ECF Funding

[Sean Hewitt]

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!

Maybe. Depends on how long you live.

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

Simple answer: No

The 1st October is not the deadline for everyone to become a member by, as I read it. The membership season runs until 30th September. So if you become a member on January 15th, for argument's sake, you'll be a member until 30th September. This is reasonable: You might only get a player join your club on January 14th! In reality, such a payment could easily be tied to the membership subscription you pay at your club.

Anyway, I shouldn't be answering these questions. Ask Sean or John Wickham. They know what they're talking about since they implement such schemes!

[David Shepherd]

Is the ECF using the VAT flat rate scheme - paying over 8.5% of the gross income (assuming below £150K limit) and if not would it be of benefit?

Did this get answered?

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

We already know that the proliferation of local membership schemes makes calculation of Game Fee far more onerous than it needs to be. A membership system that's compulsory is far more mission critical particularly if leagues and congresses feel obliged to have rules banning non-members.

A central system which required individuals to go to an ECF financial website to renew their membership would be simpler than local collection and an option which didn't exist twenty years ago. Given the ECF's record with IT projects, it isn't necessarily feasible.

[Krishna Shiatis]

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.....

It is interesting that you mention the Fischer boom. I do believe that it is very relevant here when looking at the 'bigger picture'. Finance and the future of the ECF are very much inter-linked.

Why did the Fischer boom increase numbers?

Possible reasons might be:

1) It brought chess to the attention of the average man and into his living room via the media. (TV and neswpapers)
2) Suddenly, people believed that the monopoly of the Russians could be broken. There was opportunities for others to succeed in chess.
3) People realised that chess was an affordable hobby.
4) More people began to realise that chess was fun.
5) Chess became 'cool' for a little while in the eyes of the 'average' man (whoever he is).

I am sure that everyone can think of many more reasons. Perhaps we should have a go at re-creating some of that in today's world, where media is an even more powerful concept than ever.

We do have some dashing and cool GMs/IMs who could easily take the place of Bobby in 'celebrity' terms. I think that 'Nigel's tour' was an excellent idea, we just need to expand this and do more. I do not think that Nigel lost money on the tour (please do correct me if I am wrong?), yet it raised awareness. These are the kind of initiatives which need to be looked at and pushed forward.

An overall plan/strategy at the top levels will fix many of the finance problems at the lower levels because more people will want to play chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

We already know that the proliferation of local membership schemes makes calculation of Game Fee far more onerous than it needs to be. A membership system that's compulsory is far more mission critical particularly if leagues and congresses feel obliged to have rules banning non-members.

But if we're getting rid of Game Fee, it won't throw this confusion into the mix. Indeed, that's pretty much the point of these proposal: A system of payment that's easy to administer, so we don't have to spend so much time/money administering it.

The ECF don't appear to have a rule banning non-members under this proposal. If local leagues want such rules, that's their business.

A central system which required individuals to go to an ECF financial website to renew their membership would be simpler than local collection and an option which didn't exist twenty years ago...

Of course, you're right, but...

...Given the ECF's record with IT projects, it isn't necessarily feasible.

...don't be facetious.

[Ian Kingston]

One thing that is in danger of being overlooked as we once again rehearse all the arguments for and against compulsory membership (has anyone not read them all five or six times previously? Can we stop now please?) is that Option 2 involves a substantial increase in game fee. When membership was last a hot topic, it was a case of choosing between change or carrying on as before. The situation is different now. While Option 2 looks like business as usual, it's definitely not.

I've got a sneaky feeling that GF1 would be chosen because most of the extra cost falls on juniors, who don't tend to attend the meetings at which these things are decided. Do we really want to be discouraging junior participation in this way? I would prefer GF2, if only to bring home to people that if they want a functional ECF they're going to have to pay for it - one way or another.

[Roger de Coverly]

The 1st October is not the deadline for everyone to become a member by, as I read it. The membership season runs until 30th September. So if you become a member on January 15th, for argument's sake, you'll be a member until 30th September. This is reasonable: You might only get a player join your club on January 14th! In reality, such a payment could easily be tied to the membership subscription you pay at your club.

I'm not disagreeing about new members - it's renewals I'm commenting on. Are you expecting counties or clubs on the 1st October to collect and send to the ECF £18 for every person who has a grade and who they expect to play in their events in the new season, assuming they can sort out who handles national membership where you have overlapping leagues and clubs? MO collections aren't mission critical because Game Fee picks up the slack if you don't collect or the payment bounces.

[Alex Holowczak]

One thing that is in danger of being overlooked as we once again rehearse all the arguments for and against compulsory membership (has anyone not read them all five or six times previously? Can we stop now please?) is that Option 2 involves a substantial increase in game fee. When membership was last a hot topic, it was a case of choosing between change or carrying on as before. The situation is different now. While Option 2 looks like business as usual, it's definitely not.

I've got a sneaky feeling that GF1 would be chosen because most of the extra cost falls on juniors, who don't tend to attend the meetings at which these things are decided. Do we really want to be discouraging junior participation in this way? I would prefer GF2, if only to bring home to people that if they want a functional ECF they're going to have to pay for it - one way or another.

I guess new forumites may be unfamiliar with them. We may generate extra traffic in light of the proposal, so anonymous people will start reading. I find at Council meetings, those who don't read the forum often ask the same questions that came up on here prior to the meeting. So I guess it's worth it.

My preference is G1 and M1 purely for simplicity.

[Alex Holowczak]

The 1st October is not the deadline for everyone to become a member by, as I read it. The membership season runs until 30th September. So if you become a member on January 15th, for argument's sake, you'll be a member until 30th September. This is reasonable: You might only get a player join your club on January 14th! In reality, such a payment could easily be tied to the membership subscription you pay at your club.

I'm not disagreeing about new members - it's renewals I'm commenting on. Are you expecting counties or clubs on the 1st October to collect and send to the ECF £18 for every person who has a grade and who they expect to play in their events in the new season, assuming they can sort out who handles national membership where you have overlapping leagues and clubs? MO collections aren't mission critical because Game Fee picks up the slack if you don't collect or the payment bounces.

Actually, I don't know what to expect. It isn't a given that counties or leagues to do anything, per se. Club treasurers could do it. That solves the "What if you play in more than one league?" question, but doesn't solve the "What if you play in more than one league for more than one team?" I think that question is far easier to solve.

I think the important thing is that it would be up to the local organisers to decide the best means of collection amongst themselves - after all, they'll probably be the ones doing the collecting. If there was one blanket rule for this, then some areas would be disadvantaged.

[Roger de Coverly]

A system of payment that's easy to administer, so we don't have to spend so much time/money administering it.

If by we, you mean the ECF then yes, but it's imposing extra costs on clubs and counties. You still have to establish membership status to make the non-grading sanction work and to collect the extra £ 6 for congresses.

I still think that you (as in the ECF) should compare like with like

Costs of collecting Game Fee from a couple of hundred organisations
against
Costs of collecting Individual Memberships from ten thousand or more individuals

without assuming that organisations will do the work of chasing ten thousand people for you for nothing.

[Andrew Farthing]

Is the ECF using the VAT flat rate scheme - paying over 8.5% of the gross income (assuming below £150K limit) and if not would it be of benefit?

Did this get answered?

Sorry, I missed it.

The Finance Director refers to the 20% rate, so I assume that the flat rate scheme is not being used. As to whether it would be a benefit, I'd have to refer to the Finance Director.

[Sean Hewitt]

Is the ECF using the VAT flat rate scheme - paying over 8.5% of the gross income (assuming below £150K limit) and if not would it be of benefit?

David - The ECF accounts show turnover in excess of £300k pa and so on the face of it would not be eligible for the flat rate scheme.

[Roger de Coverly]

David - The ECF accounts show turnover in excess of £300k pa and so on the face of it would not be eligible for the flat rate scheme.

The turnover includes the entry fees and income to the British Championship Congress and income and expenses of international junior participation. If you are able to remove these into separate accounts, then you are down to around or below the £ 150k mark. Not that I know what the flat rate VAT scheme is or how it might work.

[Roger de Coverly]

Looking at option 2, the membership with Game Fee approach, there are some questions, the answers to which don't appear to be in the summary.

What rights, if any, do leagues and other events have to get grading services for nothing when various levels of members participate?

A practical difference between Standard and Patron is that you get the Year Book and the Diary. Anything else? Everyone gets Chess Moves?

What is the difference between Basic and Standard?