English Chess Forum

I use the Atticus website but I know they arent the only ones.

On the website it it lists subs as Working 45 pounds (deduct 5 pounds if I receive it before the end of september)

Not working 15 pounds.

http://atticus.merseysidechess.org.uk/i ... re-now-due

I know of people on benefits such as single mothers, who get more, much more a year than people on the minimum wage!

I know some struggle on 60 quid per week but what about the people on 17 k per year?

It is ridiculous and outmoded, and i think clubs should change it... what does everyone else think?

You're right mate. If a single mother on benefits rocked up at our club asking for a discount we would tar and feather her and send her on her way. We've trained up a special task force ready to deal with social parasites like that.

Obviously if you take the two groups, Working and Not Working, there will be some overlap in incomes between the high end of Not Working and the low end of Working.

However if you look at the overall picture, people who are working earn, on average, a lot more.

No system is perfectly 'fair', in this case Atticus's subs policy, but that's not a reason to get rid of it.

I am sure Joshua will be able to provide us with some fully-sourced model examples to back up his case.

Joshua Gibbs wrote:what does everyone else think?

I think you should get over your Atticus issues and move on.

The clubs I'm part of that charge subs have a similar waged/non-waged distinction but we don't exactly send the bailiffs round to people who are waged but might be struggling.

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Joshua Gibbs wrote:what does everyone else think?

I think you should get over your Atticus issues and move on.

Its got nothing to do with Atticus mate. I was browsing their site because I like reading it

Atticus is just an example....

Joshua Gibbs wrote:

Jonathan Bryant wrote:

Joshua Gibbs wrote:what does everyone else think?

I think you should get over your Atticus issues and move on.

Its got nothing to do with Atticus mate. I was browsing their site because I like reading it

Atticus is just an example....

Maybe so, maybe not.

You seem, however, blissfully but woefully unaware of the impression that you make on others. Choosing Atticus as an example after your previous posts about them certainly made the impression that it was part of a vendetta. (though unproductive, given that the implied criticism was something that most people would consider to be a positive virtue).

Joshua Gibbs wrote:I use the Atticus website but I know they arent the only ones.

On the website it it lists subs as Working 45 pounds (deduct 5 pounds if I receive it before the end of september)

Not working 15 pounds.

http://atticus.merseysidechess.org.uk/i ... re-now-due

I know of people on benefits such as single mothers, who get more, much more a year than people on the minimum wage!

I know some struggle on 60 quid per week but what about the people on 17 k per year?

It is ridiculous and outmoded, and i think clubs should change it... what does everyone else think?

Annual subscription rates are normally discussed and voted upon at the Club AGM.
So, perhaps, that would be the best place to raise your concerns and make proposals to change or abolish the concessionary rates.

My own league club offers concessionary rates, although not as generous as those offered by Atticus. Very few, with the obvious exception of Juniors, actually take advantage of the concessionary rates.

Individual club subscriptions are a matter for the club concerned and are generally set by the members at an AGM. However there is an interesting wider point.

My club has always offered concessionary subscriptions to seniors and juniors (unemployed adults can obtain a concession at the discretion of the treasurer). A senior is defined as somebody over the age of sixty years and this was clarified at a committee meeting a few years back.

The critical point is this. Since I joined the club in 1994 as a 13 year old the core of the club has remained the same, except that many of those members have passed into the sixty plus age bracket in that time. The membership numbers have generally remained static but the average age has increased.

I suspect most of the members now claiming concessionary fares would argue that they paid a full subscription for years while older members obtained a discount and it's only fair that they should have that discount now. However the uncomfortable truth is that a younger person joining the club is less likely to have a well paid full time job than they might have done twenty years ago, the retirement age is 65 (not 60) and many people of that generation have generous pension packets. On the other hand chess remains a cheap enough hobby, particular if you limit yourself to club chess. But I do wonder if the ageing chess population is causing less money to be pumped into the game at local level and preventing investment - I suspect this may be true of many clubs.

I understand Andrew's point, but ultimately people in work will typically be earning more than those that don't (though I do sometimes get concerned about the single mothers section in our club, who spend all their time drinking champagne, eating lobster and essaying outrageously decadent 19th century gambits).

I wish our club had a single mothers' section - or even a mothers' section - or even a women's section. But there is hope - we have a 10yr old girl who one day may found such a section.

I am pretty sure there are single mothers who 'earn' more then I do in full time employment.

LOL, would I be correct in suspecting that those clubs hostile to single mothers would welcome as new members the other parties who were 50% responsible for the single mothers' condition?

I dont know... guys like that have a tendency to leg it mid-season when the going gets tough .