27-07-2012, 06:54 PM
Hugh Brechin Wrote:Adam - I agree that that would be interesting, but we should if at all possible avoid framing our case to elected representatives with phrases like 'raw deal'. The way anything gets done from the political angle (I largely share your pessimism) is if we get politicians thinking 'I want to sponsor this; I feel the money would be well used and there's an upside in it for me'. Unless some people have extremely high-level connections, 'You should be giving us more money and it's unfair that you're not' is going to cut very little ice.
If we find out that, per head, Chess Scotland is doing worse than organisation X or Y, we should be trying to find out why that is and seeing if we can learn from their strategies, rather than presenting that as an argument in itself for more money. We're just not in the sort of economic climate where that would work and perhaps more importantly it wouldn't get the people who have the power to help us thinking 'I like these guys', which is crucial.
Yeah, "raw deal" shows why I am no politician!
Basically I am just interested if a lack of government money is the only difference between us as an organisation and others in similar positions, or are there other factors, i.e. sponsors.
I will let you phrase the conclusions based on that info more eloquently than myself.
