ECF Membership Reform

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

The feedback I got as a Bronze members' rep was that Bronze members aren't interested in paying more to allow them to play in non-FIDE-rated tournaments. If they were, they'd be Silver members already.

I think you are right in terms of your observations, however, is it possibly not a biased sample? the kind of member that emails their rep about Bronze member only issues, are more likely to be quite happy with the status quo. I am not saying that position is wrong, if it depends on what we are trying to optimise here?

If you are trying to optimise the interest of Bronze members, then of course, that sample is the best any Bronze Member rep can draw from. But, if the focus is on removing barriers within chess, then ensuring there is no cost difference between league and congress chess seems to be ideal - especially from my local hat on, leagues often organise many congresses! So, the psychological/admin barrier to upgrade from bronze to silver seems a bit unnecessary to me..

[Ian Thompson]

The most sensible thing to do is merge Bronze and Silver and charge about £23

This is just objectively sensible.

But, if the focus is on removing barriers within chess, then ensuring there is no cost difference between league and congress chess seems to be ideal

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

[Ian Jamieson]

The most sensible thing to do is merge Bronze and Silver and charge about £23

This is just objectively sensible.

But, if the focus is on removing barriers within chess, then ensuring there is no cost difference between league and congress chess seems to be ideal

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

But not all players who play chess in England have ENG as their federation for FIDE purposes.

I already contribute to Chess Scotland via it’s 100 club — I don’t want to be forced to become an ECF Gold member as well.

[Roger de Coverly]

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

Not all Congresses are willing and able to adopt four hour sessions. If they aren't their choice for their top section is between not being FIDE rated, banning players over 2400 or telling players below that level that their once in a lifetime results against titled players won't be rated. Equally the 2400 plus crowd won't get any credit for their victories.

In practice organisers have opted either for not being FIDE rated or excluding 2400 plus players.
So you get nominal three hour sessions with 60 30 or 80 10, or nominal three and a half hour sessions with 90 15 and variations on that theme.

The ECF recognises that FIDE rated events are international and thus doesn't demand local membership from "foreigners" where these include WLS, SCO, IRL, GCI, JCI and IOM. They impose a theoretical constraint that the player needs to be a "member" of the foreign federation. I don't think that can be enforced without a very loose definition of "member" since it's not a FIDE requirement that federations enforce individual membership on the ECF model.

[Ian Thompson]

This is just objectively sensible.

But, if the focus is on removing barriers within chess, then ensuring there is no cost difference between league and congress chess seems to be ideal

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

But not all players who play chess in England have ENG as their federation for FIDE purposes.

I already contribute to Chess Scotland via it’s 100 club — I don’t want to be forced to become an ECF Gold member as well.

Nothing in my post suggested you would have to. I merely pointed out that Gold members are congress players.

[Ian Thompson]

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

Not all Congresses are willing and able to adopt four hour sessions. If they aren't their choice for their top section is between not being FIDE rated, banning players over 2400 or telling players below that level that their once in a lifetime results against titled players won't be rated. Equally the 2400 plus crowd won't get any credit for their victories.

In practice organisers have opted either for not being FIDE rated or excluding 2400 plus players.
So you get nominal three hour sessions with 60 30 or 80 10, or nominal three and a half hour sessions with 90 15 and variations on that theme.

The ECF recognises that FIDE rated events are international and thus doesn't demand local membership from "foreigners" where these include WLS, SCO, IRL, GCI, JCI and IOM. They impose a theoretical constraint that the player needs to be a "member" of the foreign federation. I don't think that can be enforced without a very loose definition of "member" since it's not a FIDE requirement that federations enforce individual membership on the ECF model.

What's any of this got to do with the cost of membership for league and congress players being the same?

[Roger de Coverly]

[What's any of this got to do with the cost of membership for league and congress players being the same?

Under the current system those who are on the FIDE list as SCO, WLS, IRL etc are not required to become Gold members at a higher price

[Ian Thompson]

[What's any of this got to do with the cost of membership for league and congress players being the same?

Under the current system those who are on the FIDE list as SCO, WLS, IRL etc are not required to become Gold members at a higher price

Nor would they be as a result of the cost of membership for league and congress players being made the same, either by merging membership categories or equalising membership fees.

[Reg Clucas]

Does the ECF actually incur any additional tangible expense by grading congresses, over and above the cost of grading leagues?

[Roger de Coverly]

Does the ECF actually incur any additional tangible expense by grading congresses, over and above the cost of grading leagues?

There's a fee payable to FIDE for games to go into the standard play international list. At various times in the past the ECF has billed Congress organisers, Except in all play all tournaments it's fairly nominal, something like 1 Euro per player per tournament.

[Reg Clucas]

Does the ECF actually incur any additional tangible expense by grading congresses, over and above the cost of grading leagues?

There's a fee payable to FIDE for games to go into the standard play international list. At various times in the past the ECF has billed Congress organisers, Except in all play all tournaments it's fairly nominal, something like 1 Euro per player per tournament.

Sorry, I meant non-FIDE rated congresses - I was looking for the justification for the extra money paid by Silver members.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Does the ECF actually incur any additional tangible expense by grading congresses, over and above the cost of grading leagues?

There's a fee payable to FIDE for games to go into the standard play international list. At various times in the past the ECF has billed Congress organisers, Except in all play all tournaments it's fairly nominal, something like 1 Euro per player per tournament.

Sorry, I meant non-FIDE rated congresses - I was looking for the justification for the extra money paid by Silver members.

There probably isn't a supply-level justification, no; it's all on the demand level.

[Ian Jamieson]

Does the ECF actually incur any additional tangible expense by grading congresses, over and above the cost of grading leagues?

There's a fee payable to FIDE for games to go into the standard play international list. At various times in the past the ECF has billed Congress organisers, Except in all play all tournaments it's fairly nominal, something like 1 Euro per player per tournament.

Sorry, I meant non-FIDE rated congresses - I was looking for the justification for the extra money paid by Silver members.

As Angus French posted above the various fee levels used to correlate with the average numbers of games played by the various groups.

Ultimately though as someone said taxation is the art of getting the maximum income for the least complaints.

[Sean Hewitt]

What's the problem they're trying to fix / outcome they're trying to achieve? Is it simply raise more money, or something else?

[NickFaulks]

What's the problem they're trying to fix / outcome they're trying to achieve? Is it simply raise more money, or something else?

I don't suppose I should say much, but it certainly isn't about raising more money.