31-12-2011, 06:29 PM
Andy,
I would have no problem with funds that would normally be used to assist the Olympiad team in part being used to help our senior players. I was under the impression that there was not much room for manouver within the ID budget. It would seem that I have let my disillusionment with how all things seem to end up being viewed from a junior perspective cloud my judgement somewhat in singling out the IJD budget for cuts to fund the seniors, when the other adult players funding within the ID budget deserve equal consideration.
Alex,
I hope at the end of the budgetary process we will have funding in place for our senior players, but I can't help but notice that the process itself, whilst probably widespread in its use, has its flaws. I suppose I would prefer more flexibility between budgets if my preferred outcome of a directing force throughout chess in Scotland including setting the budget for all chess activities can't be achieved through cs reform.
With regards to increasing membership, unfortunately this seems little more than a pipe dream. Perhaps there are many reasons why people don't take it up, I shall give you my own. I object to paying twice! This may not seem that much of a deal to most folk, but you wouldn't expect to pay for a round of golf if you have taken out a membership to the club. I proposed an alterntive funding mechanism in a previous thread which would have dealt with this problem and increase funding by around £6000-£8000 a year which hardly received a ringing endorsment. Maybe if I had tried selling the idea with earmarking the additional funds to be spent on junior chess, an egm would have been demanded to introduce it forthwith!
I am actually someone who endorses the theory you discussed earlier in the thread that suggested we should focus on the main body of the game. I believe, for instance, if we had a congress circuit of 6-8 congresses that offered higher prize funds we would have increased interest from players and sponsors. I would favour long weekend tournaments, but the normal 5 round would suffice if preferred to 7 and would consist of two sections. The top section would be for those above 1500 with those below this threshold in the lower with accellerated pairings in both. I think prizes of 1st £800, 2nd £600, 3rd £400, 4th £200, 5th-10th £100, and around 5 grading prizes of £100 in the top section is achievable with prizes starting at £300 in the lower. There is scope for selection for internationals to be incorporated into the congresses with a Ryder Cup style points system that could be attractive to sponsors.
I would have no problem with funds that would normally be used to assist the Olympiad team in part being used to help our senior players. I was under the impression that there was not much room for manouver within the ID budget. It would seem that I have let my disillusionment with how all things seem to end up being viewed from a junior perspective cloud my judgement somewhat in singling out the IJD budget for cuts to fund the seniors, when the other adult players funding within the ID budget deserve equal consideration.
Alex,
I hope at the end of the budgetary process we will have funding in place for our senior players, but I can't help but notice that the process itself, whilst probably widespread in its use, has its flaws. I suppose I would prefer more flexibility between budgets if my preferred outcome of a directing force throughout chess in Scotland including setting the budget for all chess activities can't be achieved through cs reform.
With regards to increasing membership, unfortunately this seems little more than a pipe dream. Perhaps there are many reasons why people don't take it up, I shall give you my own. I object to paying twice! This may not seem that much of a deal to most folk, but you wouldn't expect to pay for a round of golf if you have taken out a membership to the club. I proposed an alterntive funding mechanism in a previous thread which would have dealt with this problem and increase funding by around £6000-£8000 a year which hardly received a ringing endorsment. Maybe if I had tried selling the idea with earmarking the additional funds to be spent on junior chess, an egm would have been demanded to introduce it forthwith!
I am actually someone who endorses the theory you discussed earlier in the thread that suggested we should focus on the main body of the game. I believe, for instance, if we had a congress circuit of 6-8 congresses that offered higher prize funds we would have increased interest from players and sponsors. I would favour long weekend tournaments, but the normal 5 round would suffice if preferred to 7 and would consist of two sections. The top section would be for those above 1500 with those below this threshold in the lower with accellerated pairings in both. I think prizes of 1st £800, 2nd £600, 3rd £400, 4th £200, 5th-10th £100, and around 5 grading prizes of £100 in the top section is achievable with prizes starting at £300 in the lower. There is scope for selection for internationals to be incorporated into the congresses with a Ryder Cup style points system that could be attractive to sponsors.