Funding Chess in Scotland

[Gary McPheator]

As there is discussions elsewhere on the board about how to fund sensory boards, I thought it would be good to hear peoples veiws on how we fund chess in general in this country and, more importantly, what areas we should be concentrating such funds on.

[Gary McPheator]

No views yet? Well I'll start things off!

As things stand the cs pot seems to be divied up between international chess, junior chess, cs run comps eg scot champs, and for running costs of membership, magazine, grading and web site.
Now all of these areas have merits and should continued to be supported in some form, but some should be more self sufficient so that funds can be redirected elsewhere.

International chess, both adult and junior, already places the majority of costs on players or parents, so I would like any cs subsidy to work better if it can' t be withdrawn entirely. One possible way of doing this could be to have qualifing tournaments. Team and individual places would be up for grabs, with entry fees set so that, instead of prize money, playing costs for the international event can be covered.

The website has the potential to raise revenue through advertising.To aid this I would make the magazine a feature of the site rather a stand alone printed version. This would save money on the manufacturing side as would scraping the grading list as all grades can be acsessed online. Those mourning the demise of these paper editions could be won around with the introduction of an annual yearbook that could be printed in time for the Christmas period.

The Scottish Championships are now on a sound financial footing which should see the end of loss making events of recent years. Hopefully our secret benefactor will continue their support for many years to come.
While the other cs run events should continue to have funds available to them I believe it is time for the Scottish to be self sufficient.

The junior budget and any savings and additional revenues should be combined to fund two areas, coaching and congesses. We all know that congess numbers have been declining and I think funds should be directed to help raise prize funds. Junior events would have funds made available as well to continue the great work that is being done. Coaching has been mainly the preserve of the junior game and I would like it to become a regular feature of the adult arena.

Now, after re-adjusting the cs budget, how to pay for it?

Well I would like to see and end to the current membership and grading fee model. I think it would be much easier to attract sponsors and advertisers if we can increase the membership numbers. To this end I would have a few membership options, with the cheapest option having grading for one or two comps included,and the dearest having all comps graded. For those players that play only a couple of gradable games a year in leagues, a grading card could be obtained by teams that would allow so many games by any number of players to be graded without membership being required.

This added to additional revenues such as grants, advertising, yearbook sales and the like should offer enough to allow our selfless cs workers to continue the good fight.

[Derek Howie]

Gary, some interesting ideas. To be able to assess them a bit better, can you give some numbers on how you see the membership options working - numbers of members and amounts that they would need to pay?

Would a yearbook generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, nevermind make a profit?

Will companies be more willing to advertise or sponsor just because CS has more members? Is the level of members a limiting factor at the moment, or is it more down to the fact that chess is not something that companies want to associate themselves with?

I love the idea of adult coaching as it's something that I could do with, and it could be something that could draw more adults into the game. However I'm not convinced that CS finds should be used to increase prize money at congresses. Can that be justified when there is so much more that needs to be done, particularly at the junior level?

[Gary McPheator]

Derek, I am afraid I had to use the breakdown of graded games from a couple of seasons ago in my calculations as they were the only ones available to me. These were roughly 500 playing 25+ games, 300 playing 15-24 games, 700 with 5-14 games to there name and 200 with 1-4. Assuming that these are accurate enough for these purposes and are the relevant bands of games to membership type I suggest that fees should be set as follows:

Team Grading Card - £10 (Up to and including 10 games graded)
Membership Option 1 - £15 (1 League and 1 other comp graded)
Membership Option 2 - £20 (1 League and up to and including 3 comps graded)
Membership Option 3 - £25 (1 League and all other comps graded)

(Other comps can include another league)

The accounts show around £15500 was raised through affilliation, membership and grading fees, so to equal this amount a membership rate of 55% of active players is required. This equates to an increase from todays 600 mark to around 825.

The yearbook is a bit of punt, I grant you, but I believe it could well be worth a go. No new venture is guaranteed.

When it comes to advertising and sposorship, I really do belive it is a numbers game. Either we have a large enough audience or a large enough player numbers to make it worth their while to invest. As we are lacking in the audience numbers, our best bet is to present our participation numbers to the maximum. I believe this will be best served by backing player numbers up with a healthy membership tally. Still no guarantee that this will be enough, but it will help.

We are lucky in Ayrshire that we have 2 or 3 adult training nights during the season and they are proving quite popular. The adult game is still lagging way behind the training that is available to juniors.

I think the adult events need to be enhanced for several reasons. Firstly I believe that as the main contributers to chess in this country the adult players should reep some of the benefit too. It is all very well, and indeed essential, to bring on the next generation of players but is equally essential that the adult game is nurtured as well.

Participation numbers are falling in the adult game and I believe that funding congesses or other adult events can help turn the tide. My membership model will already help by putting around £200 in each congresses pot if entry fees stay the same. However, I think more is required so that winning one congress would allow you to fund playing in another one or two. Higher prize funds will hopefully attract more numbers through the door and also may impress the general public that playing chess can be so rewarding.

There were a few ideas on the old board that could also be funded such as a rolling jackpot for a perfect score as well as increasing the Grand Prix Prizes. I trully do fear putting all our eggs in the junior basket so to speak as there may not be much organised chess for them to play when they become adults.

[Gary McPheator]

On reflection, fees of £5, £10, £15 and £20 would be more apt. This would require an uptake of just over 70% of active graded players being members bringing the tally up to over 1050 to maintain current levels of funding. You could also introduce a congress grading pass at £5 for those that do not want to take up a membership.

[AWIC - Please Change]

It is all very well, and indeed essential, to bring on the next generation of players but is equally essential that the adult game is nurtured as well.

I trully do fear putting all our eggs in the junior basket so to speak as there may not be much organised chess for them to play when they become adults.

I agree with these points - we can have thousands of juniors playing chess but if there are no adult clubs around for them to join as they mature are they going to carry on playing?

As for Gary's proposals, a lot of thought seems to have gone into them and I'm happy to see they have been fleshed out with some numbers =) . I've a couple of quick questions if I may? It seems to be more complicated than the current system - is it? And if I were to opt for the cheapest membership option, but played say 4 competitions, who would chose which were graded? (And who would pay for my games to be graded if I didn't pay?)

[Gary McPheator]

I would have to confess AWIC that it is more complicated than the current system, but I do not think it is overly so. For it to work smoothly it would require the help of comp organisers and adjustments to the online membership system. The process I envisage would go like this:

Comp organisers would check membership status of competitors online. If membership is either of options 1 or 2, then they would assign their comp to player which I hope can be facilitated in the membership system update. Grading cards for both congresses and teams would need to be assigned here too. As this process would not allow you to go over your limit, then in the scenario you have outlined your league games and the first comp you played would be graded. I believe it would be better for grading integrity if comps insisted on all players having their games graded, but that would up to the comps themselves. If they did insist, you would have to upgrade before taking part in further comps if you had reached your limit. If they did not insist then your games would not be graded after that, but your opponents would if they qualified.

I am hopeful that this is not too much of a burden on organisers, and their would be the added bonus for congress organisers in over £200 more for congress funds for their efforts. I would imagine leagues would delegate responsibilty down to club level to make membership checks. I would be interested to here from organisers if this is too much to ask.

I am no computer expert, so I would also like to hear if such an online system is possible and not too difficult to introduce.

Has anyone else got any ideas?

[Andrew McHarg]

Interesting ideas.

How would this actually influence the statistical averages of grades? Potentially you could have quite a few players who are only getting some of their games graded during a season, and as a result their new grade won't actually reflect how well/badly they played in the season. Fewer games would mean a less reliable grade, and I can foresee this causing problems with estimating player's actual strength; and thus deciding which sections they are allowed to participate in. Is it a realistic concern, or would your system be able to accommodate it in some way?

I don't think getting rid of the magazine is a good idea. I'd rather see it marketted more so that more people want to buy it. Perhaps a stall with lots of the latest editions in tournaments would be a good idea, or a large advert on the website. I'll have a think about that, but there isn't any real reason why it can't sell more copies.

The grading book is probably essential, because most clubs won't have access to a computer in their clubhouse to look up grades.

More adult training would be a very positive thing, as well as more training in general. I'd suggest that a few of the largest clubs take this on in their areas. Edinburgh CC and Hamilton spring to mind. Perhaps each of these could host training events on non-club nights, where players from the local areas (irrespective of club) could come along and pay a small amount to access it. Sporadic training events throughout the country/calendar are unlikely to ever have a major impact. Perhaps a 6-week training seminar, one night per week at a cost of £2/night, at one of these central venues, or something along those lines, would work?

[Gary McPheator]

I agree with you Andrew that grades would be less accurate if all of a player's games are not used to calculate them. That is why I would prefer comps to insist that, in order to take part, players have access to grading, either through membership or a grading card. As I said in my previous post this would ultimately up to comp organisers, as I believe that trying to impose it could backfire.

My preference for a grading system, a rolling grade, would mitigate the impact on the overall grade of someone who does not have all their games graded, but that is probably a topic in its own right.

It would be great if marketing the magazine better led it into making a profit, but I remain doubtful that uptake will increase sufficiently. I do think it has to either stop making a loss or stop publication.

I disagree with your reasoning for continuing a printed version of the grading list. Surely if grades are needed on the night at a club some member would have inernet access through their mobile?

I love the idea of blocks of training rather than the odd night here and there. I will definitely be suggesting this at the next Ayrshire Man Com meeting.

Out of interest Andrew, do you believe that an online membership system that would allow comp organisers to assign comps to members would be too dificult to implement?

[Andrew McHarg]

Out of interest Andrew, do you believe that an online membership system that would allow comp organisers to assign comps to members would be too dificult to implement?

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean. Are you envisaging tournament (comp = competition?) organisers going onto a system and adding their event to a list of events for each player, to make their event gradable for those players?

Editing the way the current grading system works would be time consuming, but not hugely difficult. =)