Sean Hewitt wrote:
One of the premises of membership is that the ECF can engage directly with 10,000 or so members - quite a different thing.
Andrew is of course working right now on the mechanics of how the membership should work and perhaps we should wait for his suggestions to be published. I'm sure that he will consider the operational difficulties of the various options.
I really don't understand why the ECF should "engage" with 10,000 members without going through the pain of demanding money from them.
Given the bizarre nature of ECF decision making, perhaps it's not a shock that Council can vote 70-30 in favour of a membership scheme without having a clear idea as to whether the basic unit of membership is
(a) the individual
(b) the club
(c) the league/county or
(d) the Union
According to Andrew in the first paper, all individual membership options are cheaper to run than Game Fee. MOs are all very well, but require a competent volunteer in each local area not only to set the scheme up but also run it every future year. So there is a distinct cost involved, but not one that shows up in the ECF Accounts.
Paul Cooksey wrote:
Apparently I am bonkers too. I was under the impression we were all going to join online through an automated system. I'm not sure why anyone needs to continue to liase with the office.
John Upham is always telling us of the wonders of the ETTA membership system for table tennis.