If you think the ECF has problems ...

[Mike Truran]

I suggest that whether game fee or membership is the basis for fundraising isn't the issue. The issue is how the money (including government grant and other sources of revenue) is spent.

The method by which the money is raised won't fundamentally change whether the ECF provides good or bad value for money. That's down to the people involved, the setting of priorities, the way in which decisions are made and so on.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's important to note that most players don't travel all over the country playing chess. The vast majority of people will play for a club and that's about it. Any tournaments they enter will be local, and they'll commute to it on the day of the event.

That's not the case for the "national and regional" players that regularly play in the 4NCL and in Opens. It's an area for the ECF to data-mine the grading records - how many players (and of what grade) play at least one tournament event and is it local? How large is the chess tourist market? In other words how many players spend weekends away from home at chess events? I've been away for five - 2 tournaments and 3 NCLs. Still that compares to nine locals - the other 2 NCLs and 7 tournaments.

[Stewart Reuben]

>
That's not the case for the "national and regional" players that regularly play in the 4NCL and in Opens. It's an area for the ECF to data-mine the grading records - how many players (and of what grade) play at least one tournament event and is it local? How large is the chess tourist market? In other words how many players spend weekends away from home at chess events? I've been away for five - 2 tournaments and 3 NCLs. Still that compares to nine locals - the other 2 NCLs and 7 tournaments.< Roger de Coverly

I am not clear what use this market research would be. The size of the chess tourist market it indeed important for such events as Hastings, Gibraltar and the British and that information is used. It is one reason the Gibraltar Tourist board supports the congress and why we will be getting the premises free in Canterbury in 2010 for the British.

A query. Is there any sport in Britain, other than poker and chess , where non-professionals play for prize money? Is there any other sport or other area of the world where children habitually play in events where there are substantial cash prizes that they can win, including those restricted to children? (One of the glories of chess is that socially the game is non-judgemental. There is no age snobbery in chess.)

Stewart Reuben

[Sean Hewitt]

I'm curious to know which 6 years you know about. In September 2004 game fees were 44p. Since then, they have increased by 1p or 2p per year, all of which are less than 5% per year.

Well, its 2009 now so six years ago was 2003!

The 2002-03 season game fee was 32p. Its now [2008-09] 48p and due to rise to 50p in September 09.

That's a 50% increase in 6 years.

[Sean Hewitt]

I suggest that whether game fee or membership is the basis for fundraising isn't the issue. The issue is how the money (including government grant and other sources of revenue) is spent.

The method by which the money is raised won't fundamentally change whether the ECF provides good or bad value for money. That's down to the people involved, the setting of priorities, the way in which decisions are made and so on.

I agree, but only up to a point. With a membership scheme I suspect that if players perceived they were getting bad value for money they would cease paying to be members. That should certainly focus the minds of the ECF hierarchy.

However, with game fee in place they don't have to worry about delivering value for money - they can just ratchet up the game fee another notch. No problem, and no need to do anything inconvenient like consider what the paying customer might actually want!

[Alex Holowczak]

A query. Is there any sport in Britain, other than poker and chess , where non-professionals play for prize money? Is there any other sport or other area of the world where children habitually play in events where there are substantial cash prizes that they can win, including those restricted to children? (One of the glories of chess is that socially the game is non-judgemental. There is no age snobbery in chess.)

Stewart Reuben

I have friends who play tennis and badminton, and enter the equivalent of congresses in chess. They have children only sections (I suppose they have to by their nature), and they can win prize money. I suppose it depends on your definition of "substantial", but I am told each event does have prize money. All you have to pay to enter is the tournament entry fee, which is pretty much the same price as entering a chess tournament.

Also, research indicates that all club players pay £0 to become a member of the LTA, although they do have Wimbledon and probably government grants to cover the cost.

[Stewart Reuben]

>Also, research indicates that all club players pay £0 to become a member of the LTA, although they do have Wimbledon and probably government grants to cover the cost.<

That's interesting. The LTA did introduce a membership fee for club players and there was the usual cry, 'What do we get for our money'. The answer, if I remember correctly, was solely preferential treatment for tickets for Wimbledon. Perhaps they scrapped the system.
The EBU has recently introduced game fee.
The USCF has had both membership and game fee probably ever since rating was introduced in the 1950s. But they used to make most of their money selling chess goods.

The great worry about these revenue income streams is the percentage of the cost of collection and distribution. Robert Richmond said it was about 35% for the ECF. It would be more efficient financially for an organisation to fund national expenditure direct. Thus juniors from a county play internationally. That county could pay towards the expenses,
rather than hand over the money to the ECF. Similarly donations are more efficient. But both suffer from the problem of being unreliable.

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, research indicates that all club players pay £0 to become a member of the LTA, although they do have Wimbledon and probably government grants to cover the cost.

If you read on from that link, you find this only applies to members of clubs that themselves have affiliated to the LTA, presumably at a cost. I also noted that to affiliate to the LTA, a tennis club needed (a) a constitution and (b) at least 20 members. If applied to chess clubs, many would fail on one or both !

If you aren’t a member of an affiliated club then it costs £5 for juniors and £25 for adults. The cost of membership includes entry into the Wimbledon ticket ballot.

[Alex Holowczak]

Also, research indicates that all club players pay £0 to become a member of the LTA, although they do have Wimbledon and probably government grants to cover the cost.

If you read on from that link, you find this only applies to members of clubs that themselves have affiliated to the LTA, presumably at a cost. I also noted that to affiliate to the LTA, a tennis club needed (a) a constitution and (b) at least 20 members. If applied to chess clubs, many would fail on one or both !

Absolutely. But since the player isn't paying anything, he can just become a member. Club membership fees would remain constant, presumably.

If you aren’t a member of an affiliated club then it costs £5 for juniors and £25 for adults. The cost of membership includes entry into the Wimbledon ticket ballot.

Indeed, that compares to £13 and £16 for the ECF, so it's about the same. I don't see why you would want to be a member if you have no club though, because you wouldn't get any benefit other than the ticket draw, so it's probably to stop people getting cheaper tickets.

[John Upham]

Matters appear to have taken a more dramatic turn :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/us/18indict.html?_r=1

and http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2009/07 ... ption.html

Oh dear!

[Richard James]

USCF Board Revokes Memberships of Polgar and Truong

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9620/544

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/081009 ... 0106.shtml

[Simon Spivack]

USCF Board Revokes Memberships of Polgar and Truong

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9620/544

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/081009 ... 0106.shtml

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter. It is a shame that such things have come to pass.

I note that http://www.susanpolgar.com/indexone.html carries the message: "This site has been suspended" .

[Stewart Reuben]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the USCF dispute, and I am pretty sure Paul Truong is at fault, a huge amount of money and energy has been spent on the issues.
At least the ECF/BCF has avoided the waste of money, substantially due to the good advice of David Anderton over the years.
Stewart Reuben

[Phil Neatherway]

Here are some comments on the unfortunate USCF situation, from the Polgar camp:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

[Paul Buswell]

Here are some comments on the unfortunate USCF situation, from the Polgar camp:-

http://www.chesscafe.com/polgar/polgar.htm

And now it's almost over... USCF announcement:

The USCF announced it has agreed to a settlement with Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong stemming from lawsuits filed by both parties. Polgar’s
lawsuit, filed in August 2008, alleged libel, slander, defamation and
other claims. USCF’s California lawsuit, adding claims against Susan
Polgar in October 2008, alleged email hacking and wire fraud. The USCF
also filed an Illinois lawsuit against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong to
remove them as Executive Board members and end their relationship with
the USCF for not acting in the best interests of the USCF.

Under the settlement agreement, all named parties except Gregory
Alexander and Sam Sloan have agreed to dismiss all claims and
counter-claims in the actions in Texas and California. The Illinois
lawsuit will end with a judgment confirming that Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong are no longer Executive Board members. The USCF’s civil case
against Alexander for email hacking and wire fraud continues, and
Alexander is also facing similar federal criminal charges in California.

As part of the settlement, Polgar and Truong have agreed to never
contest the USCF Executive Board’s action in revoking their USCF
memberships; acknowledge that they are no longer members of the USCF or
members of the USCF Executive Board; agree to never seek, run for, or
accept a leadership position in the USCF; and will never contest the
Delegate’s actions that ratified the decisions of the USCF Executive
Board at the August 2009 Annual Delegates Meeting.

Under the settlement, the USCF will allow Polgar and Truong to be
playing, non-members of the USCF and will be listed as “Playing
Non-Member Status.”

The USCF Insurer, Ansur America Insurance Company, a member of
Frankenmuth Financial Group, has agreed to provide $131,000 to the USCF
and $39,000 to Polgar’s attorneys.

The USCF is pleased that this matter is finally settled and that no USCF
funds will go to Polgar and Truong. Additionally, the USCF receives
$131,000 to agree to a settlement.

The USCF is a not-for-profit membership organization devoted to
extending the role of chess in American society. The USCF promotes the
study and knowledge of the game of chess, for its own sake as an art and
enjoyment, but also as a means for the improvement of society. It
informs, educates, and fosters the development of players (professional
and amateur) and potential players. It encourages the development of a
network of institutions devoted to enhancing the growth of chess, from
local clubs to state and regional associations, and it promotes chess in
American schools