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 12:15 am

Louise Sinclair wrote:Refuse to pay the fines and go to the press giving bad publicity to the ECF
Louise
The ECF from September 2012 onwards will be relying on income from memberships to replace income from Game Fee. The problem is that the ECF is short of reserves, so would struggle if it faced a prolonged stand off against reluctant potential members. Whilst the BCF's Permanent Invested Fund and the John Robinson Trust have , if not millions, small hundreds of thousands at their disposal, it's less clear whether the ECF can call on these amounts.

I don't envy the task of whoever has to draw up the budget for the 2012 Finance Council. This will have to disclose just how optimistic or pessimistic the ECF is being on retaining players and leagues and collecting £ 6 per head for non members in Congresses and £1 /£2 for non members in leagues under their membership regime. The interim test will be whether the ECF can produce a satisfactory set of accounts for 2010-11, not least detailing where it raised money and who it raised it from.
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

E Michael White
Posts: 1420
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by E Michael White » Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:21 am

For non payers the grading formula could be changed to +25 for a win and -87 for a loss.

Dragoljub Sudar
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:34 pm

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Dragoljub Sudar » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:11 am

That'll suit tournament sharks very nicely as they'll not bother becoming members and will have to lose fewer games to keep their grades down.

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 8:52 am

It is my opinion that chess players would not necessarily appear stingy but will looking as though they are taking a stand against the "money collectors". These days life is full of those who want just a little extra money from BT who levy a charge when you settle a quarterly bill and Transport for London who charge a tax just to drive into the west end.
Many players are struggling enough in the current economic climate and clubs are not growing larger but shrinking in size.Our league has lost several clubs because they have folded partly due to the rising costs of hiring premises.Take into account the rise of internet chess and there is a situation where the ECF could end up raising less revenue from the grass roots.
I grant that a number of chess players are known for being tight with their cash regardless of circumstances but there is a certain amount of resentment directed at the ECF due to it's enthusiasm for taking money from people and offering little in return - it is not seen as value for money by many players.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

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 10:21 am

Ernie
I agree there is no such thing as a free lunch in life. We are financially secure and my hobby of collecting jewellery costs more then £12 a year.Whatever my sins I am usually accused of extravagance rather then frugality. However looking at reality - many people are losing their jobs and living on the breadline. Another point to consider is that individual players will decide that if they are financing the ECF they should be entitled to vote on policy.
As a league official I see no reason why the leagues should act as an unpaid tax collector for the ECF.
Leagues are run by volunteers and it is often difficult to fill posts because people are busy many may feel that the job of collecting money for the ECF is the proverbial straw.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

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 10:46 am

Ernie Lazenby wrote: I am sure that if the national grading system was out sourced to a private company we would end up paying more.

I think that's actually unlikely, if it was possible to replicate the current set up. Most of grading is financed by the unpaid work of volunteers who make available their data management and other computer skills for next to nothing. The amounts raised by the ECF go mostly to paying for the office in Battle who spend little or no time on grading. Don't you remember the time, nearly fifteen years ago when the office employed a grading administrator? She was very good at it and masked some usability problems with the underlying software. Sadly the replacement wasn't and nearly wrecked the grading system and with it the BCF. Since then most of the tasks of running the grading system and communicating with local organisers have been kept away from the office.

In the longer run, whenever the ECF runs out of money, it's going to surcharge the £ 12. So Cleveland may be enthusiastic about membership at £ 12 a head, but what if it was £ 27?

Parts of Yorkshire and North West England have run leagues without being part of national grading for nearly twenty years.

In many other sports, not least table tennis, those taking part in those leagues would have been prohibited from playing in competitions outside of their local areas years ago. I don't think I want to advocate this for chess, but it's a direction that the logic of universal or compulsory membership takes you.

The argument runs like this. You can only have compulsory membership if you have a monopoly because otherwise you will be undercut by bodies not having the expenses of a national body. So you take steps to prevent competition. Once you have been given the right by compulsory membership to deny membership to individuals, then you use this right to remove from membership anyone taking part in unauthorised events, thus enforcing your monopoly.

In London, leagues are competing against each other for club and player interest. So if the LCCL were to emulate Cleveland and demand a £ 5 per head fee for every player taking part, that would very likely turn into a strategy for closing down their league.

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 10:53 am

Louise Sinclair wrote: As a league official I see no reason why the leagues should act as an unpaid tax collector for the ECF.
Leagues are run by volunteers and it is often difficult to fill posts because people are busy many may feel that the job of collecting money for the ECF is the proverbial straw.
Someone will no doubt say that collecting Game Fee for the ECF is acting as a tax collector for the ECF. Which it is, but there's a difference in degree of workload in collecting a known entry fee from clubs and making a once a year payment to the ECF, with chasing clubs or individuals for amounts itemised by player. This is denied by the membership advocates of course.

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 11:07 am

Ernie Lazenby wrote: I am not a fan of the ECF or much of the current board however I am happy to pay £12 to get my games graded and on average I play over 30 a season.
Membership gives players of your activity level a price cut. Under Game Fee thirty games at 58p would cost £ 17.40. This is paid for by those who play fewer games, so 10 games at 58p costs £ 5.80 which increases to £ 12 (or greater). Apart from the general aggravation downside, the concept of MOs hasn't been popular in the South because we see quite clearly that it represents a partial transfer of "paying for the ECF" from the more active players to the less active.

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 11:20 am

Ernie Lazenby wrote: We are dealing with the here and now and £12 is a very good deal for the vast majority of players.

Did you notice that the ECF were unable to present a coherent set of accounts at the AGM? What little that was made public suggested that the outrun for 2010-11 wasn't nearly as good as expected. If £ 12 per head becomes the ECF's main method of funding, it has to bear the brunt of additional funding that the ECF needs or wants to raise.

Ernie Lazenby wrote:. I considered an option would be to have our local grader give them a grade for local purposes thus removing the requirement to be an ECF member if they did not want to be so
That's purely your local rules. Under Game Fee and for that matter under MOs, there was no compulsion from the ECF to be a member. The ECF considered your MO efforts to recruit membership sufficient if you reached an 85% threshold. So apart from your local rules, there was nothing in the ECF rules to prevent the games being graded for whatever the then amount of game Fee. That's the same as the new scheme except the ECF want to demand £ 2 a head per game for non-members. When Game Fee was around the 50p mark, you might have had how many, twenty, perhaps games played by non-members. That would have cost your association about £ 10, so less than one membership.

Paul Cooksey

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Paul Cooksey » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:21 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Louise Sinclair wrote:As a league official I see no reason why the leagues should act as an unpaid tax collector for the ECF
Someone will no doubt say that collecting Game Fee for the ECF is acting as a tax collector for the ECF.
I may be easy to predict, but it still a very important point. I think it is much healthier for players to know they are paying £12, and to have the opportunity to complain about it if they think it is too much, than for them to be silently bled by game fee.
Roger de Coverly wrote:Which it is, but there's a difference in degree of workload in collecting a known entry fee from clubs and making a once a year payment to the ECF, with chasing clubs or individuals for amounts itemised by player. This is denied by the membership advocates of course.
Indeed. It is easy to deny. The ECF Board is advocating universal membership. If a league supports them and insists all players are members, the league does not need to get involved in collecting memberships or game fees. It is much simpler.

Under pressure from those who did not support universal membership, the ECF allowed game fee to continue. But it seems to me a league that gets a compromise allowing it not to do what the ECF wants, but complains that the compromise is too hard for it to administer, is trying to have its cake and eat it.

Paul Cooksey

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Paul Cooksey » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:29 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Ernie Lazenby wrote: I am sure that if the national grading system was out sourced to a private company we would end up paying more.
I think that's actually unlikely, if it was possible to replicate the current set up. Most of grading is financed by the unpaid work of volunteers who make available their data management and other computer skills for next to nothing.
I agree with Roger on this point. In the pre-home PC age grading was doubtless a difficult undertaking. But not today. Really the only challenge is keeping the data clean, and volunteer grades do most of this work.

But I disagree with the argument that the ECF is exploiting its monopoly over grading to extort money. Monopolies form in governing bodies not because of abuse of power, but to ensure consistent standards. The ECFs function is only partly to calculate the grade, it is also to ensure only events with good standards are graded.

(For example, without the ECF, I could lose 40 points in the Cox Green Lane Chess League against my neighbours cat, and start winning majors...)

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 11:32 am

Ernie Lazenby wrote: Another observation: its a strange situation whereby the national grader gets paid for his work however the local graders who do most of the collating are volunteers.
Why is it strange? Processing the grading correctly is one of the most mission critical aspects of the ECF's work. Get it wrong and the ECF starts to collapse. We saw it over ten years ago with the BCF. The low point was when the July 2000 list was first issued with only six months' worth of results. There was even a suggestion that the BCF give up on grading and outsource the whole setup to FIDE.

I'm not going to say that local graders are obsolete, but the spread of tournament and league management software has made the data manipulation parts of the work much less onerous.

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 11:32 am

he ECF Board is advocating universal membership. If a league supports them and insists all players are members,
That is not an action I would feel comfortable with - supporting the ECF to the degree of making it compulsory for all players to be members is too high handed for my liking.
Also we have no guarantee that the proposed fee would remain at £12. Looking ahead I could see this fee rapidly increasing to support the ECF and it's expenses.
Louise
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment.
' you turn if you want. The lady's not for turning'

Paul Cooksey

Re: Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

Post by Paul Cooksey » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:41 am

Louise Sinclair wrote:
Paul Cooksey wrote:The ECF Board is advocating universal membership. If a league supports them and insists all players are members,
That is not an action I would feel comfortable with - supporting the ECF to the degree of making it compulsory for all players to be members is too high handed for my liking. Also we have no guarantee that the proposed fee would remain at £12. Looking ahead I could see this fee rapidly increasing to support the ECF and it's expenses. Louise
The ECF votes on membership fees, in the same way it votes on game fees. I think increases in a membership fee, that players see and understand, will be more controversial than the quiet increases in game fee have been in recent years.

I would much prefer to elect ECF officials directly, but the ECF Council is representative. I don't see any region saying they think fees should go up. Who would vote for it? Frankly if a league thinks £5 is as much as the ECF should charge, there is a vote in April.

We had an overwhelming victory for membership as the "How" the ECF should collect. But "How much" has always been a separate question.

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 11:48 am

Paul Cooksey wrote: (For example, without the ECF, I could lose 40 points in the Cox Green Lane Chess League against my neighbours cat, and start winning majors...)

The BCF's individual membership scheme from about 1990 onwards did in fact offer unlimited grading as a benefit. In the run up to the introduction to Game Fee, it was by no means clear that all leagues or Congresses would fall into line. The membership benefit was that if you played in an ungraded league or Congress, your own personal games could be graded. The benefit is, or perhaps was, still there, but is now confined to games outside England and for pre notified events only.

The BCF had to abandon it for domestic games as it was speculated that consistent winners of grade restricted tournaments could or were using it as a device for grade management.

Scottish and Welsh players can get their English results included in their Scots or Welsh rating as a benefit of membership.
Paul Cooksey wrote: We had an overwhelming victory for membership as the "How" the ECF should collect.
I don't think 70-30 counts as overwhelming. Had it been treated as a constitutional change, it wouldn't even have passed.