Practical Issues with Implementing ECF Membership

[Gary Cook]

For obvious reasons I attend every NCCL AGM and no one has ever asked me anything about the ECF that I haven't already raised.

If the players are disappointed they have never said anything to me - for those of them that read this I am always happy to listen.

But of course it wont matter soon since obviously an indivdual membership scheme will mean that each individual member will get a vote.

Gary

[Roger de Coverly]

But of course it wont matter soon since obviously an indivdual membership scheme will mean that each individual member will get a vote.

I hope you had the irony setting on, because individual votes are very certainly what are not on the table.

[Gary Cook]

So this a membership scheme that doesn't entitle you to be a member

[Gary Cook]

Joking aside - how exactly will votes be allocated in the brave (foolhardy?) new world?

At the moment the number of votes we get is directly propotional to the money we give the ECF

Gary

[Alex Holowczak]

Joking aside - how exactly will votes be allocated in the brave (foolhardy?) new world?

Unless something is changed at April's Finance Council Meeting; in exactly the same way.*

*Results will be counted differently in future, in that standardplay games count as 1 halfresult, and rapidplay games count as half a halfresult. This is a simplification from now. The general thrust is the same though.

[Gary Cook]

*Results will be counted differently in future, in that standardplay games count as 1 halfresult, and rapidplay games count as half a halfresult. This is a simplification from now. The general thrust is the same though.

And that means what mean? We get half the votes we had before, but then so does everyone else?

Gary

[Alex Holowczak]

*Results will be counted differently in future, in that standardplay games count as 1 halfresult, and rapidplay games count as half a halfresult. This is a simplification from now. The general thrust is the same though.

And that means what mean? We get half the votes we had before, but then so does everyone else?

Gary

No.

You get:
1-1,000 halfresults - 1 vote
1,001-2,000 halfresults - 2 votes etc.

The only change is how you count the halfresults. At the moment, a league-standardplay halfresult counts as 1 halfresult. In the future, it will still count as 1 halfresult. So there's no change to what your league gets.

If your league grades and pays for shed-load of club internal standardplay games, then these will count 1 in future, whereas they previously counted 1/3. So your total number of halfresults will increase, and so could your number of votes.

All of the other fractional rates will disappear. For example, a junior-only club-internal rapidplay result counted 1/12 of a halfresult.

[Roger de Coverly]

One option to put on the table could be to simply insist that all players have to be ECF members (doing away with the £1/£2 thing) and clubs simply provide proof that their players are ECF members by sending the membership numbers.

That's one of the solutions. If you consider that one of the primary objectives of a local association is to promote the playing of chess, I consider that preventing/banning players from taking part is the opposite of this objective. The second point is that if clubs (or county teams) have to rely on "guest" players from time to time either to make up team numbers or to try and entice casual players, then again this is prevented. At the very least you would expect more defaults or fewer teams to be run.

In the longer run, if you don't recruit new players to league chess, all clubs and leagues fold. I fail to see how a compulsory membership scheme increases the supply of new players viz a viz its absence.

(edit) I may have replied to a post that only fleetingly existed. But Laurie's proposal of a 100% closed shop is one that can be put on the table. I would rather hope locally that it would be rejected nem con, but perhaps it would have supporters.(/edit)

[Peter Turner]

The URGENT MESSAGE I wanted on the forum regarding Email scam now has its own topic thread.

[Gary Cook]

For the NCCL and maybe other places the basic fact is that if the players only play league chess (and I think this is majority) and they want a grade then they will join, if they don't then they will simply remove the clause in our rules that says games will be sent for grading and then continue to play chess.

The NCCL is in existance to serve the needs of its players not the ECF.

Gary

[Laurie Roberts]

One option to put on the table could be to simply insist that all players have to be ECF members (doing away with the £1/£2 thing) and clubs simply provide proof that their players are ECF members by sending the membership numbers.

That's one of the solutions. If you consider that one of the primary objectives of a local association is to promote the playing of chess, I consider that preventing/banning players from taking part is the opposite of this objective. The second point is that if clubs (or county teams) have to rely on "guest" players from time to time either to make up team numbers or to try and entice casual players, then again this is prevented. At the very least you would expect more defaults or fewer teams to be run.

In the longer run, if you don't recruit new players to league chess, all clubs and leagues fold. I fail to see how a compulsory membership scheme increases the supply of new players viz a viz its absence.

(edit) I may have replied to a post that only fleetingly existed. But Laurie's proposal of a 100% closed shop is one that can be put on the table. I would rather hope locally that it would be rejected nem con, but perhaps it would have supporters.(/edit)

Roger's quote was selective. I wasn't arguing for this. I simply said it was one option on the table that leagues like the one I am in would need to consider and therefore would not be more complex than the current system. I personally suspect that a membership fee won't put off / prevent as many players as you think. But we shall see (I deleted my original post simply because I had 2nd thoughts about getting involved in this debate. It's lengthy enough as it is!)

[Roger de Coverly]

I simply said it was one option on the table that leagues like the one I am in would need to consider and therefore would not be more complex than the current system.

Timing issues add complexity. If you allow matches to start before everyone is a signed up member, then someone has to get non-members signed up before the ECF Compliance visit. If as a match captain, you've spent many years trying to persuade people to turn out for matches, it's a culture shock to have to think in terms of preventing them.

[Louise Sinclair]

ECF Compliance visit

This sounds very Orwellian - are they going to bang on the doors of unregistered members lol
Louise

[Mick Norris]

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?

No, we already deal with more than 1, would dealing with a few more make it harder? Actually, we expect things to get easier

Maybe we are just cleverer than you? Or maybe too stupid to see the problems?

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe we are just cleverer than you? Or maybe too stupid to see the problems?

Someone sends you an entry form and payment without the extra £ 6. What do you do? They might quote you an ECF number but if it isn't on the current membership list what do you do then? They haven't told you which MO it might plausibly be through, so you have to guess and contact MOs in other parts of the country to find out whether the membership really is "in the post". It might even be valid in that it's paid through a local club, the local club treasurer has the money and the details but hasn't informed the local MO co-ordinator. Alternatively they declare that they aren't a silver member and send you the extra £ 6. Do you or the ECF know whether this is an upgrade payment or a non-member payment? Perhaps the player him or herself doesn't know as they may not have made a decision as to whether to play league chess in the new season.

Alan Walton's idea of the rights of membership lasting thirteen months is one practical suggestion.