Junior Concessions

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

Junior Concessions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:05 pm

There's a new paper on the ECF site relating to junior membership.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ership.doc

Amongst other points
(a) it suggests a move towards private grading systems, thereby reducing the ECF's headcount and implied income from memberships or Game Fee.
(b) it asks for a waiver of membership and Game Fee for new players although by a strange twist of logic suggests that would raise more money.

Something I didn't quite understand was the preamble that a child taking part in a first event would be required to be a member. That's certainly true (£ 2 per game permitting) for leagues and team events, but are not many junior events structured as individual as opposed to team tournaments? If structured as tournaments, wouldn't the good news be that it was £ 6 pay to play and the bad news that "silver" membership was needed?

According to the January grading list, there were 2818 individuals with both a grade and an ECF age.

The current cost for a five round junior tournament would be 0.29 * 5 = £ 1.45 per player for standard play and 0.15 * 5 = 75p for rapid play. I suppose if you have 100 players, that's £ 75 payable to the ECF. However if you want them all to be members at £ 8 per head, that's £ 800 payable.

Existing adult ECF members who play a lot of games both in internationally rated events and in leagues and similar events are likely to be £ 10 to £ 12 per head better off, so this will have to be raised from somewhere even before the ECF plugs its deficit from the loss of the DCMS grant.

The document also mentions CCF. They utilised the Game Fee exemption inherent in being a Vice President of the ECF to be able to run events. The Vice President membership category is being abolished and it appears they will run events with their own rating system rather than attempt to enrol everyone as ECF members. There are nearly 500 players on the grading list with a CCF designation, many of these with other clubs of course. There are 327 CCF only, that's nowhere near the 1000 mentioned in the paper, but presumably there's a lot of players who don't yet qualify for a grade.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Neill Cooper » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:00 pm

The twist of logic is that most junior organisations probably would not grade their events under the existing planned requirements. But under the waiver many of them would and so insist on membership for their regular players.

CCF don't use the VP waiver on most of their junior events. The 1000 is indeed the number on the master grading list as being CCF junior with no other affiliation.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:14 pm

Neill Cooper wrote:The twist of logic is that most junior organisations probably would not grade their events under the existing planned requirements. But under the waiver many of them would and so insist on membership for their regular players.
Is there any evidence for either of these assertions?
Neill Cooper wrote: The 1000 is indeed the number on the master grading list as being CCF junior with no other affiliation.
However, it is worth noting:-

Only 300 of these have a rapidplay grade (and just 10 have a standard play grade).
The 1000 played an average of 5 rapid games each last year.
More than half of them played zero games (rapid or standard) last season.
Last edited by Sean Hewitt on Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:29 pm

sean hewitt wrote: Is there any evidence for either of these assertions?
As I read it, the paper to the ECF Council is based on having asked junior organisations what their policy towards membership will be. Many such organisations run their events as individual competitions and thus in theory get hit for "silver" levels of membership. This time last year, Neil noted that for his local secondary schools league and other similar leagues a per head system would cost the schools or the participants considerably more than a per game system for those where that was the only chess they played.

The concern of the junior organisations is presumably how much data they have to collect and how much they have to pay to get the ECF to include games in the National adult grading system. The budget assumptions are that organisations won't change their policies. The paper about junior membership is evidence or supposition to the contrary.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Neill Cooper » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:19 am

sean hewitt wrote:
Neill Cooper wrote:The twist of logic is that most junior organisations probably would not grade their events under the existing planned requirements. But under the waiver many of them would and so insist on membership for their regular players.
Is there any evidence for either of these assertions?
Only that I have spoken with most of them, and they have sent me emails confirming their support.
sean hewitt wrote:
Neill Cooper wrote: The 1000 is indeed the number on the master grading list as being CCF junior with no other affiliation.
However, it is worth noting:-

Only 300 of these have a rapidplay grade (and just 10 have a standard play grade).
The 1000 played an average of 5 rapid games each last year.
More than half of them played zero games (rapid or standard) last season.
This shows the large turnover of juniors which is why organisations would like to be able to give them up to 12 games waiver period before worrying about ECF membership or other fees.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Angus French » Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:11 pm

Neill Cooper wrote:The twist of logic is that most junior organisations probably would not grade their events under the existing planned requirements.
But do they grade their events currently? If many don’t then it’s hard to be convinced by the membership projections.

Also, if part of the proposal is to increase the scope of events requiring bronze membership by reducing the scope of events requiring silver membership, isn’t it more likely that the number of silver memberships would decrease rather than increase?

Would the proposed 12-game exemption for junior-only events be in place of the 3-game exemption available to all?

In general, my feeling is that the proposal would add complexity to a scheme which is already contrived. I'm also mindful that juniors will get special treatment through concessionary rates. That said, the idea of extending the definition of Bronze membership to include junior-only events would, I guess, be an easy change to make and has some appeal.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Neill Cooper » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:25 pm

Angus French wrote:
Neill Cooper wrote:The twist of logic is that most junior organisations probably would not grade their events under the existing planned requirements.
But do they grade their events currently?
It is the ones who grade their games at present who are concerned about ECF grading their events from September 2012.
Angus French wrote:Also, if part of the proposal is to increase the scope of events requiring bronze membership by reducing the scope of events requiring silver membership, isn’t it more likely that the number of silver memberships would decrease rather than increase?
I was not sure where the junior silver numbers came from but I had assumed they were based on juniors who play in adult events. I think junior organisations will not wish to insist on silver membership for their one day events. That means they are even less likely to ECF grade these events.
Angus French wrote:Would the proposed 12-game exemption for junior-only events be in place of the 3-game exemption available to all?
I saw it as being in parallel.
Angus French wrote:In general, my feeling is that the proposal would add complexity to a scheme which is already contrived. I'm also mindful that juniors will get special treatment through concessionary rates. That said, the idea of extending the definition of Bronze membership to include junior-only events would, I guess, be an easy change to make and has some appeal.
Yes, it will make it more complicated. But so far too little thought has been given to junior membership.

My impression is that under the existing plans most of these junior organisations will stop using ECF grading, and probably use an alternative grading method (internal or external, there are various to choose from). They are left with no strong reason to encourage ECF membership and so ECF junior membership will mainly taken up by those who play against adults, out of necessity. Some counties would find it difficult to get teams of ECF members so, for instance, the SCCU U18 Jamboree and U14/U130 may need to be ungraded.

Under the alternative plans junior organisations will continue to use ECF grading and therefore encourage ECF junior membership. ECF junior membership would there be much more widely taken up. SCCU could insist on counties fielding ECF junior members etc.

The choice to me seems to be between a virtuous circle of junior organisations using ECF grading and encouraging ECF junior membership, or a viscous circle of organisations pulling out of ECF grading and membership. I am concerned as we are heading towards the latter.

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

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:41 pm

Neill Cooper wrote: I was not sure where the junior silver numbers came from but I had assumed they were based on juniors who play in adult events. I think junior organisations will not wish to insist on silver membership for their one day events. That means they are even less likely to ECF grade these events.
Given the headcount, it seems most likely that it was the numbers playing in events classified as Congresses. For example the search http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?club=Kent ... Congresses on the grading data comes up with 234 names.

This search http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?club=Sussex+Juniors came up with 189 names. Again this seems Congress style play.

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Scott Freeman » Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:29 pm

Sorry I have been a it slow on the uptake but I have not been looking at the forum much recently, aside of the thread on the "General" page about FIDE Ratings disappearing.

I have noticed at times in threads that some have a perception that we (CCF) have "used" our ECF Corporate Vice-Presidency to get around game fee costs for our tournaments. I can assure everyone that this is not the case. The Corporate Vice-Presidency we have only covers internal club activities and none of our adult and junior tournaments that non-members can play in. We have always been careful not to mix the events and always pay game fee when correct and appropriate. As such, the only things that are covered by our Corporate Vice-Presidency are those events in our junior Monday night club and those in our adult Monday night club (plus 5 Wednedays). Having said that, I think the perceptions that have been created are because we have such a large club and so many graded (and FIDE rated) events within, which is extremely unusual I believe. CCF is basically focussed more on its internal competitions whereas most clubs focus on their team activity. I think only about 12-13% of our members represent us in team matches. On a positive note for the ECF coffers, we have probably raised a fair bit through new memberships as FIDE rated events have become more popular within the club (as players have to become members) so that needs to be taken in balance.

We have paid game fee for all of our congresses for both adult and junior events. In respect of junior events, I think we worked out that we were paying in excess of £1K per year to the ECF. However the reality of the "member only" rule will effectively end us being able to grade our junior events. There are simply too many juniors who will not enter events for the first time if they have to pay both an entry fee and an ECF membership fee, and frankly we don't want to have to waste time monitoring the memberships and when a player has played 12 or more graded games (I believe this was the compromise idea bein discussed). As such, we have already invested in good quality programmers who are setting up an on-line system that will produce (we hope) monthly grades for junior only events.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:47 am

Scott Freeman wrote:Having said that, I think the perceptions that have been created are because we have such a large club and so many graded (and FIDE rated) events within, which is extremely unusual I believe.
It took me about a 5 hours to draw up the entire ECF Voting Register. At least 1 of those was spent working out the CCF voting entitlement. :cry:

Scott Freeman
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:42 am

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Scott Freeman » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:04 pm

That doesn't altogether surprise me! I reckon we must run more events than anyone when all of the junior and senior events plus the Monday club events are added together.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Neill Cooper » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:45 pm

For those who have not seen, the "junior concession" given at the ECF council meeting yesterday was that game for juniors was changed to 50p standard play/25p rapid play. I believe that this will have a similar effect to the proposed changes in the paper, but without the complications. So, apart form CCF, most junior organisations will continue to grade their games and also encourage their juniors to become ECF Junior members.

Sean Hewitt
Posts: 2193
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:18 pm

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:51 pm

I think that allowing off the hoof amendments at council meeting is a flawed practice. The proposal to reduce game fee for juniors by 75% was made without notice and did not allow for

1) Delegates to consult the players they represent
2) The consequential effects on the budgeted income to be understood

This practice probably needs to be ended if council is to function in any meaningful way.

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

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:00 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: This practice probably needs to be ended if council is to function in any meaningful way.
Although worded more politely, the paper about Junior membership was saying that compulsory or universal membership was unsuitable for encouraging growth in new participants. But we know that, even if most of Council ignore it. So faced with the walk out threat, someone proposed a radical concession. It's still more than they pay at the moment, isn't it?

I don't see what other mechanism the Board or the Council had. It's what you get if you try to force through a contentious scheme on a 70 30 split.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Cumbria

Re: Junior Concessions

Post by Neill Cooper » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:37 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:I think that allowing off the hoof amendments at council meeting is a flawed practice. The proposal to reduce game fee for juniors by 75% was made without notice and did not allow for

1) Delegates to consult the players they represent
2) The consequential effects on the budgeted income to be understood

This practice probably needs to be ended if council is to function in any meaningful way.
I agree that the process is flawed; there were quite a few motions debated and voted on without prior notice to the delegates.
I was hoping that someone would proposed a £1/50p rate for juniors (as in the Junior Membership Proposal), but I assumed that as a guest I could not propose anything.
The new rate gives an increased responsibility to junior organisers to promote ECF junior membership.
That is something I will be doing once the on line facility is available.