English Chess Forum

A home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:19 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:55 am 
Roger de Coverly wrote:
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.
I think it is, but I won't quibble :) . I was really just trying to make the point that "How" and "How much" are separate questions.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:00 pm 
Roger de Coverly wrote:
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 - you're plain wrong. I know you don't like to let the facts get in the way of your unwavering support of game fee but as Ernie plays some of his games in congresses, he will be required to purchase silver rather than bronze membership. Despite the fact that membership will cost him more, he supports it.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Posts: 3169
Location: Harwood, Greater Manchester
Roger de Coverly wrote:
I don't think 70-30 counts as overwhelming. Had it been treated as a constitutional change, it wouldn't even have passed.


The ECF Council meeting I was at voted as follows:

Constitutional changes - 89% and 87% in favour of changing the Articles

Other changes - 70.6% and 68.7% in favour of changing the bye-laws

_________________
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
Mick Norris wrote:
The ECF Council meeting I was at voted as follows:

Constitutional changes - 89% and 87% in favour of changing the Articles

Other changes - 70.6% and 68.7% in favour of changing the bye-laws


I'm aware of the voting figures. The constitutional changes were for the non controversial issue of removing the white form and for something really obscure about voting rights. The Bye-law change which introduces universal or compulsory membership by the back door went through on a simple majority. The only good thing about this manipulation is that membership could be reversed by the same simple majority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Roger - you're plain wrong. I know you don't like to let the facts get in the way of your unwavering support of game fee but as Ernie plays some of his games in congresses, he will be required to purchase silver rather than bronze membership. Despite the fact that membership will cost him more, he supports it.


It was Ernie who quoted £ 12 as his annual chess cost to the ECF. Presumably he's just as happy at £ 18. In London and the South East, it's very possible to play 30 games a season without going near a Congress. It remains a fact that under the ECF's scheme, such players should find their annual chess expenditure reduced, whilst those only playing ten games a season will find it increased.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:36 pm 
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Mick Norris wrote:
The ECF Council meeting I was at voted as follows:

Constitutional changes - 89% and 87% in favour of changing the Articles

Other changes - 70.6% and 68.7% in favour of changing the bye-laws


I'm aware of the voting figures. The constitutional changes were for the non controversial issue of removing the white form and for something really obscure about voting rights. The Bye-law change which introduces universal or compulsory membership by the back door went through on a simple majority. The only good thing about this manipulation is that membership could be reversed by the same simple majority.
I think we are drifting back off topic into a game fee vs membership debate which is redundant, But maybe it is important to say that I think Council understood that "the obscure voting rights" vote was part of membership and choose not to block it.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Posts: 3479
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Sean Hewitt wrote:
Roger - you're plain wrong. I know you don't like to let the facts get in the way of your unwavering support of game fee but


I recall with much affection RDdCs compelling argument to the BCA AGM:

n.b. (actual words were not minuted AFAIK so some artistic license is employed)

From the floor:
Quote:
"Why should we vote to reject the MO option and continue stumbling along with chess tax?"


RDdC:
Quote:
There will be overwhelming support for chess tax from the south of England at the AGM


Floor:
Quote:
"OK, that is an excellent argument delivered by someone who possibly has been an active member of many debating societies"


How we laughed! :lol:

_________________
Chess Images: http://johnupham.smugmug.com/Chess
IT Manager for the British Chess Magazine: http://www.britishchessmagazine.co.uk
Twitter: @jeupham
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/john.upham


Last edited by John Upham on Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
Louise Sinclair wrote:
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.



I think it's almost certain. Whoever draws up the ECF's next budget will have to put flesh on the bones, but the ECF will have five levers to pull when it needs to raise more money.

The five levers being
League membership at £ 12 a head per year
Additional cost for Congresses at £ 6 a head per year
Additional cost (above Congresses) for playing in FIDE rated events £ 9 a head per year
Non-member charge for playing in Congresses £ 6 a head per Congress
Non-member charge for playing in Leagues or county matches £ 1 or £ 2 a head per game.

So let's speculate, the ECF wants or needs another 10%. Where does it apply the increases?

As Paul notes, the increases in Game Fee were not immediately felt by players. To the extent that leagues and Congresses had financial reserves, they were able, if they wished, to spread the ECF's increases over a longer period of time.

I don't see any other sensible way for the ECF to collect national memberships than to have a money taking website in the style of an e2e4 Congress entry form. It will however be the case that the first contact of a league player for a new season in August or September could well be the ECF reminder of membership renewal and at a higher price than the previous year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
John Upham wrote:
How we laughed! :lol:


If you are talking about the 2011 Berkshire AGM, I recall that the ECF delegate asked the meeting whether it supported continued opposition to compulsory or universal membership schemes and the associated per head charging. I agree it wasn't unanimous but wasn't the vote something like 20-4 in favour of the previously agreed position?

If you are going to finance the ECF, in extremely general terms, you have a choice of methods. You can do it per head or per event or some mixture of the two. If you switch from a per event method to a per head method, then you are asking the less active players for more and the more active for less.

If the ECF had proposed some form of continued per event charging, particularly one which didn't involve making new players jump through membership hoops before being allowed to play, there's no particular reason why the Berkshire AGM wouldn't support it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:22 pm 
Roger de Coverly wrote:
If you are talking about the 2011 Berkshire AGM, I recall that the ECF delegate asked the meeting whether it supported continued opposition to compulsory or universal membership schemes and the associated per head charging. I agree it wasn't unanimous but wasn't the vote something like 20-4 in favour of the previously agreed position?
Actually my recollection was the President asked the meeting to vote on what guidance we should give to the ECF delegate, and the vote was indeed about 20-4 in favour of game fee. For the record, I also recall the Berkshire ECF delegate making this view clear to the ECF Council. But there was a vote, and despite our opposition, the membership scheme was approved.

Another thing I recall from the Berkshire AGM is the President asking if anyone present was an ECF member, and finding the majority were. It was noted this proved the point that there was a preference for game fee even from those who were members. But equally, I think it proves it is not a matter of principle for most people.

Given we do now have a membership scheme, I think it is more constructive for us to talk about how we should implement it than the fact we didn't want it. (I include myself in the we that didn't want it, regardless of my personal view. If you want to be part of the organisation, you have to respect its decisions).


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 958
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Given we do now have a membership scheme, I think it is more constructive for us to talk about how we should implement it than the fact we didn't want it. (I include myself in the we that didn't want it, regardless of my personal view. If you want to be part of the organisation, you have to respect its decisions).

I couldn't agree more. The endless rehashing of the relative merits of game fee vs. membership is becoming quite tiresome. I am reminded of those players who, having lost the actual game, spend half an hour trying to 'win' the post mortem.

_________________
Ian Kingston
www.iankingston.com
square65.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Given we do now have a membership scheme, I think it is more constructive for us to talk about how we should implement it than the fact we didn't want it.


Certainly and I would expect a range of policy proposals to be discussed at the next Exec.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 11487
Ian Kingston wrote:
The endless rehashing of the relative merits of game fee vs. membership is becoming quite tiresome. I am reminded of those players who, having lost the actual game, spend half an hour trying to 'win' the post mortem.


There's always the next game. Grandmasters will attempt to establish the truth of a position. 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.

We've heard very little from the recent converts to the membership idea. What proposals will they be bringing to their League Exec meetings and AGMs particularly with the issues of MO/not MO and banning/tolerating/charging non-members?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:29 am
Posts: 256
Location: London
Quote:
Given we do now have a membership scheme, I think it is more constructive for us to talk about how we should implement it than the fact we didn't want it. (I include myself in the we that didn't want it, regardless of my personal view. If you want to be part of the organisation, you have to respect its decisions

Many of us are officials of leagues. However with the direct membership scheme we are not responsible for leaning on the players to ensure they pay money to the ECF. Direct membership means one payment per person and therefore an individual is responsible for his/ her own bills. It is not the job of the leagues to pressurise players regardless of respect or lack of it for an organisation.
The ECF would not exist without players however chess has been played for centuries without the ECF.
Louise

_________________
You might very well think that ; I couldn't possibly comment
" I don't call you Jonathan"
I'm not ashamed of anything I have done to make a living - I'm a survivor not a quitter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:22 pm 
Louise Sinclair wrote:
Many of us are officials of leagues. However with the direct membership scheme we are not responsible for leaning on the players to ensure they pay money to the ECF. Direct membership means one payment per person and therefore an individual is responsible for his/ her own bills. It is not the job of the leagues to pressurise players regardless of respect or lack of it for an organisation.
I have tried to understand the ECF constitution, although I will admit it may be a task beyond my ability. 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.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 164 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group