Finance Meeting

[Roger de Coverly]

so you might as well collect the sum needed on a once and done basis through membership.

The point is that you should collect more money from those who play more. It isn't right in my view to collect the same amount from those who play five games as those who play fifty. So you shouldn't ask a player who is only ever going to play in the local league to pay the same as someone who plays in the local league, the 4NCL and numerous congresses.

You can attempt and that's the big gamble the ECF are taking on.

So what does the club treasurer tell his or her AGM.

(a) the bad news - the ECF will refuse to publish your grade unless you or someone on your behalf pays them £ 18
(b) the good news - the local league have reduced club entry fees by about £ 8
(c) the even better news - if you are already a Direct Member, the price goes down from £ 25 to £18

Were someone to point out that the effect of the change was to increase costs to the less enthusiastic or even just time-poor player whilst reducing the cost to the most active player, it would be difficult to disagree with them. If they additional said that demanding ECF membership as a condition of play would on balance discourage new or returning members, it would be difficult to disagree with that either.

In blunt terms, the ECF is abandoning one of its major streams of income in favour of trying to collect the same amount by a flat rate charge independent of chess activity. In addition, the ECF seems to have established that it can charge a premium price (ECF Direct Membership) for the rights to play in FIDE rated events. It's also proposing to give up making this premium charge.

[Sean Hewitt]

Why would the ECF not have a voluntary funding scheme whereby members could opt out of paying a small sum for International support, and another small sum for Junior as well? If members want to support International and Junior chess, and trust the ECF to handle these responsibilities competently and deliver something for the money, then they could be given the opportunity to do so. If they don't then at least ordinary members are not being asked to pay for something they don't want, or that they feel the ECF can't do very well.

Equally, if members feel that the ECF is doing an excellent job and deserve more funding then the same mechanism could be used to add a targeted voluntary donation over and above a suggested contribution.

I don't think this would work. You can't opt out of the bit of income tax that pays for schools (eg if you don't have kids, or send them to private school) or opt out of the NHS because you use BUPA.

[Mike Truran]

This is just rerunning past battles. That was the basic choice facing council, and they decided to go for the fixed charge vs pay to play option. You may not like it, but that's the way democracy (or at least the ECF version of it) works.

Anyway, there is apparently still the 75% AGM/EGM hurdle to surmount, so it may all be academic anyway. Presumbly if it is not surmounted, both options 1 and 2 fall away and we are left with the current system.

Deep joy.

[Adam Raoof]

so you might as well collect the sum needed on a once and done basis through membership.

The point is that you should collect more money from those who play more. It isn't right in my view to collect the same amount from those who play five games as those who play fifty. So you shouldn't ask a player who is only ever going to play in the local league to pay the same as someone who plays in the local league, the 4NCL and numerous congresses.

That is a philosophical argument, and you may or may not be right. As Mike says, Council has decided which strategic direction we should take, and I never spoke a word in favour or against at the meeting.

However on the practical point I am a member of many organisations (RSPB, YHA, RYA, RHS, ECF, EH) and they all disagree with your view, and are proved right every year when I renew my subscriptions! The fact that I am a member encourages me to participate more in their activities.

[Roger de Coverly]

For me, it was never a realistic option not to have pay-to-play for tournaments, so your point is moot. If we had to make sure everyone is a member before they sat down, I agree there might be consequences.

Membership (Option 1) in its true form is exactly that. That's the way it works in the USA and it's what the ECF wants to apply to leagues.

If the ECF adopted a scheme whereby there was both pay by head and pay to play, then the debate moves from principles to practical detail as to what values optimise the outcomes. Even leagues might be able to live with a five pound per head per season non-member fee for players playing relatively few games.

[Alex Holowczak]

This is just rerunning past battles. That was the basic choice facing council, and they decided to go for the fixed charge vs pay to play option. You may not like it, but that's the way democracy (or at least the ECF version of it) works.

Anyway, there is apparently still the 75% AGM/EGM hurdle to surmount, so it may all be academic anyway. Presumbly if it is not surmounted, both options 1 and 2 fall away and we are left with the current system.

Deep joy.

Do we need 75%?

At a Finance Council Meeting, an amendment could be proposed whereby the Membership Fee is £18, and the Game Fee rate is £18 (or something like that). That way you don't need to change the constitution at all, and your net gain is a membership system. This only requires a majority. So all the things preferring membership can vote for that.

[Roger de Coverly]

However on the practical point I am a member of many organisations (RSPB, YHA, RYA, RHS, ECF, EH) and they all disagree with your view, and are proved right every year when I renew my subscriptions! The fact that I am a member encourages me to participate more in their activities.

I think we've already established that membership of the YHA does not confer unlimited rights to stay in YHA hostels at no extra cost. So you get booking privileges as a member and a discounted night's cost. That's an example of a scheme that is both pay per head and pay to play. In effect YHA membership is something like a season ticket.

[Sean Hewitt]

For me, it was never a realistic option not to have pay-to-play for tournaments, so your point is moot. If we had to make sure everyone is a member before they sat down, I agree there might be consequences.

Membership (Option 1) in its true form is exactly that. That's the way it works in the USA and it's what the ECF wants to apply to leagues.

I've seen nothing that sets out that this is the case. Andrew Farthing's paper mentions a number of exemptions, but the detail is still to be worked on including what happens if non-members play.

Perhaps the discussion would be better focussed on how a membership scheme might work practically, rather than debating ad nauseam points that were considered and rejected by the majority at Saturday's meeting.

The concept of an exemption for 'league only' players playing less than x games may be worth exploring for example. Of course, this will lead to a cost increase for everyone else. It may also be worth considering a 'gold' membership for playing in FIDE rated events.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do we need 75%?

At a Finance Council Meeting, an amendment could be proposed whereby the Membership Fee is £18, and the Game Fee rate is £18 (or something like that). That way you don't need to change the constitution at all, and your net gain is a membership system. This only requires a majority. So all the things preferring membership can vote for that.

It's the AGM that will be voting, not the Finance Council.

[Alex Holowczak]

Do we need 75%?

At a Finance Council Meeting, an amendment could be proposed whereby the Membership Fee is £18, and the Game Fee rate is £18 (or something like that). That way you don't need to change the constitution at all, and your net gain is a membership system. This only requires a majority. So all the things preferring membership can vote for that.

It's the AGM that will be voting, not the Finance Council.

That doesn't make any difference.

[Sean Hewitt]

As an aside, I stopped on the way home on Saturday night at a friends house for a glass of wine. She asked why I had been in Birmingham and I told her. Her surprised response was "so you don't have to be a member of English Chess to play now? That's crazy." She then reeled off all the things she does that she needs to be a member of.

I think this reaction is typical amongst non-chess players.

[Alex Holowczak]

As an aside, I stopped on the way home on Saturday night at a friends house for a glass of wine. She asked why I had been in Birmingham and I told her. Her surprised response was "so you don't have to be a member of English Chess to play now? That's crazy." She then reeled off all the things she does that she needs to be a member of.

I think this reaction is typical amongst non-chess players.

It's the reaction I get when parents ask whether you need to be an ECF Member to play in a congress. I say no, and they're generally surprised. I remember being surprised when I discovered in 2006 (having just played in my first congress) that I didn't need to be a member to get a grade.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps the discussion would be better focussed on how a membership scheme might work practically, rather than debating ad nauseam points that were considered and rejected by the majority at Saturday's meeting.

The concept of an exemption for 'league only' players playing less than x games may be worth exploring for example. Of course, this will lead to a cost increase for everyone else. It may also be worth considering a 'gold' membership for playing in FIDE rated events.

Certainly - but are you going to get very far if you insist that the ECF payment is always the same whether it's one game or one hundred. Surely any scheme which involves both payment per head and payment per event is an option 2 scheme? So are all those who voted for option 1 opposed to any concessions to leagues so as to pay by event rather than individual player?

The ECF has got to sell an awful lot of memberships. Does it have a marketing strategy?

[Roger de Coverly]

I remember being surprised when I discovered in 2006 (having just played in my first congress) that I didn't need to be a member to get a grade.

Were you delighted or upset?

If the aim of the ECF is to encourage chess participation, why not have as few barriers to entry as possible?

[Alex Holowczak]

I remember being surprised when I discovered in 2006 (having just played in my first congress) that I didn't need to be a member to get a grade.

Were you delighted or upset?

If the aim of the ECF is to encourage chess participation, why not have as few barriers to entry as possible?

I was surprised. I remember having cash on me with the specific aim of becoming one if I needed to be. I wasn't paying for it, so I was neither delighted nor upset!