Compulsory Membership?

[Sean Hewitt]

...including Neville! Neville, you were one of many people who told me last year that a flat rate membership for all players (say £18) would not work (actually I agreed) which is one reason why we now have the scheme we do. Council uncomplicated the board's scheme (removing the 85%membership threshold for a £1 game fee)and complicated it a bit (reduced game fee for juniors). In what respect are you now saying it is too complicated?

I suspect he's saying that it's too complicated now in the respect that it's not game fee

[Angus French]

...including Neville! Neville, you were one of many people who told me last year that a flat rate membership for all players (say £18) would not work (actually I agreed) which is one reason why we now have the scheme we do. Council uncomplicated the board's scheme (removing the 85%membership threshold for a £1 game fee)and complicated it a bit (reduced game fee for juniors). In what respect are you now saying it is too complicated?

I suspect he's saying that it's too complicated now in the respect that it's not game fee

Yes, very funny.
Of course, there is a now a game fee element to compulsory membership. And it's this which, I'd suggest, has added most complexity, in particular by involving leagues and clubs and requiring them to take on extra responsibilities.

[Roger de Coverly]

My current club will not hold its AGM until Sept. I am unsure how what is happening will be presented and implemented, but I will probably rise above it by taking out a new golden membership after my standard one expires at end of July.

Apart from Oxfordshire, which seems to be a proposal by its ECF delegate, are any of the London and Southern England leagues or counties proposing or intending to take on Framework MO status?

[David Gilbert]

My current club will not hold its AGM until Sept. I am unsure how what is happening will be presented and implemented, but I will probably rise above it by taking out a new golden membership after my standard one expires at end of July.

Apart from Oxfordshire, which seems to be a proposal by its ECF delegate, are any of the London and Southern England leagues or counties proposing or intending to take on Framework MO status?

Most Leagues in London appear to be adopting the ECF membership proposals but devolving decisions to Clubs and individuals about whether players sign-up or pay the £2 game fee. The London League will discuss membership at it's AGM on Wednesday, 11 July 2012. MO status is not currently an option. The proposal is that the League accepts the ECF membership scheme, but to protect League finances Clubs must deposit with the League £10 for every registered player who has not joined-up with the ECF by 15 January 2013.

[Angus French]

My current club will not hold its AGM until Sept. I am unsure how what is happening will be presented and implemented, but I will probably rise above it by taking out a new golden membership after my standard one expires at end of July.

Apart from Oxfordshire, which seems to be a proposal by its ECF delegate, are any of the London and Southern England leagues or counties proposing or intending to take on Framework MO status?

The Board of the Surrey County Chess Association are proposing to create an MO and delegate responsibility for membership submissions to clubs. I don't know if it's relevant or not but Surrey President, Mike Gunn, is also ECF Non-Executive Chairman.
There's no MO proposal for the London League AGM.
The Croydon League committee (of which I'm a member) are are not proposing to become an MO. The Croydon League, FWIW, is pretty small.

[Sean Hewitt]

Of course, there is a now a game fee element to compulsory membership. And it's this which, I'd suggest, has added most complexity, in particular by involving leagues and clubs and requiring them to take on extra responsibilities.

Of course, you're right on that score. It would be simpler if all players had to be members, period.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that what we have now was put forward by the refuseniks and suggested by some as the only way they would support the membership scheme. It's a bit rich for those same people to now point to this and say that the whole scheme is doomed to failure, essentially because the ECF listened to and acted on their concerns.

[Adam Raoof]

Of course, there is a now a game fee element to compulsory membership. And it's this which, I'd suggest, has added most complexity, in particular by involving leagues and clubs and requiring them to take on extra responsibilities.

Of course, you're right on that score. It would be simpler if all players had to be members, period.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that what we have now was put forward by the refuseniks and suggested by some as the only way they would support the membership scheme. It's a bit rich for those same people to now point to this and say that the whole scheme is doomed to failure, essentially because the ECF listened to and acted on their concerns.

[like]

[Roger de Coverly]

The proposal is that the League accepts the ECF membership scheme, but to protect League finances Clubs must deposit with the League £10 for every registered player who has not joined-up with the ECF by 15 January 2013.

There's getting on for 900 players taking part in the London League, many of whom play in other leagues of course. The deposit scheme idea has been considered by other organisations. Presumably a cut to league entry fees will be either a proposal or discussed.

[Angus French]

Of course, there is a now a game fee element to compulsory membership. And it's this which, I'd suggest, has added most complexity, in particular by involving leagues and clubs and requiring them to take on extra responsibilities.

Of course, you're right on that score. It would be simpler if all players had to be members, period.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that what we have now was put forward by the refuseniks and suggested by some as the only way they would support the membership scheme. It's a bit rich for those same people to now point to this and say that the whole scheme is doomed to failure, essentially because the ECF listened to and acted on their concerns.

Hmm... I don't recall the game fee element being mentioned here by anyone - "refusenik" or otherwise - before it became part of the proposed scheme.

[Angus French]

Of course, there is a now a game fee element to compulsory membership. And it's this which, I'd suggest, has added most complexity, in particular by involving leagues and clubs and requiring them to take on extra responsibilities.

Of course, you're right on that score. It would be simpler if all players had to be members, period.

However, we must not lose sight of the fact that what we have now was put forward by the refuseniks and suggested by some as the only way they would support the membership scheme. It's a bit rich for those same people to now point to this and say that the whole scheme is doomed to failure, essentially because the ECF listened to and acted on their concerns.

[like]

Please explain why.

[Roger de Coverly]

Hmm... I don't recall the game fee element being mentioned here by anyone - "refusenik" or otherwise - before it became part of the proposed scheme.

It suddenly appeared like a rabbit from a hat last August. The debates in March were that the supporters of membership were saying you couldn't have a low user rebate other than the now deleted idea that players without a grade, not playing enough for a grade, wouldn't be required to be members. The initial vote in April 2011 was "for" a membership scheme and "against" a membership and Game Fee hybrid. It's a hybrid where we've ended up.

For some reason or other, in the South, counties or Leagues with an ECF bigwig seem to be heading for Framework MOs, whilst the rest are trying to stick with two core principles
(a) the county or league stays part of national grading
(b) the county or league tries not to bar players from participation.

(a) says you more or less have to put up with whatever conditions are imposed. With the residual Game Fee not due for calculation and collection until 31st August 2013, you do have a bit of time in hand.

[Mick Norris]

Papers for October 2011 ECF AGM include;

"Why has a Game Fee element been retained?

In the Board’s judgement, it was important to recognise that the transition from a mixed funding model to one based solely on membership income involved significant risk, especially if time was required for the concept of membership to gain close to universal (as opposed to majority) acceptance.

As a consequence, it seemed prudent to seek to ensure the continuation of income from those who chose not to be members but continued to play graded chess. Feedback during the consultation period indicated widespread scepticism that the withholding of a non-member’s grade would be a sufficient measure to encourage membership, and attempting to prevent non-members from playing graded chess seemed at odds with the ECF’s remit to promote the game.

Game Fee has, therefore, been retained, but with material changes:

1. It has been simplified into just two categories – Standard and Rapid – eliminating the additional categories of Junior and Internal Club events and the multiple combinations thereof;
2. The Game Fee rate is variable, depending on whether the event meets a set benchmark percentage of members participating. The purpose of this is quite deliberately to provide a financial incentive to move towards membership (as reflected in the majority wish of Council in April 2011)."

[Neville Belinfante]

Blaming members of Council for the complexity is unfair as there was only one scheme on offer last October, and the board made it quite clear the scheme had to be accepted. As least Council got rid of some the worse problems in April.

A few suggestions to simplify matters.
Change the definitions of Bronze, Silver and Gold to become Bronze = local (only events organised by a single organisation), Gold = national (everything anywhere), Silver = either somewhere-in-between or redundant

Scrap MOs completely. A system where a membership payment may take weeks or months to reach the ECF office is simply incompatible with an online system where the payment is instant and the update to the online membership list is instant. Many counties have committed to the new arrangements without having to sign a legal document for which loopholes will be found.

Go back to the original concept of game-fee which is that congresses and leagues are treated equally throughout.

Have a system where someone has a clue what membership level is required and what fees are due for FIDE rated rapidplays.

Have a system where foreign registered players are treated equally regardless of whether an event is FIDE rated or not.

I could go on, but anyone can go back over the previous pages of this thread to find other problems.

[Neville Belinfante]

wrt automatic invoicing. Paul Cooksey asked recently whether it should take more than half on hour to calculate the game fee due as £2 per game by a non-member. The answer is probably not, however that is only part of the requirement.

When I asked the question a few years ago, I was told it could not be done because it could not be determined whether the full rate applied or a discounted rate, despite a detailed list of members being part of the grading feedback

When I asked the question a month ago, I was told it could not be done because invoicing is an office responsibility, and grading is independent of the office.

It cannot always be determined from a grading file whether it is for a congress or league which have different payment formulae. The best the ECF can do is give a range of figures based on whether it is a league or congress, and based on estimates of which non-members may shortly become members.

Thanks to Mike Gunn for confirming that automatic invoicing was discussed at the last ECF Board Meeting. I dont know the level of detail of the discussions, or when this will start to be available.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

[Alex Holowczak]

Change the definitions of Bronze, Silver and Gold to become Bronze = local (only events organised by a single organisation), Gold = national (everything anywhere), Silver = either somewhere-in-between or redundant

In which case, we'd merge Worcestershire CA, Warwickshire CA, Staffordshire CA, and all its leagues (Birmingham, Leamington etc.) to form one organisation, so that we only need bronze membership in our area. This would probably happen all over the country in other areas (NCCU, London and its suburbs, Berks/Bucks). Then those areas would merge, until you end up with a de facto new ECF... But then everything would be worth bronze membership.