Regional Membership Scheme

General discussions about ratings.
User avatar
Gavin Strachan
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Gavin Strachan » Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:43 pm

I always think that you pay for what you get and nothing is free in this world. £48/£4 it is not exactly killer amounts of money considering I know of other organisations in other fields that charge well over £100 for a years membership.

In the end, what is the point in disparate grading systems? It seems a bit cutting your nose of to spite your face. It is weird enough with FIDE v national grades. One grade, One Country!!

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 10:54 am

It would be interesting to calculate how much per player is paid by areas with game fee compared with areas with membership fees. Is the raw data available anywhere? I suspect areas with game fee pay more. I also suspect that this was the reason why the MCCU scheme was turned down, finance pure and simple. So I think Neil is right some areas support the ECF more than others.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:17 am

michele clack wrote:It would be interesting to calculate how much per player is paid by areas with game fee compared with areas with membership fees. Is the raw data available anywhere? I suspect areas with game fee pay more. I also suspect that this was the reason why the MCCU scheme was turned down, finance pure and simple. So I think Neil is right some areas support the ECF more than others.
That would be a totally false comparison, and here is why.

In Leicestershire, when we started our MO, we paid more money to the ECF under the MO than under game fee. FACT!

However, membership encourages players to play more, and in 4 years the number of graded games played in Leicestershire has gradually increased so that we now play 33% more games than we did in 2006. FACT!

Consequently, if we moved back to game fee we would now pay more than under the MO. However, that is purely because of the growth that was possible as result of the MO. The unknown factor is how much less chess would be played (if there was any reduction at all) if the MO were cancelled, so it is impossible to tell if, or how much extra we would pay.

The reality is that if MO's were paying less than game fee areas there would be more MO's than there were, or at least more applications!

It would be totally unfair to make a county like Leicestershire pay more money because it has successfully implemented the MO. FACT!

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2720
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Adam Raoof » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:50 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:However, membership encourages players to play more, and in 4 years the number of graded games played in Leicestershire has gradually increased so that we now play 33% more games than we did in 2006. FACT!
I'm not disputing the fact that there is more chess played in Leicestershire now, but isn't that due to the organisers, rather than the membership? If we could demonstrate that it was directly as a result of membership, I would be very happy.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
Chess England Events - https://chessengland.com/
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Don’t stop playing chess!

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:20 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:However, membership encourages players to play more, and in 4 years the number of graded games played in Leicestershire has gradually increased so that we now play 33% more games than we did in 2006. FACT!
I'm not disputing the fact that there is more chess played in Leicestershire now, but isn't that due to the organisers, rather than the membership? If we could demonstrate that it was directly as a result of membership, I would be very happy.
Adam,

It is of course a combination of the two. The MO was the tool that allowed the organisers to deliver the additional chess playing activity.

For example, under game fee we had to charge £5 to play in our county championships. They died a death due to a lack of interested players. Now, participation if free and up to a quarter of active players participate. We were also able to deliver other additional competitions (both standard and rapidplay) free of charge and these have steadily grown in popularity.

We now have new clubs starting to appear, and this can only further help to fuel the growth. When you tell new players that they all need to be ECF members they don't bat an eyelid as the fee is twelve quid.

Abolish the chess prevention tax = More chess played :D

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 12:57 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:I'm not disputing the fact that there is more chess played in Leicestershire now, but isn't that due to the organisers, rather than the membership? If we could demonstrate that it was directly as a result of membership, I would be very happy.
Leicester are fortunate in that they mostly seem to have free venues, so the marginal cost of additional games is zero for the accommodation. That's not so elsewhere in the country where additional events would have to charge entry fees to cover additional room hire costs. If you have to charge for room costs, an extra 50p per game to cover corporate ECF membership and grading costs isn't a major issue.

In the south it's my perception that there are still plenty of events. What's missing is players wishing to play in them. We've seen stories on this forum that the extra £20 for English non-ECF members was a disincentive to play at Canterbury for some players.

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 1:38 pm

Ok so if Sean is right and initially MO schemes bring in extra money it brings me back full circle to my question. Why on earth did the ECF refuse the MCCU application? If it's not finance, and that was the rumour at the time, then what was it?

What percentage have the membership fees for individuals in MO organisations gone up since they started and what percentage have game fees gone up by over the same period? Have the two been synchronised?

I can see big advantages for organisers not having to do game fee calculations. Conversely compulsory membership could be a very serious problem in areas where chess is less robust and just one or two extra members can be enough to save a club.

Roger says:
We've seen stories on this forum that the extra £20 for English non-ECF members was a disincentive to play at Canterbury for some players.
Well isn't that the whole point of the Championshionship? It's something the ECF organises for its members and members of the other chess federations in the UK. It's a benefit of membership. I would imagine that very few people would be put off by having to be a member as they would accept that. Of course if all active chess players were members anyway the problem wouldn't arise. Another advantage of a universal membership scheme I would have thought.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Aug 01, 2010 5:35 pm

michele clack wrote: What percentage have the membership fees for individuals in MO organisations gone up since they started and what percentage have game fees gone up by over the same period? Have the two been synchronised?
Membership was £10 when it started in 2006. Game Fee was 45p (I think). Membership is now £12 (+20%) and game fee 54p (+20%). So yes, both funding models have gone up by the same amount. Council does does this by putting up membership 50p when game fee goes up 2p.
michele clack wrote:Ok so if Sean is right and initially MO schemes bring in extra money it brings me back full circle to my question. Why on earth did the ECF refuse the MCCU application? If it's not finance, and that was the rumour at the time, then what was it?
Only the ECF board at the time can answer that for sure. But whilst Leicestershire CA organises alot of chess and therefore can do much (as it has) to ensure that it's players become members, the same cannot be said of the MCCU. It organises relatively little chess and has few means to ensure that Midlands players would join its scheme.
michele clack wrote:I can see big advantages for organisers not having to do game fee calculations. Conversely compulsory membership could be a very serious problem in areas where chess is less robust and just one or two extra members can be enough to save a club.
That's just not right! Again, let me give you an example. The club I play for in Leicester charged £23 per year prior to membership. From that it paid for equipment etc, and of course league fees for it's teams - the majority of which (80%) consisted of the ECF game fee. When membership was brought in the club paid for every member to become an ECF member at a cost of £10 per player. However it only put it's fees to players up by £2 to £25. This is because league fees dropped from £60 per team to £20 per team as there was no longer any game fee to be paid. I can't believe that someone would happily pay £x to join their local chess club, but not pay £x+2

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 5:50 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:


That's just not right! Again, let me give you an example. The club I play for in Leicester charged £23 per year prior to membership. From that it paid for equipment etc, and of course league fees for it's teams - the majority of which (80%) consisted of the ECF game fee. When membership was brought in the club paid for every member to become an ECF member at a cost of £10 per player. However it only put it's fees to players up by £2 to £25. This is because league fees dropped from £60 per team to £20 per team as there was no longer any game fee to be paid. I can't believe that someone would happily pay £x to join their local chess club, but not pay £x+2
How many games does each team in your league play? I have difficulty in seeing that the change of charging method is cost neutral to the league since a 6 board team playing ten matches would cost the county £ 30 at a Game Fee of 50p and £ 80 assuming 8 players per 6 board team at £10 membership. I remember when Game Fee was first introduced that League fees went down dramatically (once we told the Treasurer to do it!).

Whenever we've discussed this in Bucks, the back of an envelope calculation suggests that Game Fee is lower cost and avoids all the aggro of the county having to pursue irregular players for ECF memberships (like getting them to sign forms)

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:21 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sean Hewitt wrote:
That's just not right! Again, let me give you an example. The club I play for in Leicester charged £23 per year prior to membership. From that it paid for equipment etc, and of course league fees for it's teams - the majority of which (80%) consisted of the ECF game fee. When membership was brought in the club paid for every member to become an ECF member at a cost of £10 per player. However it only put it's fees to players up by £2 to £25. This is because league fees dropped from £60 per team to £20 per team as there was no longer any game fee to be paid. I can't believe that someone would happily pay £x to join their local chess club, but not pay £x+2
How many games does each team in your league play? I have difficulty in seeing that the change of charging method is cost neutral to the league since a 6 board team playing ten matches would cost the county £ 30 at a Game Fee of 50p and £ 80 assuming 8 players per 6 board team at £10 membership. I remember when Game Fee was first introduced that League fees went down dramatically (once we told the Treasurer to do it!).
Each team plays 14 games, 5 boards per team thus the game fee saving is £35. Fees were actually £55 four years ago, hence the reduction to £20 (fees for "non-membership" clubs have been increased to £60 this year to encourage such remaining clubs to switch to membership).

50% of players in Leicestershire play for two teams (ie low board for team x and high board for team x+1 within the same club) hence a clubs membership cost per team does not correspond to the number of boards. This seems quite common in the Midlands and the North - I don't know about Southern clubs.

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 6:36 pm

Sean said
That's just not right! Again, let me give you an example. The club I play for in Leicester charged £23 per year prior to membership. From that it paid for equipment etc, and of course league fees for it's teams - the majority of which (80%) consisted of the ECF game fee. When membership was brought in the club paid for every member to become an ECF member at a cost of £10 per player. However it only put it's fees to players up by £2 to £25. This is because league fees dropped from £60 per team to £20 per team as there was no longer any game fee to be paid. I can't believe that someone would happily pay £x to join their local chess club, but not pay £x+2
If you want to tempt people to play chess seriously you have to ease their passage sometimes. We register teams as a whole in the Leagues here and League fees are added to the membership fee and subs for each player to cover what the club has spent entering. The league fee is the same whether we register 6 players or 12 for a team. If we are short of a player or two at some point in the season we don't have to charge any recruits extra on top of their membership for the rest of that season. Then hopefully by the following season they will be hooked and happy to pay to stay in that league. With a membership scheme we would have to charge extra straight away. Believe me it can make a difference. One of my opponents at the recent Worcester Congress was telling me at how sad he was that so many clubs were folding. I wouldn't like to see any more going.

Personally I would much rather see a membership system but I also very much want evening league chess to survive in this area!

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 7:23 pm

michele clack wrote: If you want to tempt people to play chess seriously you have to ease their passage sometimes. We register teams as a whole in the Leagues here and League fees are added to the membership fee and subs for each player to cover what the club has spent entering. The league fee is the same whether we register 6 players or 12 for a team. If we are short of a player or two at some point in the season we don't have to charge any recruits extra on top of their membership for the rest of that season. Then hopefully by the following season they will be hooked and happy to pay to stay in that league. With a membership scheme we would have to charge extra straight away. Believe me it can make a difference. One of my opponents at the recent Worcester Congress was telling me at how sad he was that so many clubs were folding. I wouldn't like to see any more going.

Personally I would much rather see a membership system but I also very much want evening league chess to survive in this area!
I don't think a club is going to fold because of a switch from Game Fee to Membership. Clubs close because either:
1) Suitable venues are closing rapidly (e.g. Northfield Checkmates in our area)
2) There aren't any players left playing for a club anymore (e.g. Aldridge in our area)

If membership comes at £12, then if you need 5 players to fill in for one game throughout the season (which is pretty much a worst case scenario), then the total cost of these will be £60. If a club's finances are such that £60 is enough to close it, then I don't think Game Fee or MO is their main cause for concern! Indeed, the players who are now members may decide that they'll play some more chess, since they've paid £12 for it. Which is a good thing.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Regional Membership Scheme

Post by Sean Hewitt » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: If membership comes at £12, then if you need 5 players to fill in for one game throughout the season (which is pretty much a worst case scenario), then the total cost of these will be £60. If a club's finances are such that £60 is enough to close it, then I don't think Game Fee or MO is their main cause for concern! Indeed, the players who are now members may decide that they'll play some more chess, since they've paid £12 for it. Which is a good thing.
Absolutely.

If you have a de minimis limit of say 3 games before a player has to become a member then this is not even an issue.

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 7:46 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
If membership comes at £12, then if you need 5 players to fill in for one game throughout the season
What sort of size club are you talking about? The bottom line for clubs is whether

(individual membership cost) * (no of people playing)

exceeds

(no of games played) * (cost per game)

and whether league and club secretaries really want to chase people for signatures on ECF membership forms and supply checklists to the ECF.

In budget terms you know what (no of games played) * (cost per game) is likely to be. You have less knowledge of (individual membership cost) * (no of people playing)

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 7:58 pm

For the BDCL:

They print 800 handbooks, which includes one for every member + spares. So I'll say there are around 700 members. 700*12 = £8,400

The budget for next season expects something like 5,724 half-results (may have that figure slightly wrong) at 54p. 6,000*0.5 = £3,000

That's a massive difference, the ECF get £5,000 more under a MO scheme.

This raises a question. Individual subscriptions to play for clubs remains roughly the same, yet the ECF get an extra £5,000. Where does this money come from?