Compulsory Membership?

[Neville Belinfante]

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.

Why merge them together to form a new organisation when they are already members of the MCCU?

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

I'm sure we know that, but why didn't the Farthing review, a couple of years back, of processes, functions and procedures finger this for resolution?

The calculation detail has changed, but the underlying flow of invoices and settlements is still much the same as it always was.

[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.

Why merge them together to form a new organisation when they are already members of the MCCU?

Because the three counties I mention all overlap in Birmingham, whereas the scope of the MCCU is wider than that.

I can't see the area wanting to hand over its events to the MCCU to run, but an organisation merging all of those things, which is formed purely of people elected to run each event that merged without interfering in its affairs, would suffice.

If this body was accused of not actually organising the events, then we'd be into the "What constitutes an organisation?" argument.

I'd wonder how this would affect GMan-Lancs relations.

Your idea isn't a very good one, and is open to abuse from all angles. It doesn't fundamentally solve the problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

The question was asked but was it ever answered? If the set up from October 2012 is regarded as transitional, then do the ECF directors seek to set up conditions whereby it will be necessary to become an ECF member to play even a single League game? If that is their intention, is it also their intention to have the same system for Congresses?

[Roger de Coverly]

Your idea isn't a very good one, and is open to abuse from all angles. It doesn't fundamentally solve the problem.

But what is the problem that you are trying to solve? If it's just unlimited local games at a fixed cost, then a Vice Presidency model could work as demonstrated by the internal events of CCF and Hastings.
You could even give the county or League the right to nominate one local Congress that its players could play in under favourable terms.

In another thread, we are being asked whether there should be more rewards for the players playing the most Congress chess. If the ECF collects exclusively on a per head basis, it will never solve the problem of how to set the amount, given the number of games played in a season ranges all the way from 1 to 250+. By contrast if the ECF secured some of its income on a volume basis, it would get more from the player playing 250 games than the one playing 30. If Congresses retain funds for future use, in other words "make a profit", they are benefiting from the really active players. Why should the ECF be different?

[Alex Holowczak]

Your idea isn't a very good one, and is open to abuse from all angles. It doesn't fundamentally solve the problem.

But what is the problem that you are trying to solve?

Finding money to fund the English Chess Federation's activities.

Neville's solution doesn't help in that regard, because the distinction between gold and local is very blurred if people want to blur it. It was also said to be more simple, but it isn't in that respect.

[Roger de Coverly]

Finding money to fund the English Chess Federation's activities.

How then does extending exemption of Game Fee for Direct Members to Leagues achieve this? You get more money if the membership amount exceeds the previous Game Fee for those not currently members, but just a loss for those who are already members.

[Alex Holowczak]

Finding money to fund the English Chess Federation's activities.

How then does extending exemption of Game Fee for Direct Members to Leagues achieve this?

It doesn't.

There are many ways of finding enough money to fund the English Chess Federation's activities. You wanted that way to be via Game Fee. 70% of Council wanted that to be via membership. So that's the way that's being implemented.

[Roger de Coverly]

70% of Council wanted that to be via membership. So that's the way that's being implemented.

70% of Council endorsed a scheme proposed by the ECF Directors, of which there had been three partly contradictory versions over six months. The ECF Directors could have made alternative proposals. It was the initiative of the ECF Board that started the whole process.

It is however a fact that those currently Direct Members will or may see a reduction in the amounts clubs currently ask them to pay towards the expenses of a club.

[Roger de Coverly]

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

I don't know whether it's ECF Official, but the question of whether a Rapid Play FIDE rated event counts as a rapid play or a FIDE event, appears to have been been resolved in favour of treating it as a rapid play. At least that's what the 4NCL entry form says for their annual event. So the entry fee is £ 6 per head higher for every player who isn't on the Silver or Gold list at the time of entry.

[Mike Truran]

No it isn't. The entry fee is £ 6 per head lower for every player who is on the Silver or Gold list at the time of entry.

[Neville Belinfante]

Whether entry fees are higher or lower is not the issue. How to reduce the complexity of the entire system so money flowing into the ECF is more streamlined is. The complexity is not that there are three membership levels. It is the concept that players should get bronze via one method, an upgrade to silver via a second method, and an upgrade to gold via a third.

I have another question before my next thought-provoking posting. The MO agreements that have been in place since 2007 have included the following two clauses
MOs shall use their best endeavours to get their players to become members
MOs must pay the ECF if it suffers loss of income from the MO agreement.

In the five years since this came in, has the ECF requested or received additional payment from any MO to compensate for otherwise loss of income?

Regards

Neville Belinfante

[Sean Hewitt]

No it isn't. The entry fee is £ 6 per head lower for every player who is on the Silver or Gold list at the time of entry.

[Sean Hewitt]

I have another question before my next thought-provoking posting. The MO agreements that have been in place since 2007 have included the following two clauses
MOs shall use their best endeavours to get their players to become members
MOs must pay the ECF if it suffers loss of income from the MO agreement.

In the five years since this came in, has the ECF requested or received additional payment from any MO to compensate for otherwise loss of income?

Neville - the second clause you mention does not appear in the Leicestershire MO agreement.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

It is however a fact that those currently Direct Members will or may see a reduction in the amounts clubs currently ask them to pay towards the expenses of a club.

As a Direct Member (who hopes to be able to renew online soon), this is of more than academic interest. I am indeed trusting that the various bodies and organisations that I pay subscriptions to will reduce the amount I pay, though given that some have most costs in venue hire that may not be that much of a reduction.

What I'm slightly concerned about is that some clubs may wait until the new system shakes out and beds in, before reducing subscriptions. Hopefully any clubs or other organisations that end up with a large surplus from a transition period will make clear to AGMs where that surplus came from and plan to either return it to the members or invest it as appropriate (e.g. in new equipment).

Or to put it another way, any transition period and changes in fees charged will lead to imbalances. Hopefully things will be clear enough after a year or so to avoid large imbalances.