21-08-2014, 11:43 PM
A few points:
1. as the senior international budget is apparently £1,000, which seems relatively large compared to the £4,500 this year for the Olympiad team and next year's £1,500 for the Euro team championship, it might be worth pointing out that the senior budget applies (a) solely to official entry fees (organiser + FIDE/ECU both take cuts) and (b) solely to the single CS nominated representative (in the individual senior championships) and the nominated "A" team only. I don't believe that the equivalent entry fees (if any!?) for the (adult, non-senior) Olympiad + Euro teams events are actually budgeted for in the £4.5K + £1.5K amounts, which are earmarked, as I understand it, for contributions towards players' expenses (the players don't pay any entry fees).
2. Principles are important and should be at the heart of any serious budgetary policy. As a minimum, I have always argued that the CS budget should in the first instance seek to cover the entry fees of ALL players it nominates as its main representatives in whatever junior, adult non-senior or senior event it believes it should send as an official CS representative. If CS doesn't think a player sufficiently strong to nominate officially in any event, it should consider not paying the entry fees if they play (merit should count somewhere in all this).
3. Be that as it may, it is clear that entry fees alone have become increasingly costly and there's not much more cash around for substantive travel and hotel costs. The £4.5K Olympiad costs would moreover be much greater if FIDE didn't require Olympiad hosts to meet all the players' hotel costs. We're also extremely fortunate that FIDE guarantees to pay the costs of each federation's nominated player in its various international junior events. That certainly wasn't always the case.
4.The inescapable conclusion is that if anything is going to improve matters financially, more private sponsorship is necessary or some other increase in CS revenues needs to be found. I tend to think that private sponsorship is the only credible potential source and that it might be possible to source such funds for the Olympiad team in the first instance (including fees to attract the strongest team) and just possibly for one or two players who might be thought capable of competing for podium spots in competitions for which CS strongly felt they had a real chance (perhaps especially an outstanding junior talent).
5. Such team / individual sponsorship would inevitably have to be tied to certain expectations. These might include acceptance of something like an approved individual training programme or attendance at a number of pre-tournament team training weekends (for the Olympiad), at which I'd put team building at the centre at least as much as technical chess training. It might include some sponsor company badging, undertaking business-relations exercises, commitment to a programme of community chess involvement, and the like. Is anyone up to trying to develop some sort of pitch to sponsors for something like that? It's an enormous ask! Are the top players interested? They'd have to be but has anyone asked?
6. I wince slightly at the idea of 'compulsory' training. Training is such a personal thing and everyone's regime is likely to be different, though I'm certainly comfortable with the idea of team-building and working on improving mental attitude, which straddles all regimes. I'm also comfortable with the idea of having someone available to offer advice on request on specific matters.
7. Well done, by the way, to Murad Abdulla on winning the under-14 Commonwealth championship. Let's hear it a bit more, for our successes!
1. as the senior international budget is apparently £1,000, which seems relatively large compared to the £4,500 this year for the Olympiad team and next year's £1,500 for the Euro team championship, it might be worth pointing out that the senior budget applies (a) solely to official entry fees (organiser + FIDE/ECU both take cuts) and (b) solely to the single CS nominated representative (in the individual senior championships) and the nominated "A" team only. I don't believe that the equivalent entry fees (if any!?) for the (adult, non-senior) Olympiad + Euro teams events are actually budgeted for in the £4.5K + £1.5K amounts, which are earmarked, as I understand it, for contributions towards players' expenses (the players don't pay any entry fees).
2. Principles are important and should be at the heart of any serious budgetary policy. As a minimum, I have always argued that the CS budget should in the first instance seek to cover the entry fees of ALL players it nominates as its main representatives in whatever junior, adult non-senior or senior event it believes it should send as an official CS representative. If CS doesn't think a player sufficiently strong to nominate officially in any event, it should consider not paying the entry fees if they play (merit should count somewhere in all this).
3. Be that as it may, it is clear that entry fees alone have become increasingly costly and there's not much more cash around for substantive travel and hotel costs. The £4.5K Olympiad costs would moreover be much greater if FIDE didn't require Olympiad hosts to meet all the players' hotel costs. We're also extremely fortunate that FIDE guarantees to pay the costs of each federation's nominated player in its various international junior events. That certainly wasn't always the case.
4.The inescapable conclusion is that if anything is going to improve matters financially, more private sponsorship is necessary or some other increase in CS revenues needs to be found. I tend to think that private sponsorship is the only credible potential source and that it might be possible to source such funds for the Olympiad team in the first instance (including fees to attract the strongest team) and just possibly for one or two players who might be thought capable of competing for podium spots in competitions for which CS strongly felt they had a real chance (perhaps especially an outstanding junior talent).
5. Such team / individual sponsorship would inevitably have to be tied to certain expectations. These might include acceptance of something like an approved individual training programme or attendance at a number of pre-tournament team training weekends (for the Olympiad), at which I'd put team building at the centre at least as much as technical chess training. It might include some sponsor company badging, undertaking business-relations exercises, commitment to a programme of community chess involvement, and the like. Is anyone up to trying to develop some sort of pitch to sponsors for something like that? It's an enormous ask! Are the top players interested? They'd have to be but has anyone asked?
6. I wince slightly at the idea of 'compulsory' training. Training is such a personal thing and everyone's regime is likely to be different, though I'm certainly comfortable with the idea of team-building and working on improving mental attitude, which straddles all regimes. I'm also comfortable with the idea of having someone available to offer advice on request on specific matters.
7. Well done, by the way, to Murad Abdulla on winning the under-14 Commonwealth championship. Let's hear it a bit more, for our successes!