ECF demands more money

[AustinElliott]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

11. Proposal by William Armstrong (Direct Members’ representative) and Andrew Leadbetter (representative member of the Staffordshire County Chess Association)

“That in fixing membership fees, the ECF should narrow the gap between Bronze and Silver so that eventually the two categories can be merged into one”.

Speaking as a plays-a-couple-of-dozen-or-so-League-games-a-year member, I don't think much of that. We managed to sign up almost everyone at our club to the ECF, based on the notion that the Bronze membership was cheap and was (in essence) a fee for running grading, with perhaps a small contribution to 'the good of English chess', national teams, juniors etc. The fact that we did the registering with ECF for them was likely also influential, since it meant all they had to do was pay clubs subs as usual; i.e. the amount included the money for the ECF Bronze rate unless people chose specifically to opt out.

I think our experience strongly bore out the idea that the fees 'played' (as I understood was intended) as:

Bronze: club players who don't play congresses
Silver: club players who play at least one congress a year
Gold: people who want to play FIDE rated chess

If the Bronze rate is merged with a higher rate, putting the cost up and also implying that a 'standard' ECF member is deemed to equal a congress player, I can see that this 'ECF fee included in club subs' option would become rather less attractive. Certainly to the substantial group of evening league players who don't play any congress chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

The gap was set so that it was possible for non-members to take part in Congresses whilst still generating an Income for the ECF. It was also set for political reasons as a combined charge could have been regarded as unacceptably high, so the concept of membership, so beloved by some on Council would have been rejected.

It be be worthwhile someone doing the back of an envelope calculations as to what level a merged fee would be. Would the intent be to ban non-members from non-international events, or to maintain a tournament based charge?

[Brendan O'Gorman]

My first reaction was that simplification (a good thing) should start by targeting the silver and gold membership categories. In my experience, the majority of chess players don't play congress chess. There is much more of an overlap between people playing in FIDE-rated and non-FIDE rated congresses.

[Roger de Coverly]

We managed to sign up almost everyone at our club to the ECF, based on the notion that the Bronze membership was cheap and was (in essence) a fee for running grading, with perhaps a small contribution to 'the good of English chess', national teams, juniors etc.

You realise that's being somewhat economical with the truth as evidenced by the ECF's reasons for wanting a price increase. The reality is that grading is effectively sponsored by those who do most of the work for nothing, whilst the ECF membership money goes towards running an office with paid employees, who have little directly to do with grading and also towards paying for the national professional team.

[Paolo Casaschi]

My comments were intended to convey that I believe Council delegates should be representing their membership in as democratic a way as they can, and deserve to be challenged if they don't

Please explain how am I supposed to challenge those that in your view "represent" me: for example, I played in the last 4 editions of the London chess classics; I believe Malcom Pein is the council member that owns the London chess classics votes; assume for whatever reason I was not happy how Malcom represents me (note, "represents me" not "represents the London chess classic"), how am I supposed to challenge him in a way that could possibly have any effect?

[Mick Norris]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

11. Proposal by William Armstrong (Direct Members’ representative) and Andrew Leadbetter (representative member of the Staffordshire County Chess Association)

“That in fixing membership fees, the ECF should narrow the gap between Bronze and Silver so that eventually the two categories can be merged into one”.

I think it is a terrible idea

The MCF will be voting against

You are either talking about charging 43% of ECF members more (I think that's the proportion of Bronze members) or giving the 2000 Silver members a saving - in which case, where is the shortfall in ECF funds coming from?

[MartinCarpenter]

Both at once surely? Hence the merging bit!

Silver/Gold too far away price wise I think, so Bronze/Silver the only plausible simplification. Only a six pound gap right now, so if more bronze than silver break even might end up around +2 for everyone in that bracket. (15 instead of 13/19.).

It'd no doubt work fairly badly if you merged them right off as all the bronze people would 'see' the price rise. The suggestion was to do it over time, in which case you'd gradually narrow the gap to say 2 pounds in a 5 years time - differential price rises etc - then just combine the categories. I'm sure you could do that without really annoying the membership, because people don't tend to notice that kind of thing!

The resulting system would be cleaner of course, whether it would be a fair thing to do might be another matter

Maybe a very slight further deterrent to new players, but I doubt if it'd be that large - 13 vs 15 to join doesn't honestly feel like it'd make a noticeable difference. Much less of one than 0 vs 13!

[David Robertson]

There are only two categories of player worthy of the name: social and serious. Better terms can be found; but we all know what is meant. Of registered ECF players, I'd reckon the split is 80-20 and, left to individual self-assignment, that is how the distribution would fall out.

* Social players play in clubs within local leagues, and not much else. They want a grade from ECF, but not much else

* Serious players also play in national events (4NCL; 'open' sections of congresses). They want a grade, and a competent national body

These categories must never be fixed by grade; and must be permeable at the boundary

The price of membership for social players should be low; the price for serious players, high

OMOV is essential. But it must reflect this differential pricing structure. Social members enjoy OMOV on a narrow range of items; Serious members, on a wide range of items. That way, OMOV is both manageable and fair.

The Club should replace all other bodies as the basic point of reference for every player

note: I've argued and explained all this before. It's the only way to go. Oh yes, it is!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Interesting description of the categories. I'd always thought of social players as those who play chess socially and play friendlies and blitz on club nights and don't really play many matches or congresses. As well as that, you get those who play club, congress and *travel* to events (e.g. stay away for the weekend or week at congresses or 4NCL, or travel to something like an away county match). It is those that play regularly and travel and invest time and money that I would distinguish from those that play locally and 'only' spend an evening playing chess or a local one-day rapidplay. I'm not sure if those playing in the lower section of a congress tend to be more 'local' than those playing in higher (even 'Open') sections. Is there any anecdotal evidence to back up that supposition?

So maybe: 'social', 'local' and 'travelling' players?

[Roger de Coverly]

The Club should replace all other bodies as the basic point of reference for every player

There are players who aren't members of clubs. Junior players in particular, but there are other players who only play at weekends. So it's Congress and county chess for them.

Compulsory club membership is the French system.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not sure if those playing in the lower section of a congress tend to be more 'local' than those playing in higher (even 'Open') sections. Is there any anecdotal evidence to back up that supposition?

It depends somewhat on the venue. I'd suggest a hotel venue, particularly with an accommodation deal, will attract tourists of all grades as will a tournament in a town that you might visit outside of chess. In some parts of the country, there are only a limited number of players strong enough to be credible in an Open, so the sporting viability of the tournament depends on attracting some outsiders to give the locals a run for their money.

[Ian Thompson]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

11. Proposal by William Armstrong (Direct Members’ representative) and Andrew Leadbetter (representative member of the Staffordshire County Chess Association)

“That in fixing membership fees, the ECF should narrow the gap between Bronze and Silver so that eventually the two categories can be merged into one”.

I think it is a terrible idea

The MCF will be voting against

You are either talking about charging 43% of ECF members more (I think that's the proportion of Bronze members) or giving the 2000 Silver members a saving - in which case, where is the shortfall in ECF funds coming from?

So what extra services are the Silver members getting from the ECF to justify the higher membership fee? The answer, I think, is nothing as having a congress game graded is no different from having a league game graded. That's a good reason why the two categories should pay the same amount.

[David Robertson]

Compulsory club membership is the French system.

Much to recommend it. And one doesn't need 'compulsion' either - pretty much every player is a voluntary member of a club. For those that aren't, or choose not to be, alternative arrangements can be made without fuss.

One thing is certain: the sooner ECF recognises the primacy of the club in its organisational arrangements, the sooner players rather than arbiters will gain a voice in its affairs

[Brian Towers]

The Club should replace all other bodies as the basic point of reference for every player

Since The Club is where the vast majority of chess is played and club members provide the vast majority of ECF funding, surely that goes without saying?

[Roger de Coverly]

Out of interest, what do people think of Item 11 on the Agenda?

The supporting paper is now available.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... Silver.pdf

In it they say

the ability to sell membership as allowing members cheaper congress entry fees

That rather presumes non-members are permitted to enter Congresses. But at what cost? That should be surely be part of the proposal.