Adam Raoof wrote:I am a club secretary, what effect will compulsory membership have on my club?
Adam Raoof wrote: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 the SCA.
Can you change this toI am Welsh/Scottish/Irish - ...
as I am not aware how non British players are to be treated differently to British, non-English players.I am foreign - ...
David Pardoe wrote:Only Category `A` players (who are FIDE rated), to pay the top Gold rate....but should pay Silver, if not FIDE rated.
Neville Belinfante wrote:Hi Adam
This is a good thread. Please can you addCan you change this toI am Welsh/Scottish/Irish - ...as I am not aware how non British players are to be treated differently to British, non-English players.I am foreign - ...
I hope others give you a chance to formally respond rather than chipping in with their opinions.
PS More difficult questions to follow ;
Sean Hewitt wrote:Adam - has the board decided that implementing this policy decision falls in the domain of the Home Director?
Andrew Farthing wrote: It seems to me that the answers to the questions in general have been answered in the papers already published.
Andrew Farthing wrote:Sean Hewitt wrote:Adam - has the board decided that implementing this policy decision falls in the domain of the Home Director?
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.
Roger de Coverly wrote: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 Â£ 1 or Â£ 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 Farthing wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests