Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:49 pm

Louise Sinclair wrote: It is not the job of the leagues to pressurise players regardless of respect or lack of it for an organisation.
I'm sure the ECF can speak for itself, but I rather think the ECF CEO believes it is your job.

After all he writes
C15.13.1 wrote:The cooperation of clubs, leagues, congresses and other organisations in maximising the take-up of ECF membership is vital.
In earlier drafts of the membership proposal, it was going to be the denial of a national grade which was going to be the membership enforcer. As they didn't want to discourage chess (!), they didn't do the obvious solution of removing games played by non-members from grading result files, instead they proposed to not publish grades for non-members. It was pointed out that grades would be leaked and so they came up with the idea of fining leagues and counties instead.

That's why leagues whether they like it or not are going to have to vote on the imposition of restrictions on whether non-members are allowed to play chess in their leagues. You might come up with something convoluted such as
Non members are only permitted to play at most 3 games each in the league and are restricted in total to 10 games per club per team per season.
.

The point of the three games is to take advantage of
C15.13.1 wrote:Ungraded players, therefore, will be allowed to play up to 3 games a year in graded league, club or county competition without having to be an ECF member and without counting towards the percentage of non-members applied to calculate the Game Fee payment set out in section (a) above.
This restricts it to ungraded players, but the Rates proposal (yet to be approved) words it more generously as
C15.13.4 wrote: (1)for League and Club games where not less than 85% of the competitors playing in the League/competition in question are Direct Members the respective rates shall be reduced to £1 per game for Standard graded games and £0.50 per game for Rapidplay graded games and in calculating the figure of 85% competitors who are not Direct Members who play not more than three games in the League per season/competition shall not be counted.
The point of restricting the games to ten is that it caps the league's cost at £ 10 per team per club.

In practice you might have the headroom between 100% and 85% to allow more than three appearances by non-members. The £ 1 Game Fee is still going to leave you with a probable need to ration non member appearances, to cap your expenditure.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:10 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: But as I understand it today, the real members of the ECF, such as leagues, are given votes according to the amount of game fee they collect. Leagues are already collecting money to be part of the Federation.
That is indeed the case this year, but won't be true next year. Congresses for some time have been allowed votes without being responsible for collecting much of the money. Under the new scheme, the only Congresses collecting much money for the ECF are likely to be the non-international Congresses such as Blackpool and Scarborough who attract non-members (Scots in particular) .Counties and Leagues next year will retain their voting rights if they continue to submit games for grading. No constitutional changes were made to hand any effective voting power to players or representatives of players. So Council could happily vote through a £ 24 membership charge, secure in the knowledge that the organisations they represented would not have any direct responsibility to pay it. Under Game Fee it's the organisation not the players who get the bill from the ECF.

Louise Sinclair
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:29 am
Location: London

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Louise Sinclair » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:34 pm

I'm sure the ECF can speak for itself, but I rather think the ECF CEO believes it is your job
Maybe the CEO does believe this but delusions of grandeur are often part of being a CEO
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Ian Kingston » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:08 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:I don't see it as Game Fee v membership anyway. It's about compulsion against free choice and pay by head against pay by event or a hybrid.
It doesn't matter how you (or I or anyone else) see it - the basic question has been settled. Council has voted for a membership scheme and we now have to wait for the details of that scheme. Given that the existing MOs don't seem to have found their version of membership all that difficult to implement, I suspect that a national scheme will also be much less troublesome than some are suggesting.

I do think your point about the difficulties for congresses that take place during and shortly after the renewal period is a real issue. A simple solution would be to accept entries based on valid membership at a given date, even if membership has lapsed by the time of the event.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1394
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Alan Walton » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:22 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:I do think your point about the difficulties for congresses that take place during and shortly after the renewal period is a real issue. A simple solution would be to accept entries based on valid membership at a given date, even if membership has lapsed by the time of the event.
I would consider something like this

Annual Memberships always lapses on 31st August for example, but you have a months grace in getting your renewal to the ECF (30th Sept), if you miss this renewal date then you become a non-member on the 31st October, and are then charged the £6 non-member fee for congresses after the 31st October

If you become a member after the 31st Oct, you are still charge the annual rate, and this still expires on the 31st August

Therefore you are still a valid member for congresses played in September/October, but not November and after

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:39 pm

Ian Kingston wrote:Council has voted for a membership scheme and we now have to wait for the details of that scheme.
You are telling us that Council have voted for a scheme that they don't know the details of. Do you really think that's a satisfactory way for the ECF to run its affairs?
Ian Kingston wrote:Given that the existing MOs don't seem to have found their version of membership all that difficult to implement,
They have caused problems to Congresses who don't really know who are members and who aren't. But I think we are still waiting for answers as to how MOs deal with the non-member and residual Game Fee issues. We know, or I think we know, that Cleveland just ban non-members from playing chess. What about other MOs?

In fact the ECF's scheme is, I think, trying to abolish MOs in favour of a straight national membership approach. Already it's taken away the MOs' Congress and international concessions.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10329
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:44 pm

The MCF Autumn Congress is the first weekend in September

We dealt with ECF and NMS members fine this year and will do next too

If we were that concerned, we could simply move the date :wink:

The MCF Treasurer finds game fee a nightmare with the Manchester League, and we expect membership to make his job easier

If you look for problems, you will find them; if you look for solutions, you will find them too
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:55 pm

Mick Norris wrote: We dealt with ECF and NMS members fine this year and will do next too
If you had to deal with around twenty possible MOs, would that make a difference? I was thinking of events like Paignton and to a lesser extent the Leamington rapid-play which attract entrants from all over the country. Under the new rules, they will be expected to charge £ 6 per non-member and £ 6 per Bronze member, so the financial penalties of poor data are that much greater.

At the moment you don't have to charge anything extra for NMS members. Under the ECF's scheme, you will, unless they are signed by NMS as Silver.
Mick Norris wrote: The MCF Treasurer finds game fee a nightmare with the Manchester League, and we expect membership to make his job easier
You've already told us why as well. It's because of all the MO people demanding exemption from Game Fee and not really knowing before the start of the season how many players will or won't be members and how many games they will play. It's a problem that will be extended to every league unless they ban or severely restrict non-members.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Sean Hewitt » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:59 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:...so they came up with the idea of fining leagues and counties instead.
I can't get over the supreme irony of game fee's biggest supporter describing game fee as a fine. :lol:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:16 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: I can't get over the supreme irony of game fee's biggest supporter describing game fee as a fine.
I don't see it that way. From the point of view of a league you want to know at the start of the season what payment it will make to the ECF for Council membership and grading. It remains my opinion that the ECF should be indifferent as to who actually plays in the league. Any number of calculation methods are possible, one of which is to multiply the number of games expected to be played by an amount per game. You could get a similar result by applying a formula, as they do in Scotland, based on the number of boards per team.

If the ECF declines to implement a constitutional change to abolish Game Fee and instead nearly quadruples the amount as a means of penalising leagues for allowing non-members to play, I think the term fine is quite appropriate. If the ECF had the courage to make its changes by sweeping the Game Fee regulations out of existence, then it would have to call the £ 2 per head per non member charge something else. In fact neither versions 1 and 2 of the Farthing proposals refer to the similar £ 6 charge to Congresses as Game Fee so it was produced like a rabbit from a hat as a means of avoiding a 75% vote.

Gary Cook
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Gary Cook » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:00 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: Leagues are already collecting money to be part of the Federation.
Certainly wrong in my league, we collect money from the clubs for their player's games to be graded. No more, no less.

Gary

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:09 pm

Gary Cook wrote: Certainly wrong in my league, we collect money from the clubs for their player's games to be graded. No more, no less.
You should get a vote or two on the ECF Council and the right for a representative to attend, speak and vote at the ECF Council meeting. Perhaps you just assign these rights to the county associations of Middlesex, Essex or Herts or to another local league.

The North Circular League is listed as having one vote on the voting register
http:/ http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... gister.doc

Gary Cook
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:09 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Gary Cook » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:32 pm

The fact we get a vote is not why we collect Game Fee for the ECF.

I have never yet attended an ECF meeting on behalf of the NCCL, I have occasionally sent my proxy back, but no matter whether I did attend or use the proxy it would be my personal opinion I was using in my voting intention, not of the individual players in the league - there is no way I would know what they wanted me to do or how to get past the obvious contradictory views.

One other thought - If we did collect the membership scheme for the players would I assume they were all bronze? How would I know who wanted the other metals? Would the ECF expect me to ask every player indivdually?

Gary

Paul Cooksey

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Paul Cooksey » Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:58 pm

Gary Cook wrote:I have never yet attended an ECF meeting on behalf of the NCCL, I have occasionally sent my proxy back, but no matter whether I did attend or use the proxy it would be my personal opinion I was using in my voting intention, not of the individual players in the league - there is no way I would know what they wanted me to do or how to get past the obvious contradictory views.
I don't play in the NCCL. If I did. I'd be annoyed. By contrast:
Mick Norris wrote: (snip) You keep criticising those of us who gave up our time to go

I hope you understand that some of us:

- read all the paperwork when it was posted on the ECF website (for both the ECF and BCF meetings, including the officers reports)
- read it all again when we downloaded and printed it out
- read it all again on the train journeys to the meeting
- read it all again on the way back
- consulted the governing body we represent (which in the case of the MCF which is a federation of clubs, is Council)
- gave individual members a chance to give their views on our Forum (which no-one did)
- consulted specialists in particular areas (e.g the post of Junior Director) to gauge their views
- asked for the views of those organisations for whom we held proxies

In other words, take it pretty seriously

If you don't feel that your delegate(s) did this, then I am sorry, and you need to bring that up with the relevant delegate(s) and/or the Congress/League/Union/Constituent Unit or whatever

You may feel that those not your delegate did not exercise their mandate, but I do get brassed off with criticism
Apologies to Mick for taking his comments out of context. But I'm vexed.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:05 pm

Gary Cook wrote:One other thought - If we did collect the membership scheme for the players would I assume they were all bronze? How would I know who wanted the other metals? Would the ECF expect me to ask every player indivdually?
I would imagine the answers to be Bronze initially and yes, you would have to ask the players or their clubs. That of itself adds an extra level of complexity to the administration of MOs not currently present. The ECF have a proposition that if a Bronze member plays in a Congress, then the six pounds extra charged by the Congress would upgrade them to Silver. Presumably they expect the Battle office to pick this up and process it rather than the MO.The same presumably applying to the fifteen pounds extra to play in a FIDE rated event.
Gary Cook wrote:there is no way I would know what they wanted me to do or how to get past the obvious contradictory views.


County associations expect their Council rep to attend the AGM or Exec meeting and put a item about ECF issues on the Agenda, so that views can be sought. I agree that if half the meeting want A and the other half , not A, you have a problem.