ECF Game Fee in internal Club events

[Paul Buswell]

I am of the view that both the £2 per game ECF fee and the £13 ECF bronze membership fee are disincentives for players new to competitive chess or returning to it after a long absence.

The way I see it Club internal competitions are the means by which beginners / returners dip their toe in the water to see whether they enjoy serious stuff, as opposed to casual social play, and are an essential interim step to moving on to League or Congress play - where such opportunities are available of course, they often aren't outside metropolitan areas.

I have no problem with the arrangement for Leagues & Congresses - don't like parts of it but it's a done deal - but I do feel that it should not be applied at full rate to Club internal games. To ask a beginner or novice to up their sub by £13, just to try something, or to ask them to pay £2 a game, doesn't seem good marketing when their spending on chess is very much optional.

To that end I am minded to propose to ECF - I imagine at its April 2014 Council meeting - that the ECF Game Fee be reduced to 50p (25p rapid) for Club internal events. This would be on a par with juniors' Game Fee.

I am in contact with ECF to research the numbers on Club internal results graded, but in the meantime I would be interested to know how many readers of this forum share my views.

PB

[Roger de Coverly]

I am of the view that both the £2 per game ECF fee and the £13 ECF bronze membership fee are disincentives for players new to competitive chess or returning to it after a long absence.

The problem is that those who hold a lot of the votes on Council don't accept this or even think the opposite. But they put through "membership" without abolishing the Game Fee regulations, so only a 50% vote would be needed for a reinstatement of Game Fee at a lower level for internal club events.

[John Townsend]

Paul Buswell writes:

I am of the view that both the £2 per game ECF fee and the £13 ECF bronze membership fee are disincentives for players new to competitive chess or returning to it after a long absence.

Paul has hit the nail on the head. I consider that the sudden increase from 58p to £2 was excessive. Growth in chess activity in England needs to come from the grass roots, and measures which suppress growth must be bad for the game.

I would like to see Paul's initiative (50p) extended so that it applies to league and congress games as well.

[Sean Hewitt]

Paul has hit the nail on the head. I consider that the sudden increase from 58p to £2 was excessive. Growth in chess activity in England needs to come from the grass roots, and measures which suppress growth must be bad for the game.

You're entitled to that opinion of course, but wouldn't it be better to see if there is any evidence to support the theory that these measures suppress growth?

[Roger de Coverly]

You're entitled to that opinion of course, but wouldn't it be better to see if there is any evidence to support the theory that these measures suppress growth?

Analysis of the most recent grading half season wouldn't require waiting. It would have to be done with care because of the distortion arising from leagues that didn't submit half year results in 2011-12.

Any club with a relatively large number of players playing a limited number of games is worse off financially than previously. Whether this translates into fewer players taking part or everyone just paying up remains to be seen. University based clubs would appear the test case. The membership count is still well short of the count of those playing at least one graded game in 2011-12.

[Richard Bates]

Paul has hit the nail on the head. I consider that the sudden increase from 58p to £2 was excessive. Growth in chess activity in England needs to come from the grass roots, and measures which suppress growth must be bad for the game.

You're entitled to that opinion of course, but wouldn't it be better to see if there is any evidence to support the theory that these measures suppress growth?

And anyway "maximising growth" isn't the only consideration. Or at least maximising one type of growth - there being the issue of whether one is talking about growth in player numbers, games played etc or growth in income to the ECF. At the moment the latter is rather important - indeed that was the impetus for the whole membership model becoming established. I'm not sure if i've misread John's post above but he seems to be not only advocating reducing the Game fee option for the vast majority of English graded chess (Leagues, congresses etc) but actually making it cheaper than it was before! So not only pulling out the rug from under membership (part of the reason Game Fee is priced as it is, is to make membership the financially attractive option), but completely bankrupting the ECF in the process.

So no doubt the proposal will be sprung at the last minute when the next budget proposals come around, and carried before anyone knows what's happened...

[Roger de Coverly]

If the ECF has a total income close to £400k,

It may say that in the accounts, but that's only because they add in the Income and Expenditure of the British Championships and the Income and Expenditure of parental contributions to Junior trips.

The true benchmark is around the £ 100,000 to £ 150,000 mark, depending on what assumptions you make about the player count ( doesn't really exceed 15,000) and the amount you collect from each one.

[Clive Blackburn]

The way I see it Club internal competitions are the means by which beginners / returners dip their toe in the water to see whether they enjoy serious stuff, as opposed to casual social play, and are an essential interim step to moving on to League or Congress play - where such opportunities are available of course, they often aren't outside metropolitan areas.

There is no reason of course why Club internal competitions should be graded, that is a matter for each individual club.

I think a bigger problem occurs when a club is short of a team member. In the past, they might well have given a newcomer a chance to play on bottom board but not now they would be asking the player to cough up a game fee for the privelege of paying! For a casual social player who isn't concerned about getting a grading, the game fee could well be the last straw.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think a bigger problem occurs when a club is short of a team member. In the past, they might well have given a newcomer a chance to play on bottom board but not now they would be asking the player to cough up a game fee for the privelege of paying! For a casual social player who isn't concerned about getting a grading, the game fee could well be the last straw.

If I'm a team captain who desperately needs a casual player to fill up his bottom board, I'm probably happy to pay the £2 out of my own pocket.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think a bigger problem occurs when a club is short of a team member. In the past, they might well have given a newcomer a chance to play on bottom board but not now they would be asking the player to cough up a game fee for the privelege of paying! For a casual social player who isn't concerned about getting a grading, the game fee could well be the last straw.

Citation required. I have seen zero evidence of this occurring.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I think a bigger problem occurs when a club is short of a team member. In the past, they might well have given a newcomer a chance to play on bottom board but not now they would be asking the player to cough up a game fee for the privelege of paying! For a casual social player who isn't concerned about getting a grading, the game fee could well be the last straw.

If I'm a team captain who desperately needs a casual player to fill up his bottom board, I'm probably happy to pay the £2 out of my own pocket.

Me too, though I'm more likely to grumble at the fixtures secretary for arranging a match on 14th February...

[Roger de Coverly]

Citation required. I have seen zero evidence of this occurring.

Do you monitor every league in the country? It's not that often, but when your league is structured on the basis that teams are distinct and ranked by strength, it's by no means uncommon in the lowest team in a club, which by the nature of the usual process of ring fencing players has the lowest potential pool that the match captain has to resort to persuading long retired players or even people you know as social players to turn out in league games to attempt to avoid a default or present a competitive team. Even the ECF membership scheme acknowledges this, by virtue of not requiring membership for absolutely everyone.

If you want a citation, here's one from my own club
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=16404 ... 1900871021

How else do you explain the presence of players playing just a single game in the grading system? I thought the general consensus of the ECF voting membership was these irregular players didn't matter and defaults could be tolerated in the greater interests of "membership".

[Richard Bates]

Citation required. I have seen zero evidence of this occurring.

Do you monitor every league in the country? It's not that often, but when your league is structured on the basis that teams are distinct and ranked by strength, it's by no means uncommon in the lowest team in a club, which by the nature of the usual process of ring fencing players has the lowest potential pool that the match captain has to resort to persuading long retired players or even people you know as social players to turn out in league games to attempt to avoid a default or present a competitive team. Even the ECF membership scheme acknowledges this, by virtue of not requiring membership for absolutely everyone.

If you want a citation, here's one from my own club
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=16404 ... 1900871021

How else do you explain the presence of players playing just a single game in the grading system? I thought the general consensus of the ECF voting membership was these irregular players didn't matter and defaults could be tolerated in the greater interests of "membership".

It's pretty obvious Sean wasn't disputing the utilisation of casual, infrequent, "fillers". Just the idea that the £2 fee was making it impossible for team captains to employ such players (with the implication that club chess is falling apart at the seams). Frankly, any club which finds themselves in a position where they are employing enough of these players for it to become a serious financial burden, probably hasn't got much future anyway.

The situation described is hardly one unique to chess. It is common throughout team sports - be it cricket, rugby, football etc, which will usually have match fees getting on for £10-15 minimum. And in those genuine team sports it really is a serious problem - either because the rules preclude playing with less than a full complement or because playing with less than full complement impacts on the performance, and therefore enjoyment of the whole team. Playing cricket with ten every week will rapidly lead to 9, 8, 7 etc. At the end of the day league chess is an individual game played in a team context. And the occasional £2 is nothing. If the players don't pay it, and the captain doesn't pay out of his own pocket, it could easily be priced into club subscriptions and nobody would notice any difference.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's pretty obvious Sean wasn't disputing the utilisation of casual, infrequent, "fillers".

In the past, he's denied the existence or relevance of such players. Whilst a £ 2 charge doesn't have to close a club, it's part of a continued undermining. What will happen when the ECF want to jack up the £ 12 charge to nearer £ 20 and want to abolish the £ 2 per game in favour of an absolutely compulsory membership?

(edit) As to whether match captains will be prepared to finance £ 2 fees, there's no more than four month's potential evidence and the bills won't have been presented yet (/edit).

[Sean Hewitt]

It's pretty obvious Sean wasn't disputing the utilisation of casual, infrequent, "fillers".

In the past, he's denied the existence or relevance of such players.

What tosh - I've never denied the existence of such players. However, I do not believe that the ECF should base it's funding policies on the convenience of players who play just 1 or 2 games per season; just as sensible clubs don't rely on such players either. They call on them only when necessary.

Whilst a £ 2 charge doesn't have to close a club, it's part of a continued undermining. What will happen when the ECF want to jack up the £ 12 charge to nearer £ 20 and want to abolish the £ 2 per game in favour of an absolutely compulsory membership?

Ah. This again. When the facts don't back up the point, resort to hypothetical doomsday scenarios.

It's about as sensible as saying that the membership scheme is a failure if numbers of active players and numbers of games played and ECF revenues increase.