Andrew Farthing wrote:
I tend to the view that cutting back what the ECF does would set English chess on an ever-steepening decline (or accelerate the current decline, if you prefer). Regardless of my view, the important point is that we need to hear what activities the majority wants the ECF to stop. Until then, the debate is too abstract to take us forward.
The solution to this problem is obviously going to take on a variety of guises. There are several ideas which might be considered:
1) To decide the best way for existing 'payees' to pay.
2) To cut costs, as and where possible; without alienating and losing existing members and without reducing service and value for money.
3) To increase revenues
An overall solution will need to encompass all three. There is however a far more overwhelming and urgent problem which the ECF does need to address which if solved, it might also cover point (3).
If this particular problem is not solved then all these arguments will be moot in a few years anyway.
This problem is that of participation.
If there were say 100,000 more active chess players in the country, the effect on congresses, clubs, and therefore the ECF would be phenomenal. It might seem like a tall order, but a little bit of advertisement, promotion and willingness to change the way things are perceived and dealt with, would make a big difference.
It does not have to cost a lot, just needs a bit of co-ordination.