 1/3 grant 2/3 memberships, grading and magazine. For the hard work of all involved in all posts are you honestly telling me here and now that we are not providing a service that is value for money?
You want to know how many hours each Director and paid official works? I'm sure if you ask them they will tell you. I would imagine it will range from a few hours per week to over 30 depending on what is on and what they are doing.
The population of England may be 10 times more but because of the MO's that they have, last time I looked there were only about 1,000 members of the ECF. That may have changed recently and I don't have up to date numbers.
Quote: | 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. |
Really? I thought the debate was about the changes that are being proposed to the eligibility criteria. I was clearing up a point, not starting a debate on VFM. As you have raised it, where has anyone mentioned no-one makes money and working in McD's pays more? I certainly have never seen that point raised on the noticeboard before and doing a search could not find it other than in my post.
I was giving an opinion, in my opinion I think the Directors and Officers do a fantastic job with the resources they have available to them. I have no concerns over the Salaries to Turnover ratio. I think that comparisons with other federation hold this up as well as looking at outside companies. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David Deary Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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?
Donald Wilson wrote: | 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. |
Donald these are not the questions I would ask.
Could we revise the administration of the grading system does it need to be one person could additional people do it?
Do we need to have a magazine in print what about going electronic?
Can the membership system be automated?
These are the sort of questions CS should be asking in my view and clearly from the responses we dont seem to be asking them.
Like I say, feel free to start a new topic and I will debate this for eternity. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Last edited by David Deary on Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
admin Site Admin
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Donald Wilson wrote: | 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! |
Evening Donald,
I have been pondering that one myself. I am not entirely convinced that what they are doing is legal.
It goes a bit further than that. If the new Membership model is voted in at their AGM. A player from Scotland who is not a member of the ECF will have to play £6 (if I remember correctly) to play in a tournament in England every time they play in a tournament.
I have asked for clarification from Andrew Farthing if this is going to be extended to the British as well as the ECF run it. He is currently clarifying this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Duncan Grassie Rook
Joined: 25 Feb 2007 Posts: 64
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David Deary wrote: | Typically instead of debating the point with fact ie the number of hours people work and the exact figures. |
David - Andy has given you a figure of "less than £10000" for all the infrastructure you see before you now: internet presence, grading, magazine, membership, grand prix, etc. Assuming you had £10000 to spend and none of the above how would you spend the money and how would chess be better? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
David Deary Queen
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98
|
Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Duncan Grassie wrote: | David Deary wrote: | Typically instead of debating the point with fact ie the number of hours people work and the exact figures. |
David - Andy has given you a figure of "less than £10000" for all the infrastructure you see before you now: internet presence, grading, magazine, membership, grand prix, etc. Assuming you had £10000 to spend and none of the above how would you spend the money and how would chess be better? |
I have replied to Duncan by personal message. If anyone would like to debate points with me directly feel free to email me or send me a pm.
I think I have hijacked this thread enough for now! _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|