English Chess Forum

I will edit this original post as we go along, or perhaps Carl can make it 'sticky' so it stays at the top of the thread?

I think that we need to answer the following questions for people; if you think I have missed one let me know and I will add to the list of questions, and post the proposed answers.

Who has to become a member of the English Chess Federation?

Who does not have to become a member of the ECF?

How do I become a member of the ECF?

Why do I have to become a member of the ECF?

I am a club secretary, what effect will universal membership have on my club?

I am an international (FIDE) tournament organiser, what effect will membership have on my event(s)

I am a rapidplay tournament organiser, what effect will membership have on my event(s)

I am a weekend congress tournament organiser, what effect will membership have on my event(s)

I am a County Match Captain, what effect will membership have on my team?

I am a county treasurer. How do I easily determine how much I owe the ECF each year?

I am a League Secretary, how will the ECF membership scheme affect me?

I don't belong to a chess club, but I play in graded chess tournaments, what effect will this have on me?

I am Welsh/Scottish/Irish - do I have to be a member of the ECF to play graded games in England?

I am an arbiter - do I have to be a member of the ECF?

I think the answer to this is that the current arrangements still apply - to be an ECF arbiter you must be a member of the ECF, just as to be a Scottish arbiter you must be a member of Chess Scotland. These arrangements are governed by the Chess Arbiters Association.

I am not from the UK - do I have to be a member of the ECF to play in tournaments?

I run exclusively junior (under 18 years of age) chess tournaments - do participants have to be ECF members to have the games graded?

_________________
Adam Raoof
FIDE International Organiser and Arbiter
Hampstead International Congresses - http://www.hampsteadchess.blogspot.co.uk
http://www.chessengland.com

Adam - has the board decided that implementing this policy decision falls in the domain of the Home Director?

Careful there Adam, your CEO is keen to deny compulsion. The official word is universal, is it not?

Adam - do you mean that to be an ECF arbiter you have to be a member of the BCF? Or do you mean that in Scotland you have to be a member of Chess Scotland?

_________________
http://www.chessscotland.com/scottishchampionship2012/

Hi Adam

This is a good thread. Please can you add

I am a club player who has not been a member before, but understand I have to become one. How do I join up?

I am a county treasurer. How do I easily determine how much I owe the ECF each year?

Can you change this to as I am not aware how non British players are to be treated differently to British, non-English players.

I hope others give you a chance to formally respond rather than chipping in with their opinions.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

PS More difficult questions to follow ;

Suggested Membership enhancements...
Category `C` & `D` players to pay no more than Bronze membership rate..
Category `B` players to pay no more than `Silver` rate.
Only Category `A` players (who are FIDE rated), to pay the top Gold rate....but should pay Silver, if not FIDE rated.

_________________
BRING BACK THE BCF

Yow. That would lead to players' not knowing with a week to go what membership category they need to have to enter a tournament. Not good.

_________________
http://westcountrychess.blogspot.com

I`m working on the premise that a players category for the coming season will be known when gradings are published at the start of August each year.
Suggesting that only `A` Category players should pay the full Gold rate, if they decide to play in FIDE rated events.

_________________
BRING BACK THE BCF

I think we need to treat British players slightly differently to foreign players, at least in theory. Home Nation players may be subject to a mutual agreement - or they may not.

_________________
Adam Raoof
FIDE International Organiser and Arbiter
Hampstead International Congresses - http://www.hampsteadchess.blogspot.co.uk
http://www.chessengland.com

The responsibility for implementing the funding proposals is mine, calling upon the resources of the Board and other officials as necessary.

The Directors' and Officers' Responsibilities Regulations make it clear that the Chief Executive "is accountable to the Board and to the Council for the achievement by the Board of all plans." In this particular instance, I am influenced by the following considerations:

(i) The importance to the success of the project of the Management Services function (i.e. the office), which falls directly under my responsibility;

(ii) The role of the IT Manager, who comes under my responsibility, in the development and implementation of the online membership solution;

(iii) My experience of overseeing and managing projects of varying degrees of size and complexity;

(iv) The fact that I am prepared to commit additional time to the project over the course of the next 11 months (and don't have a day job so have more scope to do this than most).

Technically, the Directors' and Officers' Responsibilities Regulations indicate that the Director of Finance "Develops the ECF approach to membership (of all types), membership fees (including Game Fee) and benefits (including grading and representation) attaching to membership. Consults with Unions, Counties, Leagues and Congresses to ensure that plans are seen as feasible and can be implemented successfully." In practice, the Director of Finance has a full-time day job and would not be able to undertake work on this scale. Shifting it upwards to the Chief Executive is therefore the logical solution.

I have mixed feelings about this thread at this particular time. It seems to me that the answers to the questions in general have been answered in the papers already published. At a more detailed practical level, inevitably there will be points which will be clarified more fully as the project proceeds, but the answers will not be available now. If I come across as unresponsive for a while, it will be because I'm concentrating on sorting out the necessary immediate post-AGM actions and preparing the details of the project plan for the next 11 months. To do this effectively, I need some space to tackle issues in the order that best suits the project, and this may mean that you will need to be patient on specific points for which you want to know the answer at once.

I shall communicate as openly as possible about progress, but I need to be able to do this within the context of a structured plan.

Three papers have been published, all saying different things. That's not to mention issues hinted at in meetings. Here's one for example. The original paper implied that ungraded players who played three games or under a year would not have to become members with the implication that no financial payments would be due to the ECF. In the version supposedly voted through by the AGM, the financial payment would be a Game Fee of £ 1 or £ 2 per head. Or would it? Attendees at the AGM thought they heard mention that it would be free again.

Leagues are going to have to consider the extent to which they frame rules which ban non-members from playing for financial reasons. A three game concession makes a difference to how stringent the rules need to be.

Andrew - thanks for your reply.

I too had mixed feelings about this topic, hence asking the question! Your reply contained all the answers I expected and hoped for and, far from appearing unresponsive, it gives me a degree of comfort that the implementation will be properly managed.

I would have thought that it was obvious that the earlier papers were part of the process of shaping the proposals, i.e. consultation, and that the latest papers provided to the AGM were the statement of what was voted on.

The position re ungraded players is as set out in the AGM papers, i.e. if they are not ECF members, their results will be liable for Game Fee (as now). The significance of the threshold to which you refer is that ungraded players under the threshold would not be counted when working out whether 85% of the players were ECF members. In other words, the threshold potentially influences the rate of Game Fee applicable, not whether any Game Fee at all is payable.

I did try to make this clear at the AGM when I realised from a comment made during the meeting that at least one person had misunderstood.

There were no amendments agreed at the AGM to the proposals set out in the AGM papers, so these are a reliable statement of what we intend to implement. As was made clear in the papers and at the meeting, it will be Finance Council in April which sets the rates for membership subscriptions and Game Fee, although the Board presented a paper setting out what it intends to propose. As we have seen in the past, Finance Council may vote for something quite different.

Supporters of the plans should know what they involve and can therefore fill in the answers to Adam's questions. I believe I know most of them, but I would struggle to find anything positive to say. Let the membership enthusiasts have a go first.

Want to say a quick "Well Done!" to the ECF for taxing every possible future chessplayer- great!

_________________
http://markhowitt.blogspot.com