ECF AGM 2022

[Angus French]

I was on the scene when the current membership scheme was introduced. There was division on the board between a minority who wanted a flat rate system (at the time about £20 a year?) and those who supported the current tiered system. The logic for the current system was that you needed a lower rate for club members who just played in local leagues and county chess but don't play in weekend congresses etc, so as not to put them off joining. However, the tiered/ metal system was never popular with some congress organisers. It looks like we're having that debate again.

Also it turned out that the membership fees for the different categories - for adults at least - were pretty much in proportion to the average number of graded/rated games played by players of the category.

[NickFaulks]

It looks like we're having that debate again.

Perhaps, but the motivation is different this time. There are now concerns ( somewhat belated, in my view ) that

1. The membership tiers may deter FIDE rated chess in this country and

2. This is a bad thing.

[Mick Norris]

The argument is always the same, if you are going to charge some members less, you have to charge others more

Everyone is always happy to spell out the former but not the latter

[Angus French]

There have been two previous proposals to merge Bronze and Silver membership categories, one in 2015 and the other in 2018. A principal argument made on both occasions was that it would remove a barrier for ordinary members to play in (non-FIDE-rated) congresses. But Bronze members weren't interested in playing in congresses and didn't wish to be charged more for membership. Both proposals were quite heavily defeated.

[Andrew Zigmond]

There were always going to be "winners" and "losers" under the ECF membership scheme but the fact remains that it was implemented and imbedded (an achievement in itself given the state of the ECF at that time) without the sky falling in as many people claimed. Certainly the two biggest worries - that a lot of events would go ungraded and that hordes of new players would be deterred didn't happen.

However that was ten years ago and in that time; partly due to natural evolution and partly due to developments driven by lockdown; how people play chess in this country has changed. It is only right that the scheme should be revisited to ensure it reflects current practice.

[Roger de Coverly]

that hordes of new players would be deterred didn't happen.

There weren't however hordes of new players previously deterred by the pay as you go nature of the previous scheme as some advocates seem to believe. Rather the head count remained more or less static.

At club level and to an extent Congress level the scheme was diluted anyway. It didn't have "no pay, no play" as for example in table tennis.

Angus reminds us that recent proposals to merge Bronze and Silver have been rejected. Perhaps then consider merging Silver and Gold. That makes Silver pricier and the cost to a non-member of entering a Congress higher. At least the ECF have abondoned mostly the fictional assertion that it was a FIDE requirement to be a member of a Federation to play a FIDE rated tournament.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

It looks like we're having that debate again.

Perhaps, but the motivation is different this time. There are now concerns ( somewhat belated, in my view ) that

1. The membership tiers may deter FIDE rated chess in this country and

2. This is a bad thing.

To make a brief post-election foray onto the Forum, I very much agreed with merging bronze and silver, at the time. The argument that you should pay more if you play more chess holds, only if you charge congress players who don't play League chess, a 'Bronze' membership.

Also, here is a copy of an email from myself to those known to myself, who gave advice/support before the AGM, I thought I should share this here as it is possible that I gained a couple more votes during the AGM. Very grateful to all those who supported my contributions.

--
Dear All,

Many thanks to all of you for your advice, support and nominations, for the ECF Annual General Meeting. In particular, many thanks goes to those who sent proxy votes, attend online, or via zoom. I am particularly grateful, as I am conscious of how busy each of us are.

As mentioned prior, simultaneous to attending the AGM, I was organising a modest chess event that day, whilst many of you were also judging multiple responsibilities. In spite of that, I am grateful for your support and understanding.

Despite the results, and aside from a couple of technical and proxy voting issues, it was a delight to present my distinct and creative set of contributions to fellow delegates.

Best wishes,

Hok

[John Upham]

The more that can be done to increase the amount of FIDE rated chess in England and the number of players playing FIDE rated chess, the better.

This should be a key objective of the ECF.

If it were I would appoint someone to make this their sole objective.

We need more FAs and IAs, better understanding of the requirements for games to be FIDE rated and better promotion of those events which are FIDE rated.

I get the impression that ENG is third world country (or worse) when it comes to this subject.

[Chris Goodall]

I mean, you get what you pay for, right? If you want your child to play FIDE-rated chess, you have to cover the cost to the ECF of your child's playing FIDE-rated chess. That should be the least controversial part of the tier system.

If there is conflict between a child's parents and a child's coach/agent/middleman about how much time and money the parents invest in their child's chess career, those conflicts have been going on for 1,500 years, and I can't believe that making Gold membership cheaper is going to resolve them.

For how many parents is "I can't afford Gold membership" a nicer way of saying "I can't be arsed driving back from Scarborough at midnight"?

[Roger de Coverly]

The argument that you should pay more if you play more chess holds, only if you charge congress players who don't play League chess, a 'Bronze' membership.

If you set aside the argument, as many do, that demanding paying membership as a condition of playing is discouraging to participation, then you have three or perhaps just two levels of independent membership.

So the ECF demands that players buy any or all of

a membership to take part in club events, local leagues and county matches
a membership to take part in nationally rated events including quickplays whether FIDE rated or not
a membership to take part in FIDE rated standard play events if not exempt by not being ENG.

Buy all three and a bit on top and maybe you should get a Zoom vote as well.

If the ECF wanted to go full USCF, it would demand that foreign players become members to play in FIDE rated events. For invitation events, expect the organiser to pay.

[Chris Goodall]

There were always going to be "winners" and "losers" under the ECF membership scheme but the fact remains that it was implemented and imbedded (an achievement in itself given the state of the ECF at that time) without the sky falling in as many people claimed.

People adapt, and these are not large sums of money. But there was a net transfer of the burden of funding the ECF from the few active players like us, who had a lot of say in the decision, to the many occasional players who had none, and that makes me sad.

[Roger de Coverly]

But there was a net transfer of the burden of funding the ECF from the few active players like us, who had a lot of say in the decision, to the many occasional players who had none

It's not obvious that those advocating the change understood this. In particular they didn't notice the transfer of funding support, now mostly reversed, from adults to juniors.

[NickFaulks]

If you want your child to play FIDE-rated chess, you have to cover the cost to the ECF of your child's playing FIDE-rated chess.

What is that cost?

[JustinHorton]

In particular they didn't notice the transfer of funding support, now mostly reversed, from adults to juniors.

This sounds good to me, apart from the "mostly reversed" bit

[Roger de Coverly]

This sounds good to me, apart from the "mostly reversed" bit

In case it's not clear I meant funding support for the ECF. In other words paying for the ECF Office and Malcolm's International teams. They introduced free first year memberships for Juniors and later made the price of Silver membership the same as Bronze, cutting both far below the Adult level.

There are people who make a living out or at least part time income of providing chess to juniors, why shouldn't the ECF get a cut?