Regional Membership Scheme

General discussions about ratings.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:12 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: Individual subscriptions to play for clubs remains roughly the same, yet the ECF get an extra £5,000. Where does this money come from?

From the clubs of course unless the BDCL has a hidden supply of assets.

It would be the reverse of what happened when Game Fee first came in. The introduction of Game Fee moved some of the onus of financing the then BCF away from counties and leagues towards congresses. Prior to Game Fee, the BCF ran a per head scheme on territorial associations (counties mostly). Post Game Fee, most counties found their BCF bill considerably reduced. Some even passed it on to the clubs.

If you use the £10 / 50p benchmark, then the crossover point for clubs is 20 games. My guess is that most club members play less than 20 games as part of their club. If at the same time you remove the cost of Game Fee from congresses (because you exempt ECF members) then the ECF doesn't gain either. The Scots seem to manage with a "number of boards" costing for leagues and rating fees for congresses - which are still payable even if 100% of the entry are members of Chess Scotland.

Michele Clack
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:38 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Michele Clack » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:39 pm

Alex said that
I don't think a club is going to fold because of a switch from Game Fee to Membership
The point I'm trying to make is the incremental cost to individual players at the point at which they first are asked to play in a league. Sometimes that would be enough to put people off. Conversely once they have started playing in a league they are far more likely to get hooked and thus more likely to remain with the club.

An Example: Say a club has expenses of £960 p.a. A couple of players moved away over the summer so now it has say 12 members paying on average £70 each, membership plus league fees, a projected income of £840 p.a. A despondent committee can't cut expenses any lower then Fred and Bert turn up. They've been playing each other at work and want to play a bit more seriously. They pay a membership of £50 each. Our club are now just £20 short of covering their expenses, by dipping into reserves they can hang on in there. The teams are a bit short handed and ask Bert and Fred to play in a few matches. Now playing club members they keep getting beaten easily but on bottom board of Division 6 in the League they are more competitive. By the end of the season they start winning and drawing. They then don't worry too much about the gulf in standard between them and the rest of the club as they can see they are making progress and join up for the following season happy to pay £70. Everyone is happy.
Under our compulsory membership scheme at some point, whether at their first game or after their first 5 league games, they are told that they now have to pay a membership fee to the ECF. They haven't really got going yet and this is the last straw. They throw in the towel with the 2nd half of the years fees not yet paid. Our club are now £70 down on the year. The exhausted committee members decide that enough is enough and the club folds.

It is this Mr Mccawber effect that I am on about with membership numbers slipping to hazardous levels. I am sure it is very much evident in some, not all, clubs in Worcestershire. Now I think chess is in the doldrums currently and that it will pick up eventually. There are so many people beavering away to try and make that happen. Some clubs might be on the edge at the moment but if they get past the current problems might do well in the future. The time to be enforcing these types of changes is when clubs are in a healthier state generally. This is only going to happen when people start feeling more prosperous.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:19 pm

michele clack wrote:
An Example: Say a club has expenses of £960 p.a. A couple of players moved away over the summer so now it has say 12 members paying on average £70 each, membership plus league fees, a projected income of £840 p.a. A despondent committee can't cut expenses any lower then Fred and Bert turn up. They've been playing each other at work and want to play a bit more seriously. They pay a membership of £50 each. Our club are now just £20 short of covering their expenses, by dipping into reserves they can hang on in there. The teams are a bit short handed and ask Bert and Fred to play in a few matches. Now playing club members they keep getting beaten easily but on bottom board of Division 6 in the League they are more competitive. By the end of the season they start winning and drawing. They then don't worry too much about the gulf in standard between them and the rest of the club as they can see they are making progress and join up for the following season happy to pay £70. Everyone is happy.
Under our compulsory membership scheme at some point, whether at their first game or after their first 5 league games, they are told that they now have to pay a membership fee to the ECF.
No, because when they pay their £50 membership of your club, this includes the cost of becoming a member of the ECF. So they know they're paying for membership of the ECF when they pay the membership fee to join your club. This is no different from now except they just have to fill a form in.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1939
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Neil Graham » Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:43 am

I'm rather sorry this thread has wandered off. The question I posed is how the ECF tackles the problem of a huge area that contributes zilch.

Whilst the Game Fee/Membership Scheme debate is very interesting, all the Leagues/Counties concerned pay what is due to the Federation in one form or another. Not a figure of zero.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:31 am

The fact is Neil that the ECF charges game fee as a fee for grading despite any pretence the ECF may have to the contrary. That's fine when a county values that grading service provided but, when they dont and can produce a better service for less cost the ECF is stuffed.

The only thing the ECF could do is retaliate and ban Yorkshire from the county championships though I'm not convinced that would achieve anything.