ECF Funding

[David Sedgwick]

Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association Ltd (a company limited by guarantee) had just two guarantors upon its formation.

Roughly how many members does it have now? And, in general terms, who are they (if not all Leicestershire and Rutland players)?

[Sean Hewitt]

Leicestershire & Rutland Chess Association Ltd (a company limited by guarantee) had just two guarantors upon its formation.

Roughly how many members does it have now? And, in general terms, who are they (if not all Leicestershire and Rutland players)?

15 - one from each club. Usually the secretary of the club, though it doesn't have to be.

[Alex Holowczak]

In reality, no, they don't. They make an estimate on the number of games with varying levels of accuracy. They make no attempt to settle the debt the following year, or vice versa. In fact, many estimators probably don't even take that into consideration when drawing up an estimate for their Game Fee. (Getting a payment of any value off some leagues at all is difficult enough, let alone an accurate estimate of it.) What's more, adding a layer of complexity whereby the Office needs to keep track of all the under/overpayments such that they can be cleared the following year is something that gives great scope for errors.

Perhaps this is one for Andrew to address? If organisations find it difficult to process Game Fee, then draw up some model notes for county/ league treasurers and the Office to follow. Make it so that the Office has a contact ( the ECF Council rep would do) who is not part of the process, but who can act as a facilitator to smooth out any issues. Also if carry forward, carry back is problematic, settle balances in cash so as to start with a clean sheet every September.

As Angus suggests, the process shouldn't be difficult

1st December, calculate your estimated Game Fee. Pay this amount X less discounts to the ECF
1st July, calculate your actual Game Fee Y. Pay (Y-X) to the ECF or ask for it back if you overpaid first time round.

If you want an even more radical approach, do the Game Fee 1st July in the same way as for Congresses. BUT counties and leagues agree to LEND the ECF an amount about equal to the Game Fee which they then clawback.

You're right, it should be simple.

The problem is that when Game Fee was founded, there was the other problem I mentioned; in order to bill people after the league season, there'd have been an 18-month waiting period which would cause cashflow problems. So they decided to pay in advance. It made far more sense for an interim payment to be made, and then paying after the event. At least, that's what I was told happened. So Game Fee was doomed to failure as soon as it was established, since the largest source of income for Game Fee - leagues - couldn't be policed.

The process you suggest is more difficult than it needs to be. With your process, there are two times in which the ECF must be involved with each league to negotiate payment. Why not just bill after the event, when you know for certain how much needs to be paid, and then invoice for it accordingly? That way you only need one contact point with the ECF.

A 100% Game Fee system of the nature I've described above would work on a practical level; i.e. with everything being invoiced. Voluntary memberships coming in would immediately muddy the waters.

[Paul Buswell]

Perhaps this is the appropriate juncture to ask players how their clubs charge subs to these players who play very few (say 5 or less) games per season? Do they 'pay as you play', do they pay full subscription, or do they pay a discounted subscription because of their lack of activity?

Hastings & St. Leonards charges the same subscription regardless of a player's activity. There are too many subscription categories, imho, but they are not defined by activity. However, Club members (other than juniors) playing in League matches do pay a £2.50 match fee, home or away, with drivers who take players to away matches having their petrol money reimbursed from Club funds.

PB

[Roger de Coverly]

The problem is that when Game Fee was founded, there was the other problem I mentioned; in order to bill people after the league season, there'd have been an 18-month waiting period which would cause cashflow problems. So they decided to pay in advance. It made far more sense for an interim payment to be made, and then paying after the event. At least, that's what I was told happened. So Game Fee was doomed to failure as soon as it was established, since the largest source of income for Game Fee - leagues - couldn't be policed.

There were IT problems at the time since the implementation of the submission of grading data game by game was delayed.

Fundamentally though, the point of Game Fee was to widen the BCF's collection of tax beyond territorial counties so that Congresses and non-territorial leagues contributed something. This being on the very reasonable premise that they benefited from gradings, arbiters etc.

[Alex Holowczak]

The problem is that when Game Fee was founded, there was the other problem I mentioned; in order to bill people after the league season, there'd have been an 18-month waiting period which would cause cashflow problems. So they decided to pay in advance. It made far more sense for an interim payment to be made, and then paying after the event. At least, that's what I was told happened. So Game Fee was doomed to failure as soon as it was established, since the largest source of income for Game Fee - leagues - couldn't be policed.

There were IT problems at the time since the implementation of the submission of grading data game by game was delayed.

Fundamentally though, the point of Game Fee was to widen the BCF's collection of tax beyond territorial counties so that Congresses and non-territorial leagues contributed something. This being on the very reasonable premise that they benefited from gradings, arbiters etc.

Well, that wasn't really the case.

In the case of Warwickshire, they ended up paying a levy for things like the Birmingham League, Coventry League and Leamington League, since all were deemed to be within Warwickshire. This is fine, but since Warwickshire had no direct involvement with any of those leagues, it had to beg, borrow or steal the money from them. It made more sense for those leagues to pay the money, rather than the county itself.

[Roger de Coverly]

In the case of Warwickshire, they ended up paying a levy for things like the Birmingham League, Coventry League and Leamington League, since all were deemed to be within Warwickshire. This is fine, but since Warwickshire had no direct involvement with any of those leagues, it had to beg, borrow or steal the money from them. It made more sense for those leagues to pay the money, rather than the county itself

I think you will find that this pre-dates Game Fee. The previous system of financing the BCF involved County Associations paying the BCF based on their presumed size. Warks had a size of 8 in 1981. This compared to a size of 20 for Middlesex and 3 for Worcs. Congresses, non-county leagues, BUCA paid next to nothing. So Warks would have needed a means of charging the leagues or clubs within the leagues prior to Game Fee.

Game Fee was a system whereby it was no longer expected that the county associations were expected to finance almost all the BCF. As you suggest, non-territorial leagues could then pick up the BCF's funding. It meant that more organisations were financing the BCF. That had to be a good thing, even if as it now transpires the back office struggled to cope.

I struggle with the merits of a system where you would expect club players to finance the ECF whereas relatively rich national leagues and major tournaments pay next to nothing. Even more so when they still have votes and potentially can continue to vote increased costs to club players.