reduced office costsSean Hewitt wrote:Possibly, but a more likely outcome is
reduced office costs
increased ECF income
inreased activity of players
increased retention of players
growth in overall player numbers
There's extra work in processing the new members, quite obviously someone has had to clean up the data. There's no less work in processing "Congress pay to play" and "League residual Game Fee" than there was under the previous system.
increased ECF income
With an ideological position that you cannot charge organisations per event and well as per head, the only way of increasing income is to increase one or both of the per head cost and number of heads. League players who are also Gold members are being given a price cut. I'm not sure whether we're supposed to believe the budget, but the assumptions about money raised from Juniors and non members remain suspect. If you ban non-members from participation as some leagues have done, you don't get residual game Fee.
Congress organisers seem totally opposed to the notion that if the ECF or external factors increase the amount of chess played, that the ECF should get a cut.
inreased activity of players
That is a possible outcome. It's in the dynamics of team chess that you need a fixed number to show up. If you introduce rules which discourage or ban irregular players from taking part, then you need to work the established players harder by twisting their arms to play more matches.
In terms of graded games, those played by ECF members in the local Yorkshire evening leagues will no longer be included in the national system.
At a local league level though, you only get more activity if someone organises extra competitions. If you live in an are with overlapping leagues, it's long been the case that if you want extra games you play in an additional league so demand for extra competitions is limited.
increased retention of players
I would have though the opposite. If through external circumstances you have to reduce the amount of chess you play, I would have thought it at least possible that a membership requirement could force immediate retirement. It's also made more difficult or more expensive to come back for the odd game. The highest price demanded is £ 28 for a single 4NCL game, if you don't want your International rating destroyed.
growth in overall player numbers
There's something like a 10% or more turnover. With membership barriers preventing new players getting a first taster of organised chess, I struggle to see how you get new players. Whilst a local rapid-play might be recommended, isn't asking £ 19 on top of the entry fee and having to input personal details to the ECF site likely to discourage rather than encourage participation?