Tromso Olympiad

[Alan Tate]

Andy M, I am not the ID. It would be nice to not come up against a brick wall every time an idea is suggested though.

Edit: Do you think the status quo is acceptable? I'm really struggling to see that this is the best use of 4/5ths of the adult budget. Scotland is repeatedly under-performing at Olympiads, maybe it's time to do something about it.

[amuir]

Alan, I do think it is the best use of funds to pay travel costs not training.
You were the only player who played in Olympiad + European.
The other 4 players don't play European since have to pay costs, they might not have played Olympiad if had to pay flights. The Olympiad team would be the European team.
The ID is not responsible for raising funds, he has to work with what he has.
Our final position is not acceptable but the average age of our team is 46 , the under-30s are not as strong and would have been even worse.
I am not in a position to offer a much different result in 2016.
If anyone else wishes to stand as ID then they can try and do better.
For you, I would not wait for 2016 and pay for some training now.

[Kevin Mayo]

I can see Alan's point of view.
Spending your meagre budget on training is an investment in your people and their skills, and potential for the future. You are spending it on....Chess. Yes, wow, how radical.
Spending your money on flights...is a transient luxury.

If people are going to throw their toys out of the pram if they don't get their flights paid (Chess Scotland is hardly a cash cow) move on to one of the many people who would bite your hand off to represent Scotland in the Olympiad. No flight subsidy required.

[Kevin Mayo]

Andy (H),
The idea of compulsory membership is a risky one.
My gut feel is that you would wind up with less income than you currently have.

Whatever the outcome, it would certainly need to be very carefully thought out, and even more carefully presented to the people it would affect. Not everyone is as generous or public spirited with their cash as you are.

If you want more money I think your best bet is indeed sponsorship. On balance, squeezing more money out of active chess players is likely to be more difficult.
There is probably a very good reason you have a vacancy for a “sponsorship person”.
That is itself a very difficult job to get results in. Even when you are being paid for it and it is your full-time position.

I unreservedly applaud all of those who give their free time to further chess in Scotland.

[Andrew McHarg]

I'd be interested to read a discussion on compulsory membership. Perhaps we should start one Andy? I have a system in place on a non-CS project that processes direct debit payments for only a 1% fee. A similar system could be modified to suit CS needs, allowing us to debit small amounts from members on a regular basis. This is also significantly lower than the Paypal fees CS is currently paying (something like 5%+ if I'm not mistaken?) which would immediately save us at least 4% of our current membership fee income. This would be the way forward long term in my opinion. Even if compulsory membership wasn't endorsed, it would improve membership renewal rates and reduce fees. The only real cost to set it up would be my time, but we could talk about that if people were interested.

As far as the Olympiad is concerned, I don't think two captains were necessary. Certainly two instead of one didn't add value commensurate with the extra cost in my opinion.

Interesting discussion...

[John Shaw]

Andy Muir quote: “The other 4 players don't play European since have to pay costs, they might not have played Olympiad if had to pay flights.”

Andy, it would be great if you would stop inventing false facts on the internet. Someone reading Andy’s quotes might imagine it was based on conversations with the people whose motivations he is writing about. In reality, Andy is making it up as usual, and projecting his own money-focused worldview onto others.

I have not played in the European Team Championship recently due to work commitments, not because I would have to pay anything.

Would I have played in Tromsø if I had to pay my own flights? Yes. Allow me to demonstrate. My flights cost something like £250. I paid for them myself and will not reclaim the expense from Chess Scotland, especially as CS seems even more strapped for cash than usual. Consider it a donation. The fact that Andy will use the money to partly fund his own trip to the European Team Championship is just something I will have to live with.

Talking of money matters: I am the managing director of a publishing company; Jacob is an equal partner. Andrew Greet and Colin work for the company. For all four of us to go to Tromsø required shutting the company down for two weeks. Expenses continue (rent, wages) while income stops. That is not a complaint – I love playing for Scotland – but if I wanted a “subsidised holiday” (hello Kevin Mayo) I would leave the employees hard at work while I go to any of the many tournaments that will pay me, a GM, a fee just for showing up.

[Alan Tate]

I agree with Kevin and George that a clear strategy is needed to help bring on our 2200+ players. More training, but more importantly, more tournaments are needed to achieve this. Ultimately it comes down to one thing though. Money.

Compulsory membership is an interesting one but it does have the potential to go wrong - see the ECF. How about a premium membership option? Don't know exactly what you could offer but it's just an idea. Sponsorship is of course the ideal route. My speculative suggestion to put the Olympiad more on par with the European Team would create some funds. Trundling along without any new ideas will lead nowhere.

For the record, I intend to have a go at running some tournaments but it won't be for a few years.

[Andy Howie]

I'd be interested to read a discussion on compulsory membership. Perhaps we should start one Andy? I have a system in place on a non-CS project that processes direct debit payments for only a 1% fee. A similar system could be modified to suit CS needs, allowing us to debit small amounts from members on a regular basis. This is also significantly lower than the Paypal fees CS is currently paying (something like 5%+ if I'm not mistaken?) which would immediately save us at least 4% of our current membership fee income. This would be the way forward long term in my opinion. Even if compulsory membership wasn't endorsed, it would improve membership renewal rates and reduce fees. The only real cost to set it up would be my time, but we could talk about that if people were interested..

Interesting! I think moving to monthly membership would be a good first step to be honest. People are more likely to pay more if it is small amounts than a large lump sum

[Andy Howie]

For the record, I intend to have a go at running some tournaments but it won't be for a few years.

Welcome to a world of pain

[Kevin Mayo]

Let me clarify, before anyone gets too offended.

"£300 funding per player, you can spend this how you please."
That is what I have trouble coming to terms with.
Specifically the "you can spend this how you please."
Having previously assumed that people stated truths on here, I have to ask the question. Is that true?

If any part of Chess Scotland awards budget to players (directly or indirectly)for any event and states the purpose of that money e.g. "£xxx for travel and subsistence". Fine. That's the prerogative of those who are enabled to make those decisions. They know where the money has been spent.

Surely that's how it has to be?
You can't just give money to people and let them do what they want with it.