ECF Membership Special Deals

[Kevin Thurlow]

The Isle of Man is not a separate Federation of course (like Gibraltar). Guernsey and Jersey are.

[Neill Cooper]

The document on "Membership & Game Fee Exemptions" does not mention ECF organised events. At present that exemption applies to various events, including the ECF U18/U13 County Championships, the National Schools Chess Championships and also to those ECF Secondary School events which are graded.

[Roger de Coverly]

The document on "Membership & Game Fee Exemptions" does not mention ECF organised events.

As well as the junior events, there's also the National Club, the National stages of the Counties Championship and the Championship Congress. Many years ago, the BCF exempted itself from paying Game Fee, even as a notional budget item. Here and there, the ECF has imposed compulsory membership as a condition for ENG players or any players to take part. These rules aren't the same as the generic rules applying to third party events, so should be part of the exceptions list.

[Sean Hewitt]

So there is no reason why Guernsey should have the exemption, and indeed they have never asked for it!

I don't know the history of this deal but, if Guernsey never asked for the exemption, how come they advertised their event as ECF graded but didn't pay game fee?

Although FIDE will no doubt attempt to increase its annual membership charge, it's currently 1 Euro per active rated player and it's to save this amount that the ECF asks for active players to be delisted if they fail to pay the ECF's £ 28 per year.

Are you sure that's the reason?

[Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM]

The Cheshire and North Wales county are opposing the removal of their concessions

The ECF Membership paper doesn't propose removing their concession - it notes it, says it will be continued for the current year to end August, and invites Council to say whether they still want to have that, and the other, concessions in turn.

Thanks for pointing this out Mick. I very deliberately tried to stay neutral on whether these waivers should continue.

I agree the ECF paper is neutral on the continuation of concessions, but the CNW paper in response quotes the DoMM as follows.

In March this year, the acting Director of Membership and Marketing wrote to the Chester and District Chess League as follows:
“I write to inform you that although the bye laws of the English Chess Federation do not permit the
CEO to grant such an exemption, the ECF will honour this undertaking for season 2012-13.
Nevertheless, this exemption will not be extended as it appears to be discriminatory.
From 1st September 2013 WCU members playing in Chester & District Chess League will need to pay
for Bronze ECF membership or their games will be charged at the prevailing game fee rate.”

The quote attributed to me is correct. The ECF Board does not have the power to grant the exemption that WCU members in C&NW were offered for 2012-13 (namely, free Bronze membership), and so I emailed the C&NW CA to give them notice that this was the case and as a result the ECF Board would not be able to extend this waiver. I did say that I would be bringing the matter of all waivers (that I was aware of) to the attention of Council for Council to decide which, if any, should continue. I offered C&NW CA the opportunity to present their case to Council at the same time and I'm glad that they have taken the opportunity to do so.

I would hope that everyone would agree that waivers are best considered in an open and transparent manner.

[Roger de Coverly]

Are you sure that's the reason?

It's also to demonstrate that it has expatriate players financially trapped if they wish to continue playing International chess.

But given the minimal financial saving, what is the point of wasting effort on removing players from the International list? It only makes enemies for the ECF.

As already established, it's an ECF policy not a FIDE one, so the excuse that "FIDE told us to do it" isn't valid.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would hope that everyone would agree that waivers are best considered in an open and transparent manner.

There's Guernsey as well and for that matter the numerous exemptions the ECF awards itself for junior events, the National Club, the National County stages and the British Championships.

[Sean Hewitt ECF DoMM]

I would hope that everyone would agree that waivers are best considered in an open and transparent manner.

There's Guernsey as well and for that matter the numerous exemptions the ECF awards itself for junior events, the National Club, the National County stages and the British Championships.

Guernsey does not have an exemption. It's possible that there was some deal in the past, but there appears to be no documentation to that effect. It can be graded (as Jersey was) if it requires ECF membership in its entirety, but not if it doesn't. Alternatively, a waiver proposal could be put to the Finance Council meeting.

WRT ECF run events, its simply a matter of accounting either way. Wooden dollars.

[Roger de Coverly]

WRT ECF run events, its simply a matter of accounting either way. Wooden dollars.

Not entirely. It isn't required to be an ECF member to participate in Junior events such as the National Schools. That counts as a concession if Game Fee isn't levied either.

[Paul Buswell]

I would hope that everyone would agree that waivers are best considered in an open and transparent manner.

Indeed; but I would like to demur at the use of the word 'waiver' for the Corporate Vice-Ptesidents: 'commutation' would be my preference. There was at the time an openly advertised membership deal stating that £X will get you this that and the other, and also offering a three year deal if we wanted to pay up front. My club paid its money; the ECF has had the money and must accept that it is stuck with its side of the arrangement until the three years are up.

There wasn't any cunning plan, by the way, as Roger de C has implied elsewhere: our Treasurer just thought the three year fix was a good rate in itself, and the subsequent radical changes to Membership and Game Fee have made that judgment unexpectedly valuable.

PB

[Roger de Coverly]

It's possible that there was some deal in the past, but there appears to be no documentation to that effect.

The cross table for the most recent holiday tournament is at
http://www.guernseychessclub.org.gg/fes ... urnament=H

and here's the grading record of one of the winners
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=26656 ... =543946487

The Guernsey archives go all the way back to 1975, so a cross check of sorts is possible against the ECF grading database from the 1993 tournament onwards. Policies may have varied as to whether to include or exclude foreign players in the BCF grading master list. A check is to pick one of the Dutch players and see if they appear in the ECF grading files with the right number of games in the right years.

The records of one of the ECF Board meetings has a reference to grading of Guernsey. It's quoted back in the thread.

[Roger de Coverly]

The SCCU have raised the issue of whether the ECF should demand compulsory individual membership as a condition of grading school team events.

In support of this, they have produced this paper.
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ership.pdf

in which

but also keep track of last-minute reserves (they are entitled to one free game, but only one)

I don't know whether this is documented anywhere, but it adds to the list of concessions that attempt to dilute the harmful effects of compulsory membership.