Posts: 1,000
Threads: 94
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
2
John, same questions as Alan, who would you want for Olympiad captain(s) in 2016 ? CS members please.
Should there be training ? how much of £4500 travel costs would you want to be used for training ?
would it be compulsory ? would you deselect a player for not attending training ?
Any good/bad thoughts about the Olympiad in retrospect ?
Roddy & Colin are claiming olympiad expenses, would they have played if not refunded ? who knows
Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Andy M :bash:
I don't really think its appropriate for you to name which players are claiming to have their expenses reimbursed and which are not. Fair enough if the player discloses it themselves on the forum that is their call but you shouldn't be doing it for them!
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 1,003
Threads: 101
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
1
What on earth makes you think you hold a minority view on this Alan? Apart from Andy M. no-one here has disagreed with you at all as far as I can see?!
Posts: 333
Threads: 22
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
3
A few brief comments
1. Every chess player knows that tournament performance is normally determined in the first few rounds; Tournament score is determined in the last few rounds - that is just how the Swiss system work. The Scottish Women performed very well and the Men performed well. Both teams' final score were a bit disappointing. From some comments I get the impression that Scotland performed dismally and this is simply way wide of the mark.
2. The right team was selected. Simply selecting Clement Sreeves, or Adam Bremner, or Callum MacQueen doesn't constitute a youth development policy. Supporting these players requires some thinking and some cash, not some ad hoc suggestion every four years.
3. Many thanks to John Shaw and Alan Tait for contributing their informed commentary to this thread.
4. A lot of Chess Scotland's limited resources are used on the Olympiad. I think that is appropriate, it is after all the senior level of our game. However, we should welcome debate on spending priorities. It is all to easy to fall back on emotive arguments, but would it really be better to fund two juniors going to the World Youth Championship, or ten players who have worked hard to get where they are going to the Olympiad.
Posts: 208
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
1
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!
Anyway, it seems I am in the minority so I will stop going on about this.
