Regional Membership Scheme

[Neil Graham]

Before I make some comment about grading and the regional membership scheme perhaps the Grading Administrator can give some details about what it entails.

The blurb states "A Regional Membership Scheme may require 100% Membership, or may pay Game Fee for non-Members, and events will be graded in the usual way. It is possible that, in certain Regional-Membership events, non-Members may play without payment of Game Fee. Such events will be marked RM. In these, Members (and all ECF Direct Members) will benefit from grading and others will not."

Having said this there is only one area whose Leagues/Congresses/Events are marked RM. I give a clue in the You Tube link attached :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VLYpKGV ... =1&index=2

[Richard Haddrell]

Neil,

The details you've quoted are correct. What others would you like?

[Neil Graham]

Neil,

The details you've quoted are correct. What others would you like?

Richard

Thank you for the quick response. I assume that these Regional Membership Schemes allow ECF members to have their games graded and appear in the main ECF list but those who aren't ECF members will not have their games graded at all (ie the latter part where these people will not benefit from an ECF grade). Do you have any figures on how many people in these leagues are members/non members and what % age of games didn't appear in the ECF list?

[Roger de Coverly]

Having said this there is only one area whose Leagues/Congresses/Events are marked RM.

Many of the leagues in that part of the country didn't want to pay anything towards a national chess body and therefore opted out of Game Fee. By GMCCA v Lancs/NCCU standards it's a relatively new dispute.

[Richard Haddrell]

I assume that these Regional Membership Schemes allow ECF members to have their games graded and appear in the main ECF list but those who aren't ECF members will not have their games graded at all (ie the latter part where these people will not benefit from an ECF grade)...

That’s about it, but you have to be careful how you say it. It’s not true that non-Members “will not benefit from an ECF grade”. A lot of them play in ordinary Game-Fee events as well and will get ECF grades that way. But their RM results do not count for grading.

The proportion of Members varies a lot from event to event, but tends to be about 20% in the larger events. The 23 RM events last season involved a total of 14,912 halfgames, of which 2,777 or about 19% were played by Members and counted for grading.

Oh, and they weren’t all leagues. The heavy stuff was, but there was a fair amount of club internal and a couple of small congresses.

Yorkshire - we may as well say Yorkshire - is an unusual mix of RM and ordinary Game Fee events. Most Yorkshire congresses pay Game Fee. So do the Leeds and Yorkshire Leagues, though the two biggest leagues do not.

[Michele Clack]

I thought that regional schemes had been dropped. I remember a year or two back that the MCCU's application to start a regional scheme was rejected.

[David Sedgwick]

I thought that regional schemes had been dropped. I remember a year or two back that the MCCU's application to start a regional scheme was rejected.

From what I recall, the MCCU scheme was rejected for reasons specific to that particular application. I'm not aware of any general ban on future schemes.

[Michele Clack]

David said:

From what I recall, the MCCU scheme was rejected for reasons specific to that particular application. I'm not aware of any general ban on future schemes.

That doesn't make sense because if there had been some specific defect in the scheme then surely the MCCU would have been given details of how to address the problem? The archive on the MCCU website doesn't appear to be working but I remember there was a big upset when the scheme was turned down flat. If the scheme is still going why was the MCCU treated differently to other places?

[Sean Hewitt]

David said:

From what I recall, the MCCU scheme was rejected for reasons specific to that particular application. I'm not aware of any general ban on future schemes.

That doesn't make sense because if there had been some specific defect in the scheme then surely the MCCU would have been given details of how to address the problem? The archive on the MCCU website doesn't appear to be working but I remember there was a big upset when the scheme was turned down flat. If the scheme is still going why was the MCCU treated differently to other places?

David is correct. The ECF did not believe that the MCCU's 'best endeavours' would result in enough MCCU players becoming members to satisfy that part of the MO requirement.

[David Sedgwick]

From what I recall, the MCCU scheme was rejected for reasons specific to that particular application. I'm not aware of any general ban on future schemes.

That doesn't make sense because if there had been some specific defect in the scheme then surely the MCCU would have been given details of how to address the problem? The archive on the MCCU website doesn't appear to be working but I remember there was a big upset when the scheme was turned down flat. If the scheme is still going why was the MCCU treated differently to other places?

David is correct. The ECF did not believe that the MCCU's 'best endeavours' would result in enough MCCU players becoming members to satisfy that part of the MO requirement.

Thank you Sean.

Michele, you're quite correct that MCCU officers were upset. That was because they felt that the decision of the ECF Board was unjustified and unfair. However, it was a matter of opinion and judgment, not some technical issue which would have been susceptible of rectification.

It doesn't follow that a new application by another organisation, or even by the MCCU itself, would necessarily suffer the same fate. Apart from any other consideration, only one person who was a member of the ECF board at the time of the previous decision is still a member of the Board now.

[Sean Hewitt]

Now that I think about it, the ECF also claimed that as Leicestershire already had an MO whilst being part of the MCCU, this overlap would prevent the MCCU from having an MO. This was obviously complete nonsense and simply an excuse to justify refusing the MCCU application, as can be seen from the fact that now some Northern counties have their own MO's whilst the NCCU retains its scheme too.

The bizarre thing is that the ECF actually approved the MCCU MO and issued a formal agreement which the MCCU signed and returned. It was only then that the ECF changed their minds and withdrew their consent. There was consideration given to legal proceedings to enforce the contract issued by the ECF and agreed and signed by the MCCU but this was soon dismissed as being uneconomic.

[Neil Graham]

I assume that these Regional Membership Schemes allow ECF members to have their games graded and appear in the main ECF list but those who aren't ECF members will not have their games graded at all (ie the latter part where these people will not benefit from an ECF grade)...

That’s about it, but you have to be careful how you say it. It’s not true that non-Members “will not benefit from an ECF grade”. A lot of them play in ordinary Game-Fee events as well and will get ECF grades that way. But their RM results do not count for grading.

The proportion of Members varies a lot from event to event, but tends to be about 20% in the larger events. The 23 RM events last season involved a total of 14,912 halfgames, of which 2,777 or about 19% were played by Members and counted for grading.

Oh, and they weren’t all leagues. The heavy stuff was, but there was a fair amount of club internal and a couple of small congresses.

Yorkshire - we may as well say Yorkshire - is an unusual mix of RM and ordinary Game Fee events. Most Yorkshire congresses pay Game Fee. So do the Leeds and Yorkshire Leagues, though the two biggest leagues do not.

This was the information I was seeking. What this amounts to is the largest county in the country failed to pay a sum of over £6,000 because its major leagues plus some other events don't contribute to Game Fee. This situation has been allowed to get worse and worse so that we now get to the point that these leagues will never contribute to the ECF because it will cost too much. To play in the Sheffield League, for example. costs £4.00 a team (I believe); to play in the Nottinghamshire League costs £48.00 a team. What we are left with are players who have Yorkshire Gradings or worse Yorkshire and ECF gradings which often don't bear any relation to each other. I return to the question of the eligibility of Quentin Lip in the Counties Under 140 event - I don't wish to rehash that again but suffice it to say that although Mr.Lip played 21 games last year, these were all in Yorkshire and he has no ECF grade. Whilst Yorkshire produce a Grading List that bears no relation to events outside the county we will continue to fuel disputes and anomalies. There is no easy solution to this but in a time when the ECF's financial position is becoming increasingly difficult through removal of the government grant can we really afford to have an area that isolates itself from the Federation? Before we have the usual "what does the ECF do for me?" rants - it might be helpful to point out where the Congress is being held next year.

[Ian Thompson]

This situation has been allowed to get worse and worse so that we now get to the point that these leagues will never contribute to the ECF because it will cost too much. To play in the Sheffield League, for example. costs £4.00 a team (I believe); to play in the Nottinghamshire League costs £48.00 a team.

This comparison of costs looks misleading to me. Nottinghamshire League teams play 14 5 board matches per season, so the game fee costs last season were £35; and a bit less if payment was made soon enough to get the 2.5% discount. Why does running a league cost £13 per team in Nottinghamshire, excluding game fees, when it only costs £4 in Sheffield?

[Neil Graham]

This situation has been allowed to get worse and worse so that we now get to the point that these leagues will never contribute to the ECF because it will cost too much. To play in the Sheffield League, for example. costs £4.00 a team (I believe); to play in the Nottinghamshire League costs £48.00 a team.

This comparison of costs looks misleading to me. Nottinghamshire League teams play 14 5 board matches per season, so the game fee costs last season were £35; and a bit less if payment was made soon enough to get the 2.5% discount. Why does running a league cost £13 per team in Nottinghamshire, excluding game fees, when it only costs £4 in Sheffield?

Because Nottinghamshire uses the remaining money to fund all the other aspects associated with running a chess association - you may have noticed that the county runs several teams in the Counties Championships for example. The sole funding for the Notts Chess Association comes from a levy fee based on number of teams in the Notts League.

[Roger de Coverly]

Because Nottinghamshire uses the remaining money to fund all the other aspects associated with running a chess association - you may have noticed that the county runs several teams in the Counties Championships for example. The sole funding for the Notts Chess Association comes from a levy fee based on number of teams in the Notts League.

Elsewhere though, counties expect their events to be more or less self supporting. Bucks for example runs an evening league, Saturday teams in the Chiltern Cup and an all play all individual competition. Entry fees and county team board fees are set at levels which minimise cross subsidy.

It's wrong though that Yorkshire are allowed to opt out of helping to finance the national chess body and have their players in their own private rating limbo.