ECF Funding

[Roger de Coverly]

Your question is supplementary to the main point. If it's accepted that the ECF has to be funded by chess players, then the questions about who pays and how much, along with any other consequences or constraints, follow. As requested, I've offered a choice for Council to make.

I don't see it that way. You can have payment per head without compulsory membership for clubs*, equally as the Bridge people do, you can have payment by game with membership.

As far as I can see, this is not on offer.

* you bill league and county associations according to the number of people taking part without identification as to who they are.

[Sean Hewitt]

Andrew - a question which you may or may not have the answer to and that is consequences. If an organisation does not pay game fee the whole event does not get graded. If, under the membership scheme outlined a number of people do not become members, what happens?

[Paul Sanders]

Did you consider ringfencing the income from junior membership and game fees, and creating a 'virtual organisation' within the ECF for it? An independent Junior section would have the advantage of making it clear to adult members that their money was not being diverted into things that are of no value to them. As a virtual organisation ECF Junior would also have a strong incentive to raise funds, and offer additional services to parents.

Its narrower focus might make it more successful at fund raising, and at marshalling the considerable energies of parents, which would I'd suggest benefit the ECF generally as much as it would the young players themselves.

I note that the document shows the independently run Junior Squad as a benefit of ECF membership - but fails to include the £10 p/a that the Squad charges for each member. I am not sure whether juniors need to be ECF members in order to join the Squad. Perhaps, as the Squad is not an ECF sponsored or run activity, and as its membership is organised entirely separately from ECF membership, it should be excluded as a benefit or service provided by the ECF.

[Krishna Shiatis]

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

As it would increase numbers tenfold, it would as you say have a considerable impact. Sixty years of junior development mean there are a lot of people out there who could and have played over the board chess at a reasonable level. Presumably they all had their reasons for abandoning competitive play.

The Fischer boom in 1972 increased numbers quite considerably, I wouldn't put it beyond a factor of 2 or 3 though. Clubs which struggled to field two six board teams found they could comfortably run five. Leagues expanded with extra divisions.

You need someone to count the players in old grading lists, with care to re-base it because in pre-computer days the qualification standards in terms of game count and event quality were higher.

[Alex Holowczak]

According to the people I've heard who run MOs (Sean Hewitt, John Wickham), they think it is. They have experience of both systems, and choose membership. They have the experience of administering both, so I think it's only right we should listen to them. They're far better positioned than you or I to comment.

You should remember that I recall the system pre-Game Fee where County Associations both exclusively paid for the BCF and had to do a certain amount of form filling and membership card chasing. All of which was abolished with Game Fee.

I do remember, you bring it up periodically.

Existing MOs aren't a particularly good example unless they practice the permission to play system as well. I don't believe either Leics or Norfolk demand ECF membership as a condition of participation. You could charge leagues on a per head basis instead of per game, you don't need individual membership as well.

One condition of the MOs is that the body with the MO must endeavour to get as many people to be members as is possible, and pay Game Fee for the rest. I have no idea whether or not this actually happens since I'm not involved with an MO.

In the South East anyway, I don't believe that the extra costs incurred with Game Fee of running additional events is any disincentive to participation. Finding players having the time and inclination to play additionally is the bigger problem.

The SCCU counties should have no complaints about finding enough chess players. Try moving up north.

If, as you say, the extra costs of Game Fee or otherwise aren't a disincentive, then neither will a Membership system. So what's the problem?

[Andrew Farthing]

You can have payment per head without compulsory membership for clubs*, equally as the Bridge people do, you can have payment by game with membership.

As far as I can see, this is not on offer.

* you bill league and county associations according to the number of people taking part without identification as to who they are.

Yes, there are a number of other possibilities. We could have just game fee without membership, but the vote at Council in October was unequivocal: they didn't want me to include a proposal to this effect.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew - a question which you may or may not have the answer to and that is consequences. If an organisation does not pay game fee the whole event does not get graded. If, under the membership scheme outlined a number of people do not become members, what happens?

I can't give a definitive answer, but my starting-point is: Under the membership scheme option, if you don't pay to be a member, your games don't get graded and you don't appear on the published grading list. The one stated exception is congresses, where the "Pay to play" option for non-members exists (£6 per event).

[Roger de Coverly]

If, under the membership scheme outlined a number of people do not become members, what happens?

The proposal says

• New players (i.e. ungraded) starting after 1 October would be allowed to play in graded League and Club competitions without having to become members (although they would be welcome to do so). Membership would be mandatory from the first full year.

It doesn't say how you enforce "mandatory".

Is it
(a) you bill the league or county association based on head count
(b) you exclude the game played by the non-members from grading
(c) you exclude the entire league from grading
(d) none of the above

I didn't really get a picture on how county matches would work. As non-club events is it the proposal that non-members pay £6 a match or is it £6 a season?

One condition of the MOs is that the body with the MO must endeavour to get as many people to be members as is possible, and pay Game Fee for the rest.

Exactly - MOs are examples of hybrid schemes rather than Universal ones.

If, as you say, the extra costs of Game Fee or otherwise aren't a disincentive, then neither will a Membership system. So what's the problem?

You are expecting clubs and counties to do a lot of extra work to introduce a scheme which potentially causes a financial disincentive to encouraging lapsed players to re-enter. In addition the scheme appears to be granting rights to the ECF to say whether someone can or cannot play in a graded competition.

[Andrew Farthing]

Did you consider ringfencing the income from junior membership and game fees, and creating a 'virtual organisation' within the ECF for it? An independent Junior section would have the advantage of making it clear to adult members that their money was not being diverted into things that are of no value to them. As a virtual organisation ECF Junior would also have a strong incentive to raise funds, and offer additional services to parents.

Its narrower focus might make it more successful at fund raising, and at marshalling the considerable energies of parents, which would I'd suggest benefit the ECF generally as much as it would the young players themselves.

The idea of changing the organisational structure has cropped up (e.g. Sean's suggestion re the VAT threshold; the possibility of hiving off the "charitable" side if there are tax benefits in doing so), so the concept isn't impossible.

My initial reaction is the concern that you end up with a rump of important and/or essential but unglamorous activities which no one wants to fund. I see this in my charity work, where we operate an Information & Advice service which is vital but notoriously intangible when it comes to quantifying its value. As a result, we find it much harder to find funding for than the other, more tangible services. Others in our field find the same. If it didn't exist, however, the gateway to the other services is adversely affected.

[Alex Holowczak]

One condition of the MOs is that the body with the MO must endeavour to get as many people to be members as is possible, and pay Game Fee for the rest.

Exactly - MOs are examples of hybrid schemes rather than Universal ones.

They're not, because if they're deemed to not be endeavouring for Universal membership, and just using it to get cheap membership rates for their county, then the MO gets terminated. If you're paying Game Fee, it's usually for fillers, and amount paid by most of the MO leagues is < £20.

If, as you say, the extra costs of Game Fee or otherwise aren't a disincentive, then neither will a Membership system. So what's the problem?

You are expecting clubs and counties to do a lot of extra work to introduce a scheme which potentially causes a financial disincentive to encouraging lapsed players to re-enter. In addition the scheme appears to be granting rights to the ECF to say whether someone can or cannot play in a graded competition.

Clubs and counties don't need to do a lot of extra work.

For example, my club. When you become a member of the club, you find out most of the information on the ECF membership form for your own purposes, simply to get in touch with your players. So you just need to use the existing information, and transfer the money to the ECF, rather than transferring it in the form of entry fees to the League in which you play. The same would work for leagues run by the county. I don't see why this is any more onerous than the current system. It should be up to local leagues to work out the method of collection which is best suited to them.

If you believe the ECF will be granted these rights, then Council has a vote to remove these rights by voting for the other option. So what's the problem if most people are happy to concede this perceived restriction?

[Andrew Farthing]

I wonder if multiple year subscription have been considered.
i.e. £20 per year £50 for three years £100 lifetime membership.

They exist at the moment for non-MO direct membership. In principle, the idea could apply to a universal membership scheme. It hasn't been specifically discussed.

The discount would have to carefully considered. I know you were just quoting figures to give an idea of how it would work, but £100 for a lifetime membership would be a tremendous bargain!

[Roger de Coverly]

Under the membership scheme option, if you don't pay to be a member, your games don't get graded and you don't appear on the published grading list.

So essentially leagues and counties will have three choices
(a) bite the bullet and ban non-members - has the advantage that all games will be graded and the disadvantage of putting off marginal players. Also bad news for team events as reducing the pool of available players increases the risk of a default.
(b) allow anyone to play and accept the potentially arbitrary nature of the resulting grades.
(c) follow the local Yorkshire leagues, leave the ECF and set up a private grading system.

[Roger de Coverly]

Clubs and counties don't need to do a lot of extra work.

Every 1st October, won't someone have to go round every potential individual participant in the league and demand £ 18 off them on pain that if they don't pay, they won't be allowed to play? Now try and raise a team for a match on the 2nd.

[Paul Sanders]

My initial reaction is the concern that you end up with a rump of important and/or essential but unglamorous activities which no one wants to fund. I see this in my charity work, where we operate an Information & Advice service which is vital but notoriously intangible when it comes to quantifying its value. As a result, we find it much harder to find funding for than the other, more tangible services. Others in our field find the same. If it didn't exist, however, the gateway to the other services is adversely affected.

Hence why a 'virtual organisation' is probably much better than a separate organisation - we already have many separate junior organisations, some quite successful, but many of them are of limited or no benefit to the ECF and almost all fail to provide a natural path from being a chess playing child to becoming an adult ECF member. Is this reflected in the membership data? It would be interesting to know if most adult members have 'come back to the ECF' rather than being continuously engaged as they go from junior to adult.

In my own business I try to follow a 'tiny steps in the right direction' approach, having seen many radical re-thinkings founder no matter how enlightened they seem on paper. I have also taken a lesson from my son, who recently accepted a draw in what was apparently a better position, because he could not see that by giving away part of his advantage he could have found a much stronger attack...