Possible ECF membership changes

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a paper at the ECF website discussing various changes that might be made to membership schemes. Unlike April 2008 the directors aren't endorsing anything in particular.
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=262&hilit=resignation+rumours

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... ptions.pdf

One point that puzzles me is this.

There's an assertion that

ECF Office administration would increase significantly because of the significant increase in the number of invoices that would need to be raised/sent to organisers and the extra credit control processes that would need to be put in place.

That's in a possible scenario where the ECF collects membership fees from organisers and organisations whether on a per event, per game or per head basis. Also surely the existing "pay to play" concept requires invoices to organisers and organisations anyway.

Why should it be more expensive to collect from several hundred organisers and organisations rather than ten thousand individuals? That's particularly in the context that most games and events are reported to the rating database in approaching real time. That contrasts to the system of ten years ago and more where there could be a delay of many months before even the existence of an event was reported to the ECF.

I would make a further comment that if FIDE rated tournaments are supposed to be international events, then you expect and even invite "foreigners" to play. You aren't really justified in hitting them for an annual membership fee in order for them to take part. Only the USCF do that.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

The paper omits the most obvious option; merge Bronze and Silver. I imagine that is where the majority of admin occurs currently for players, organisers and the ECF office, when Bronze members enter a weekend event. I'm guessing that far more Bronze members upgrade to Silver than Silver members upgrade to Gold during the season but I could be wrong.

[Mick Norris]

True, but you have some idea of the possibility of combining bronze and silver from the indicative fees for the other options:

The indicative fees below have been calculated so as to generate membership income similar to pre-Covid levels: 1. Single membership fee: £27.00 adult/£10.00 junior. 2. Combined Silver/Gold membership fee: £34.00 adult/£10.00 junior. 3. Game fee (over the board): £1.00/half game (junior, online etc rates a function of the headline rate in line with on existing arrangements). NB the headline rate is highly sensitive to projected half game numbers, and the uncertainty in estimating these in the aftermath of Covid is substantial. Depending on the assumptions used the range is between £0.80 and £1.30. 4. Fee per event: £5.00 per player (similar assumptions to game fee).

I vaguely ( ) recollect there was a proposal some time ago to Council to merge silver and bronze and it got voted down

[Mike Gunn]

...
Why should it be more expensive to collect from several hundred organisers and organisations rather than ten thousand individuals?...

Because the collection of membership fees from individuals is (almost) entirely automated by software?

Similarly invoices for tournament and event organisers in respect of non-members can be generated automatically by software (but I expect they are then individually emailed or posted to the organisers).

[Joey Stewart]

It shouldnt be too hard to strong arm organisers into paying up - just don't grade their event until the money comes in and let the disgruntled entrants do the job for you via complaints.

I do think that rather then merging silver and bronze, bronze should allow one free tournament game per player as there are lots of newcomers and it provides the opportunity to test the water of competitive tournament without the extreme prices attached to the high roller memberships

[Roger de Coverly]

It shouldnt be too hard to strong arm organisers into paying up - just don't grade their event until the money comes in and let the disgruntled entrants do the job for you via complaints.

I think the problem with that is that with the redesign of the rating syatem, results are reported in almost as near real time as is achievable. That's important when the likes of chess.com and lichess offer instant rating changes.

One free tournament per Bronze player is an interesting idea, but I suspect messy to implement.

It's only the first year of operation but isn't the anniversary of Bronze being 1st September and the anniversary of Silver and Gold whenever you want it to be going to cause problems, particularly if there's an ambition to amalgamate?

[Roger de Coverly]

Because the collection of membership fees from individuals is (almost) entirely automated by software?

Anecdotally isn't the August and September period a very busy time for the Battle office because of all the individual membership queries?

[John Reyes]

I have reached out to my silver Rep but trying to sort a time out is a issue and it looked like i'm doing all the chasing

i will hope the silver members will reached out and give us their views

[Dragoljub Sudar]

It's only the first year of operation but isn't the anniversary of Bronze being 1st September and the anniversary of Silver and Gold whenever you want it to be going to cause problems, particularly if there's an ambition to amalgamate?

It would be exactly the same as it is now. Whatever level you take out, Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum, if you wish to play league chess in any season you have to buy/renew within the 12 month period from 1 July to 30 June next year to avoid a fee for that season.

I suspect most Silver members would object very strongly to Silver being merged with Gold. If I want to play in a Fide rated event I will upgrade accordingly. The vast majority of Silver members have no interest in playing in Fide rated events.