Forums

Andy Howie Wrote:Unlike the Adults, the European and Worlds are annual for the Juniors. Why should they miss out

Great, even more scope for cutbacks by sending juniors at the same rate as the adults!

I'll turn this one on its head for you Andy. Why should juniors have funding for their international events and the senior players none?

Gary,

The point that everyone is missing is there is scope for them to have funding. It has to be requested by the relevant director.

The same was as the IJD has to balance his budget, then the ID does as well. They have comparable budgets

What I am against is exactly what you are suggesting. All parties should have a chance to play.

If we had the same level of funding as say Andorra, then we could even go as far as all players flights being paid as well.

Just think about that one for a moment...

Andy,

I am also in favour of people having the chance to represent thier country, I just happen to be in favour of everyone at least getting some financial assistance. As the senior team receives no such assistance we are not playing fair. Are you laying the blame for this at the ID's door both past and present for this occurence?

Perhaps you lay the blame elsewhere or maybe don't think it is something worth rectifying. Andy Muir has stated he wants additional monies so he can fund the seniors. If cs has more money in its coffers to fund this without affecting other directors' budgets then problem solved. If not, the money has to be found from somewhere. This shameful treatment has to come to an end!

Gary,

When I was in a previous role, the ID at that time requested no budget for the year as it was not an Olympiad year. Do I think it is something that should be rectified, yes. Do I think we should be diverting monies from elsewhere, no. We should not be spending the entire budget for next year on the Olympiad.

Gary,

Let me explain the process as I understand it.

The Finance Director (Mac) circulates ALL the Directors and some others (when I was Manager of the Scottish for example) asking them to supply budgets for the forthcoming year.

These are then looked at, compromises made, and fees proposed to cover the expected expenditure.
It is up to a Director to ensure that a budget covers all eventualities (obviously there will be the occasional unexpected item for which a special application may need to be made).

If a Director is not happy about what has happened to his/her proposed budget then the Director must decide to either continue with the reduced figures or to step down. These are the economic facts of life.

If every chess player in Scotland took out CS membership then there would be sufficient income to provide travel for all team events and some individual events as well as for the general promotion of chess in Scotland. For example, 200 extra members could mean that a full time coach could be employed to train up grass roots players. It is also possible that current chess players could find sponsors for these teams. Often a company will get involved because one of its workers is playing. A very simple example of what can happen - A local company gets a mention in the local paper as employing a chess player who won some event and as a result that person is allowed leave to take part in a major event. Such things have happened!

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.

Quote: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.

Gary - sorry I am not sure I follow you on this. I assume that you are suggesting that you are paying twice because you join CS and pay to play in events?

If that is your assertion then it does not really hold water. The vast majority of events are not run by CS (unlike the events at your golf club), if people were willing to play a membership fee similar to what most golf clubs charge then I am sure CS could arrange for a 100% discount for CS members to many events! As it happens if you are an active player the discount you can claim for being a CS member must go along way to defraying the cost of membership.

Gary,

Mike is correct here. If you are an active tournament player, you will recoup most, if not all your membership costs over a season through the discount you receive in your tournament entry fee. I must admit, I am surprised at the amount of active players in Scotland who are not members. Are we getting the benefits of membership across correctly? Maybe, if we said to members, "If you can get someone to join ChessScotland for a year we will give you half price membership for a year". Or perhaps, "If you recommend so many players that then become CS members we will give you lifetime membership (or similar)". This seems to me a direct and effective route to raise funds for junior, adult and senior players alike. You scratch my back.....?

Robin.

Sorry gents, you have misunderstood me. I was referring to grading fees, not entry fees for competions.

I don't really support the cs discount scheme. It may be a good incentive for getting membership for the more active players, but I fear it is taking more money out of congress funds that is not covered by the lower grading fees offered.

Perhaps the reason for not taking up membership is simply people do not see enough of the money being invested in them. We are spending almost 40% of the budget on internationals which only benefit a small percentage of chess players in this country. We need to offer more to the majority of players than a website and online grading system.

The online coaching initiative sounds a great idea. Perhaps we could fund the production of some coaching modules that could augment this which could in turn be made available free to members.

Gary McPheator Wrote:Perhaps the reason for not taking up membership is simply people do not see enough of the money being invested in them. We are spending almost 40% of the budget on internationals which only benefit a small percentage of chess players in this country. We need to offer more to the majority of players than a website and online grading system.

I tend to agree with you in that for the majority of chess players in Scotland a website with an online grading system with your live grade obviously isn't a big enough pull. As evidenced by our membership numbers.

On the discount system available through membership you need to play ten tournaments to make your entry fee back in a season (@ £2 discount per entry). Now for many that is incentive enough for membership as they make their money back. For others it is the combination of the discounted entries and the live grading system and website.

However, for a lot of players that just isn't doing it for them so as you have suggested perhaps there are some other new initiatives or builds we can add to the benefits to encourage greater uptake of CS membership.