06-05-2014, 06:08 PM
Hugh Brechin Wrote:Well, I'd word it rather differently, but I don't really see the problem with this. I'd see this as less 'coughing up' and more as a collaborative thing. Here's a hypothetical scenario. Players A and B are in the same age group and have achieved CS's 'A' qualifying standard, or whatever (say we're talking about two under-14s rated in the 1900 ballpark). Only one funded place is available for the section. Player C is Scotland's strongest player in the under-16 age group, and has a rating of around 1750. I don't see the problem with a course of action which gives at least some of Player C's funding towards ensuring that both players A and B can participate. Obviously this would depend on everyone being able to agree, but I'd like to hope that should be possible. As long as the selection guidelines are clear and transparent to everyone well in advance, I don't see what the problem would be here.
Incidentally, I'd bet a decent amount of money that FIDE don't give a toss about what happens to the money, as long as they get more people playing in their competitions, which this would achieve. (Has anyone actually read the rules about this or are we all just guessing? I freely admit I am, so if everyone else is working from more knowledge than me, I do apologise.)
First of all there seems to be confusion as lots of you are quoting the funding as coming from FIDE. It's not, it's free accommodation from the host of the tournament. The host would not allow what is being proposed as they want the extra business from additional players in the various age groups to also attend.
Why can't anyone see that it would be wrong to take any of funding from your scenario C player. If they are top in their age group they deserve the place. If A & B are in same age group & so close in grade then they either split the funding 50/50 or one goes to one event & the other gets to go to a different tournament. I mentioned all this in this thread on 25 April also Phil quoted from the rules on 25 April from the upcoming Euroyouth in Georgia.
Where as I believe parents will be more understanding in splitting funding if in an age group there are two players of similar rating, I do not believe they would be so obliging if they thought they would be few hundred pounds out of pocket to allow an extra player go in a different age group. That's taking any host rules & deceipt out of the equation.
Earlier in this page it was suggested more funding is needed to encourage & develop chess in schools. Yes agreed. It was then suggested instead of raising funds for this years Glorney would be put to better use if used for development. Yes agreed. But also wouldn't it make sense to try & raise funds for the additional players in some age groups where it was felt a place is deserved as well as the top in the group.
Also the players themselves should be encouraged to take a more proactive approach in trying to raise funding for themselves. Duke of Edinburgh award does that in schools. I have previously sent the stationary & posters out to parents for them or their child to request to run a mufti day (dress as you please) in black & white (chess pieces) in their school. Depending on the size of school a lot of money could be raised this way just asking for £1 & it also gets the school & peers to support the player in more than a financial capacity. Actual give the player some recognition of playing for their country. I do know that P.Sanders raised all his funding in Dumfries for all the international events he attended. More need to do the same instead of the proposals being put forward.