Junior Concessions

[Angus French]

The new rate gives an increased responsibility to junior organisers to promote ECF junior membership.

If the standard play game fee in junior-only events is 50p and the same for rapidplay is 25p, then what take up will there be for junior bronze/silver membership at £9/£13? Not much, I should have thought.
I believe the proposal to amend the rates went though on a show of hands: 21 for and 18 against (though it may well have been 10 - I'm struggling to read my writing).

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

Someone at the meeting suggested that, with the higher rate of game fee events would not promote membership and would go ungraded instead. With the reduced game fee they suggested events would encourage all their junior players to become members of the ECF and generate £10,000 extra for the ECF.

I didn't understand that claim then, and I still don't understand it now.

[Roger de Coverly]

I didn't understand that claim then, and I still don't understand it now.

Neil may want to be diplomatic, but haven't the junior organisers told the ECF that demanding membership by per head payment would be a disincentive to participation in their events? So whilst they are prepared to make a contribution to ECF Finances , there are limits to the amounts they are prepared to pay and the rules they are expected to apply. It's an equivalent concession to that granted to non international Congresses in that membership of the ECF is not a requirement to taking part in a Congress.

So membership becomes a season ticket or badge of honour applying only to the most active and enthusiastic players.

[Neill Cooper]

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.

Someone at the meeting suggested that, with the higher rate of game fee events would not promote membership and would go ungraded instead. With the reduced game fee they suggested events would encourage all their junior players to become members of the ECF and generate £10,000 extra for the ECF.

I didn't understand that claim then, and I still don't understand it now.

That was me who said this - apologies that I did not introduce myself to the meeting.

Firstly, as reported in the 'Junior Membership paper', at the higher rate of game fee most junior only events were unlikely to be ECF graded and so there would be minimal income from these players. Hence the claim that the budget figures were over optimistic on junior membership income to the tune of about £10,000. There is an unfortunately history of junior chess organisations being formed and running autonomously, such as EPSCA (English Primary Schools Chess Association), NYCA (National Youth Chess Association) and NCJS (National Chess Junior Squad). With UK Chess Challenge also being autonomous the vast majority of junior chess is run outside the ECF, and therefore provides minimal income to the ECF.

The main issue for most of the junior organisations were new players - otherwise they said that they would be promoting ECF membership to their participants. Assuming they still do promote ECF membership, then the 1000+ juniors who play in junior only events are likely to become members, providing the extra income claimed. Obviously the difference with new game fee rates compared to the the more complicated proposal in the Junior Membership paper is that players could decide not to become members and it would take many more games before this left them out of pocket.

I would imagine that if the junior organisations fail to recruit significant numbers of ECF junior members then next year's finance council meeting would significantly increase the junior only event game fee.

[Sean Hewitt]

The main issue for most of the junior organisations were new players - otherwise they said that they would be promoting ECF membership to their participants. Assuming they still do promote ECF membership, then the 1000+ juniors who play in junior only events are likely to become members, providing the extra income claimed. Obviously the difference with new game fee rates compared to the the more complicated proposal in the Junior Membership paper is that players could decide not to become members and it would take many more games before this left them out of pocket.

I just don't get this. What you are saying is

If the ECF charges a high pay to play figure, juniors will not join the ECF and will forgo their grade instead.

If the ECF charges a low pay to play figure (which, by definition, disincentivises players from becoming members), more players will join even though it is cheaper for them not to.

This is some branch of economics I did not learn, and have never experienced in my professional life.

[Andrew Farthing]

I'm with Sean on this one. Obviously, I hope that Neill is right when he says that junior chess organisers will actively promote ECF membership, but logic would suggest that the effect of the much-reduced Game Fee rates for junior-only events is to REDUCE the incentive for juniors to become members.

Looked at in the round, what emerged from the amendments agreed by Council is a framework in which game fee is set conspicuously high for adults in order to encourage membership and conspicuously low when it comes to juniors - surely the population for which instilling a widespread habit of membership would be most important for the ECF's longer term interests?

However, we are where we are. It doesn't matter now whether the arrangements as agreed make coherent sense, because they are what has been decided. What matters is doing everything possible to give the new arrangements the best possible chance of success.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm with Sean on this one. Obviously, I hope that Neill is right when he says that junior chess organisers will actively promote ECF membership, but logic would suggest that the effect of the much-reduced Game Fee rates for junior-only events is to REDUCE the incentive for juniors to become members.

Looked at in the round, what emerged from the amendments agreed by Council is a framework in which game fee is set conspicuously high for adults in order to encourage membership and conspicuously low when it comes to juniors - surely the population for which instilling a widespread habit of membership would be most important for the ECF's longer term interests?

However, we are where we are. It doesn't matter now whether the arrangements as agreed make coherent sense, because they are what has been decided. What matters is doing everything possible to give the new arrangements the best possible chance of success.

I agree with your last paragraph.

On the substantive point, time will tell whether or not Neill is correct. However, I have no doubt that the effect of the changes for junior only events will be to increase the revenue for the ECF from that which would otherwise have occurred. I was initially opposed to making such changes, but I was persuaded by the discussion paper and by the report and comments that Neill made at the SCCU Executive Committee Meeting a couple of weeks before the ECF Council Meeting.

If the Board needs to reduce the income forecast in the budget as a result of this particular change, then in my opinion the original budget figure was grossly inflated.

[Roger de Coverly]

What matters is doing everything possible to give the new arrangements the best possible chance of success.

From the ECF's viewpoint perhaps. From the point of view of local clubs and organisations, they will do what they need to survive. It remains my view that near compulsory membership and evening leagues as we know them cannot co-exist in the longer run.

If the Board needs to reduce the income forecast in the budget as a result of this particular change, then in my opinion the original budget figure was grossly inflated.

For adults too. If the budget contains any substantial amount raised by £ 2 per head, it's just looking at a bad debt figure. £ 6 per head for Congresses would bring in a reasonable amount, provided Congresses don't run ungraded sections. There are already un-rated Rapid Plays, more may follow this route.

Chess organisations have budget and rate setting meetings at the lower level. A realistic income budget by the ECF has to factor in possible behaviour changes by these bodies.

If the £ 2 figure had been £ 1, you could summarise the changes as

(1) Game Fee up from 58p to £ 1 and concessions for internal events and Juniors mostly abolished
(2) All non international Congresses deemed to be six rounds and standard play
(3) MO players denied access to Congresses and International events except on additional payment
(4) An on-line version of MOs introduced for all players
(5) abolition of Family Membership, Corporate Vice Presidency and three year concessions.

All these are money raisers

and finally the give away
(5) Game Fee abolished for leagues where players are members.

This extends the financial uncertainty caused by MOs to the entire country. I see the SCCU thinks it can send a £2 per non member Game Fee bill to the counties taking part. Whether counties would wish to enter teams with that rule in place remains to be seen.

The ECF have also set up an arbitrage whereby for non-members, it's cheaper for an event to be classified as a Congress. We've had rows about the head count in an event where a player from the Open plays someone from the Major as a filler game and whether inclusion of filler games in an All Play All turns it into a Swiss.

[Neill Cooper]

The main issue for most of the junior organisations were new players - otherwise they said that they would be promoting ECF membership to their participants. Assuming they still do promote ECF membership, then the 1000+ juniors who play in junior only events are likely to become members, providing the extra income claimed. Obviously the difference with new game fee rates compared to the the more complicated proposal in the Junior Membership paper is that players could decide not to become members and it would take many more games before this left them out of pocket.

I just don't get this. What you are saying is

If the ECF charges a high pay to play figure, juniors will not join the ECF and will forgo their grade instead.

If the ECF charges a low pay to play figure (which, by definition, disincentivises players from becoming members), more players will join even though it is cheaper for them not to.

This is some branch of economics I did not learn, and have never experienced in my professional life.

I agree I am no economist, but I do have knowledge and understanding of junior chess organisations. So here is my reasoning :-

Scenario 1: Junior game fee rises 7 fold to £1 for a rapid play game. Most Junior organisations are horrified by this and so decide not to use ECF grading. Therefore they have no reason to tell their players about the ECF. Therefore those who only play in junior only events don't even hear of the ECF, so they don't join.

Scenario 2: Junior game fee rises to 25p for a rapid play game. So most Junior organisations decide to use ECF grading. Therefore they tell their players about the ECF and encourage them to join for only £8. In Northumberland most of them have joined, despite game fee being even less at 15p. So we see that when junior organisations are positive about the ECF juniors will join for £8 (though not the present £22/year), not for economic reasons but because they perceive the ECF is a good organisation to be a member of.

[Sean Hewitt]

You miss the point Neil. If Junior organisations can be successful in getting players to join the ECF for £8 when game fee is set at 25p per rapid game (as is being claimed), then they should be more successful getting players to join if game fee is £1.

Nevertheless, the deed is done now. At least this mistake can be corrected in a years time.

[Roger de Coverly]

You miss the point Neil. If Junior organisations can be successful in getting players to join the ECF for £8 when game fee is set at 25p per rapid game (as is being claimed), then they should be more successful getting players to join if game fee is £1..

I'm sure Junior events can be run without involving the ECF in any way at all. Come to think of it, the same applies to adult events. If you tell players they can look themselves up on www.ecfgrading.org.uk, this promotes name awareness of the ECF. That of itself is an interesting observation and implies the grading site may have some value as an advertising or marketing medium if only for the ECF itself. If Junior organisers think the price or nuisance of ECF grading and membership is more than they are willing to pay, you won't get £ 1 per game but £ nil. The ECF could make thousands or tens of thousands if every school entrant to the UK Chess Challenge was required to become an ECF member. In the absence of an ECF chess monopoly, that just isn't going to happen.

[Neill Cooper]

You miss the point Neil. If Junior organisations can be successful in getting players to join the ECF for £8 when game fee is set at 25p per rapid game (as is being claimed), then they should be more successful getting players to join if game fee is £1.

At £1 per rapid play game fee (£6 per one day event) the junior organisations were not interested in the ECF and would have walked away.

Nevertheless, the deed is done now. At least this mistake can be corrected in a years time.

Let's see how it works over the year. You have reminded me why I would like the SCCU junior county events next year to require ECF junior membership.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"I'm sure Junior events can be run without involving the ECF in any way at all."

I think most of them already are, and most of them don't pay Game Fee anyway, so when the fees increase, it won't make any difference...

[Roger de Coverly]

I think most of them already are, and most of them don't pay Game Fee anyway, so when the fees increase, it won't make any difference...

There were enough of them to blow the budget assumptions out of the water. If you look on the grading site at the detail results of Juniors with Surrey, Kent or Sussex tags, there's a lot of events.

The transition process is that the ECF starts by waiving Game Fee for leagues. To replace this income, it has to do headcount * membership amount. If it doesn't get the headcount because events baulk at the price rise, the "membership amount" has to be much higher.

[Mick Norris]

Have I got this right?

Junior Game Fee for non-ECF members

For junior only events, there are 2 choices – either the event is submitted for ECF grading or it is not.

If the event is to be graded, then game fee is payable for non-ECF members at a rate of:
• 50p for Standard play games (per half result)
• 25p for Rapidplay games (per half result)

If juniors play in non-junior events (club, league and county chess), if the event is to be graded, then game fee is payable for non-ECF members at a rate of:
• £2 for Standard play games (per half result)
• £1 for Rapidplay games (per half result)

If juniors play in a non-junior congress, if the event is to be graded, then game fee is payable for non-ECF members and for Bronze ECF members at a rate of £4 per congress (Standard play or Rapidplay) – this fee would upgrade a Bronze member to Silver for the rest of the ECF year

The ECF Membership Categories are;
• Bronze – for club, league and county chess
• Silver – as bronze, plus additionally for congress chess
• Gold – as silver, plus additionally for FIDE rated chess (e.g. 4NCL)
• Platinum – as gold, but effectively for those wishing to donate to the ECF

Proposed fees for juniors are £8, £12 and £21 for bronze, silver and gold. There would normally be an extra £1 charged for those joining via a membership organisation (such as the Northern Membership Scheme).