Council meeting

[Mike Scott]

Andrew McH.

Most parents who see their children enjoying Chess (along with the many other benefits of playing) will not resist spending additional money if that's what's needed to keep it going. Parents know that the activities their children undertake are going to cost them money, but that doesn't stop them spending that money.

It may well be true that many parents would be willing to fork out more when the defined benefit is quite clear however make no mistake not all parents can afford to do so - while 25p does not sound much it quickly becomes significant. I mean if there is an eight round event which charges £4.00 entry fee then the grading charge represents a 50% increase in entry fee.

I appreciate that CS needs to generate income and it does not have many obvious options and the grading service is an obvious one. The only trouble with it is that the bulk of the work is not done by CS but by the area graders who process the results.

[Derek Howie]

Derek; I wasn't aware the 25p went as far as becoming a "proposal"? I was under the impression it was merely a suggested starting point for discussion,

When the amount of 25p is included in the list of fees proposed, which is being put to Council, it's more than a starting point for discussion.

But I also think we have to be realistic about the situation we find ourselves in. It's a hard and irritating fact that money is a major problem for CS, and we'd certainly all benefit if we had more of it available. If some additional funds can be generated from some junior graded games without pushing juniors away from playing then it's an avenue we should consider.

I don't think anyone has denied that, Andrew.

[Gerald Lobley]

Derek,
In reply to your questions, there are 2 strands to the 'affiliation' argument.

The first is general. We are all in a difficult time financially and CS is no different (perhaps even slightly worse). To market chess to sponsors and government agencies to obtain national support will require a coherent structure for chess in Scotland. CS currently does not include the junior organisations within its 'official' framework and similarly there is no single junior organisation that can speak on behalf of all of us. So we are almost dead in the water before we even start. Of course each 'subset' of chess in Scotland is financially viable, if they were not then the various organisations would rapidly go under. Nonetheless, none of us has the money to produce a major pan-Scotland initiative. What we need is an approach to raise the profile of chess, particularly (but not exclusively) in our schools. There are excellent initiatives in hand south of the border and even if they are not fully successful they are still a step in the right direction. Like yourselves the NEJCA also donates and loans equipment and I suspect the other junior organisations try to do likewise. Nonetheless, there are severe limits on what we can achieve and really we need something like a big multi-national or some other major corporate sponsor to fund an initiative. Would they do that with our current disparate structure - nae chance!

The second relates to 'influence' and 'autonomy'. Actually I see 'influence' operating in the other direction - we would be trying to influence CS policy. As a very simple and immediate example, yes we should pay an affiliation fee but as we make a major contribution to Scottish chess then this should be counter-balanced by a grant of similar magnitude from CS. Indeed, that might be one of the matters that the HJB discusses and proposes first. The actual financial gain to CS from the 5 or 6 (or however many) affiliation fees is less than 1% of income and so effectively making that process cost-neutral to the junior organisations is almost a no-brainer in terms of the potential cohesion and the increase in funding opportunities for CS and the junior organisations. My own view is that David Deary, as JHD, will reflect to Council the consensus view of all the junior organisations (via the Home Junior Board) and they would need to be out of their minds not to listen very carefully to our suggestions. For example, we would debate the issue of grading fees and as we would know what impact any additional levies will have at the grass roots kevel then again our combined voice would carry weight. Neither Council nor the Management Board are separate from us - they are comprised of individuals who we know and with whom we can debate and so make them clear about the HJB consensus view. On examples of autonomy, I notice that Phil and others have commented that SJC is funded via entry fees while the NEJCA also seeks both commercial sponsors and personal (but anonymous) donations. Why should either organisation need to change how they are funded? We also have different grading bands between our various tournaments, although for the Chess For Kicks we altered ours to match with yours as you were the initiators and controllers of that event. We are happy to be both the same and different, again adopting what works best in the different sets of circumstances that operate across Scotland.

Many of the problems that face all the junior organisations are similar and we would be stronger trying to find common solutions by using pooled wisdom and influence. I really believe that together we are stronger than the sum of the parts. I would hope that the SJC would take the view that it would be better to contribute to the HJB from the beginning and see how it functions. Currently none of know how well it will operate but we would have a better chance of success with all on board at the start. It costs nothing to talk and even less to listen. In practice, I would be surprised if Council does not refer some of the discussion points on Sunday to the Home Junior Board and so some important issues will need to be debated right from the start. Finally, both affiliation and HJB membership can also be terminated if the outcomes are not working for any (or even all!) of the organisations.

[Andrew McHarg]

Derek; so are you saying that SJC are receptive to the idea of a fee on grading junior games, and that the only problem is with the amount being 25p? That's not the impression I got.

[Derek Howie]

Derek; so are you saying that SJC are receptive to the idea of a fee on grading junior games, and that the only problem is with the amount being 25p? That's not the impression I got.

Andrew, I am not aware of any SJC discussions taking place on this and I do not know what their views or policy on this will be.

I am speaking purely in a personal capacity, both as a parent and as someone who has attended many junior events over a number of years and encouraged kids to attend their first events.

As I stated earlier in the thread "my initial thoughts are that I don't have a problem in principle with a nominal amount for tournaments organised by chess organisations". I was referring to the 3 main junior organisations. Yes, 25p is far too much. I am opposed to any sort of grading fees for school chess.

[Derek Howie]

I appreciate the reply, Gerald, and it's very helpful.

[David Deary]

Derek; I wasn't aware the 25p went as far as becoming a "proposal"? I was under the impression it was merely a suggested starting point for discussion,

When the amount of 25p is included in the list of fees proposed, which is being put to Council, it's more than a starting point for discussion.

The principal reason behind the proposed fees for grading junior games is to have the discussion.

[Derek Howie]

Derek; I wasn't aware the 25p went as far as becoming a "proposal"?

Dear all, First off, these figures are proposed fees

The principal reason behind the proposed fees for grading junior games is to have the discussion.

Seems to be a general agreement that the fees are "proposed". :-D

[David Deary]

Seems to be a general agreement that the fees are "proposed". :-D

To have a discussion around fees... thats the official line and I'm sticking to it! ;-)

[David G Congalton]

The fees were proposed to elicit a discussion. :-(