Resignation Rumours

[raycollett]

my best guess is around 9 per cent of Game Fee is either unpaid or uncollected. The figure for membership is close to zero

Ok, for the ECF defaults are greater when dealing with organisation members than individual (Direct Members) members; but individual members have to be serviced each year with an individual reminder letter (and also possibly a reminder to renew) and a membership card and at least some benefits have to be provided otherwise the membership base will fall (This is why charitable organisations keep in touch with those providing over £20 a year). I was a member of the BCF Council when the decision was taken to sell the British Chess Magazine and I thought then that it was a bad decision because both the BCF and the ECF have little ability to keep in contact with individual players.

I am sure that many county representatives do what they can using e-mail circulation lists to brief players about ECF matters, but that method leaves out about 70% of league players unless someone puts in a good amout of time to maintain and update a database (boring, boring zzz). That sort of admin task is what a properly financed ECF office should be doing. A further task that a properly funded office should perform is to shield volunteer Directors and Managers from abusive and derogatory flak coming towards 'customer services'. I know several organisers who have been most disheartened by overly-negative reactions and have reduced their volunteer efforts and their exposure to abusive comments.

A properly funded ECF office would enable people like myself, who prefer to play rather than organise, to play and enjoy my chess more.

[Simon Spivack]

Don't fall into the trap of coming up with a hotch potch revenue-raising scheme, just because you don't think some people (in this case, "the south") won't like the alternative.

Peter

Quite. For instance in the minutes of the 7 April meeting (see http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/meet ... _may08.htm ) one reads: "the London League would not accept compulsory membership". Actually this is just the opinion of an out of touch individual giving voice to his, undoubtably strongly held, sentiments. In one London League match I asked players to sign the OMOV petition. While I obviously never recorded the names of those who declined, I estimate fully eighty per cent of those asked did sign. I am not asserting that a large majority of London League players are in favour of OMOV; however, it should be obvious that such a poll does not support the notion of resistance á outrance to OMOV. To be fair to that individual, I don't believe he has played in a London League match for more than ten years, I seriously doubt he consulted anyone before making his observation.

Simon Spivack.

[Sean Hewitt]

A fair observation Simon.

However, large scale support for OMOV (which I suspect would exist in most places) and objection to the idea of compulsory membership are not, in my opinion mutually exclusive.

I have heard a large number of southern based delegates object strongly to abolishion of game fee. They really do believe that its the right way to fund the Federation.

One of the advanatages with my suggestion of options is that, I assume, most organisations (counties / leagues) would need to consult with their member clubs / players to see what they actually want to do, so it should provike debate. If you're right about the views in the London League (and I hoope that you are) then of course your players would vote to go down the membership route.

[Sean Hewitt]

You exaggerate and I'm not advocating doubling game fee. The major proportion of most club and league expenditure is on the venues. League fees are a minor part of expenditure of clubs that participate in league chess. In my own club for example league fees, which include game fee, accounts for less than 10% of club expenditure (it would have been about 35% if the venue were free) and about 25% of League expenditure.

Obviously things are different club by club and area by area - but I most certainly am not exagerating. In Leicester, the fee to put a team in the league is £55 of which £35 goes to the ECF as game fee. Thats 63%. For other competitions (such as cups, or individual championships) the entry fee is simply 100% of the game fee to cover costs. At my club we don't have any other expenditure (when considering a venue it is a pre-requisite for us that it's free) so nearly 70% of our clubs expenditure is game fee. Hence if game fee goes up our subs go up, and if game fee doubled our subs go up 70%

I am amaxed that the ratio at your club is so low. In Leicester the average player players about 14 games (I believe the figure to be similar nationally). Thats £7 in game fee. If thats 10% of your costs then your club subs are £70. Thankfully in Leicester we dont have such high fees. Most are £30 - £50 pa although my club is less than that at £20 (including ECF membership).

I am surprised that you are really suggesting that the ECF centrally should maintain databases etc of contact info. That is far more efficiently done at a local level. Sure the ECF should provide the software (as in grading) but the collation and updating should be done locally. We already do that here. We have email addresses for just over 70% of players which makes county teams etc far easier to operate. When an email bounces back its easy to ring someone and get the new address. How on earth could the ECF do that centrally and be more cost effective?

I appreciate that you were not suggesting doubling game fee, I used that as an extreme example to prove the point. Doubling it (if somehow you could get people ot pay it) would only raise £50,000 which isn't going to transform the ECF in the way you suggest. Put it up 20% and you only raise £10,000 which is going to make no difference at all.

And that leads me onto a very salient point. When one looks at the accounts and the figures for game fee, an interesting fact emerges. Every time game fee gets increased, the net amount collected does not go up. Yet the amounts collected do not go down when game fee stays the same. Why? Well, I assume that every increase leads some organisations to question whether its worth paying it. Last time it went up prompted a debate in Leicester where a vote to continue paying was won 8-5 ; hardly a resounding victory. I also suspect that eventually game fee costs help to push the odd congress or rapidplay to the wall.

So the ECF needs to wake up and realise that it cannot raise extra revenue through game fee. If that doesn't convince readers of the need for reducing Federation costs, and introducing a far reaching affordable membership scheme, nothing will.

I am now off to get smashed up at the 4NCL weekend, so this weeks "economics for dummies" will need to be put on hold!

[Simon Spivack]

In the following I shall use the initials ECF even when BCF would be more appropriate.

However, large scale support for OMOV (which I suspect would exist in most places) and objection to the idea of compulsory membership are not, in my opinion mutually exclusive.

I doubt that there is large scale support for anything apart from inertia. People sign things because they are looking for the easy life. My impression is that most Direct Members of the ECF in the past considered membership a form of donation. This has altered to the extent that those wishing to play in the 4NCL have to join. There is therefore an element of compulsion in the existing system, although it is not universal.

I have heard a large number of southern based delegates object strongly to abolishion of game fee. They really do believe that its the right way to fund the Federation.

In the past there was a form of membership that was compulsory; I refer of course to the system of county registrations. There was a lot of opposition to this, I know, I was a county treasurer at the time; indeed one league chairman was so opposed to this system that he aggressively blocked an attempt at collection: if you look in the Year Books of the 1990s you will see that there was a club that was not affiliated because of this opposition. Strictly speaking a registered player was not a member of the ECF, even though he would receive a registration card, however, it seems to me that this was akin to non-voting membership. When Roy Brown devised the Game Fee system it was an improvement upon county registrations: some graders at the time were unhappy at the linking of grades to revenue raising, but acquiesed. At the club level the sums paid to the ECF were lowered, hence the ease of the change with respect to that quarter. The difference was made up by collecting from tournaments, although not every tournament organiser chose to cooperate, indeed from that angle it does look like a "chess prevention tax".

There have been resignations from graders in the past, I recall that there were rather a lot when a more centralised grading system was introduced, was it ten years ago? It would be a matter of regret should someone choose to resign because of their dislike of a particular development; yet I fail to see why a right of veto should be tolerated. These matters have to handled delicately, if one can introduce a change with only a few resignations resulting, then, assuming the change is intrinsically good, it should be instituted.

It is possible that some of the "southern based delegates" recall some of this and imagine that an OMOV system with compulsory membership would see a re-run of county registrations. I don't believe that that is an accurate reflection of what any of the resigning directors had in mind, but one can see how other conclusions may be arrived at. It seems to me that the existing system is not good enough; there has been a large decline in the amount of chess played, for instance the London League had seven regular (sic) divisions in the early 1970s, there are only four now played over fewer boards. Something must change, and that takes money; whether that money is raised by increased economies or by asking for more in an economic downturn is properly something that a responsible ECF board would consider: this was the case before.

We need more tournaments, we need more chess related activities and we need publicity.

Simon Spivack.

[raycollett]

Charles Wood wrote: A sponsor can not be left exposed by the fact it sponsors a junior event say, and one person is not CRB'd and something happens. That would be bad for them, so they don't touch us with barge polls.

Charles is right on this issue and CRB checks cost money. That is one place where resources could be placed to increase capacity to run events

[raycollett]

I think we can all agree that Mike Basman's tournament is a work of genius; full credit to him and his staff.
I have always thought allying the ECF to that event would be a good thing and I will continue to try to do so.

I entirely agree. What are the obstacles?

[Sean Hewitt]

Charles Wood wrote: A sponsor can not be left exposed by the fact it sponsors a junior event say, and one person is not CRB'd and something happens. That would be bad for them, so they don't touch us with barge polls.

Charles is right on this issue and CRB checks cost money. That is one place where resources could be placed to increase capacity to run events

CRB checks for volunteers are in fact free of charge.

[John Upham]

CRB checks for volunteers are in fact free of charge.

Sean,
Can you provide a URL for this as I had to pay £40 for the last one?

Thanks!

[Sean Hewitt]

CRB checks for volunteers are in fact free of charge.

Sean,
Can you provide a URL for this as I had to pay £40 for the last one?
Thanks!

Ever heard of google?

http://www.crb.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=1863

From that page :-

Fees
The following fees apply from 6 April 2006:

Standard Disclosure £31.00
Enhanced Disclosure £36.00

Standard and Enhanced Disclosures are free of charge to volunteers

[RichardPalliser]

I'd certainly include the website as a must have and, if necessary, some money should be budgeted for it. In this modern era, there's surely no need for ChessMoves, although a weekly email could always be sent to members quickly listing and linking to the more important updates on the website.

Where do forum users feel our Olympiad and European Cht teams feature: as must, should or could haves? In an ideal world, we'd have a sponsor to cover the full costs, but if we haven't one, how much should the ECF be contributing?

Does anyone know please if there will be any radical (aka reforming) proposals made for the October meeting to debate? It would certainly be good to see a vote on the ending of proxies or, better still, one about introducing OMOV!

[Sean Hewitt]

Does anyone know please if there will be any radical (aka reforming) proposals made for the October meeting to debate? It would certainly be good to see a vote on the ending of proxies or, better still, one about introducing OMOV!

I shall be putting a motion to council to limit proxy votes to one per person. I dont see these as being a problem (where one asks someone else to vote on their behalf when they cant make the meeting). The real problem is the small number of individuals who collect huge numbers of proxies to force their will on council without consulting the players they supposedly represent.

Bizarrely, I may have to become such a person in October in order to gain enough proxies to have enough votes to ban them!!

[John Moore]

Hi - as matters stand, the Memorandum and Articles of the ECF allow anyone entitled to vote to appoint a proxy. Actually it's in the articles - and it's an entirely normal provision. So you would need to have the articles amended.

Actually, the more I think about this - it would be extremely odd to limit proxy voting in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Incidentally, the Memorandum of the ECF, a company limited by guarantee, is required to have two subscribers. Whether this has been updated elsewhere other than on the website I do not know. But they are currently shown as Gerry Walsh and Roy Heppinstall - and poor Roy passed away some time ago.

[Sean Hewitt]

I realise its in the articles John, thats why a motion to change them needs to go before the AGM in October.

Are proxies normal? Well neither the FA, nor Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association Ltd allow proxy voting for a start. You either attend and vote or you don't. But whether its normal or not isn't the point. Whether its appropriate or desirable is. And I think the majority of players think it isnt desirable.

Subscribers are the original members who form a company. For the ECF they were Gerry Walsh and Roy Heppinstall - that won't change, it's simply a matter of fact. Members (those of us who pay a fee and sign the white form so hated in the north for some reason) change all the time and the ECF keep a seperate list of those.

[raycollett]

...small number of individuals who collect huge numbers of proxies to force their will on council without consulting the players they supposedly represent.
Bizarrely, I may have to become such a person in October in order to gain enough proxies to have enough votes to ban them!!

Such desperate measures you need not take! Under the present Articles of the ECF, it is possible for a Member of Council who is unable to attend to direct a Proxy to vote for or against a resolution by appointing the Chair of the Meeting as proxy. By prohibiting proxy votes, members who live far from the venue may be disenfranchised by the costs and time required for travel to the meeting. If I were a player in Cornwall, I am not sure I would want that (depending of course on the policies of the CA representative ). You can remain untainted by the charge of 'voting without consulting the players' by lobbying for votes for your resolution and asking that a directed proxy be cast in cases where a representative is unable to attend .