Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:02 pm

MartinCarpenter wrote:Its quite good sticky tape though - doesn't it basically eliminate the core problem?
The cost of this is putting up a barrier up to playing a fourth league game.
MartinCarpenter wrote: (There are a few who are genuinely opposed to joining as a matter of principle.).
Indeed so. Who are these ECF guys and why do they demand money as a condition of taking part in organised chess? It's not as if there's any meaningful say in who runs the ECF and how the money is spent.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:06 pm

Michael Flatt wrote: Players are being required to register to be included in the ECF grading database
That isn't the case though. Everyone who plays at least one graded game is given a grading code and added to the grading database regardless of membership, there being no such formal concept of a registered player as far as the ECF is concerned.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:09 pm

It is hard to tell if the ECF is spending less money on collecting its income since the switch from game fee to membership. On the basis of the accounts published, I'd guess not. It seems a large proportion of the membership fee still goes on collecting the membership fee.

The latest change seems to entrench further the confusing position where players pay, but the ECF enforces this indirectly by monitoring and invoicing leagues and tournaments. I know some people see this as a reasonable compromise, but I think it dooms the ECF to inefficiency.

If the system is for members to pay, I'd be happy to see membership enforced through grading by not grading the games of non-members.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1153
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:12 pm

You cannot change the rules in a league mid-season. The question is about a retrospective proposal.
Previously the ECF were getting the administrative services for free.
So yes there is some reduction but not to the extent of the administration cost.
Anyway there is a proposal & I'll let those that attend the meetings etc to get the finer points across.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:16 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:It is hard to tell if the ECF is spending less money on collecting its income since the switch from game fee to membership.
It was the assertion of a former CEO that universal membership would result in a saving of ECF expenses. To my mind that was blatantly false at the time he wrote it and empirical experience has done little to demonstrate otherwise. Every year during the August to November period, the ECF Office has to defer projects. Guess why?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:20 pm

Nick Grey wrote:You cannot change the rules in a league mid-season. The question is about a retrospective proposal.
I had presumed it would be a proposal to apply from 1st September 2017.

What is the future policy on "Junior Game Fee"? That's set to a much lower level, facilitating the running of mass graded events for beginners or near beginners without incurring a massive membership fee to the ECF.

Graham Borrowdale
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:54 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:21 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:A far simpler solution to the whole problem...
Could someone please remind me, what exactly is the problem which needs to be solved? It sounds as if it is a bit of tinkering at the edges for marginal players, which is a bit like what happens when tax regimes change - there are winners and losers, and invariably transitional arrangements are put in place, until the next tinkering comes along.

As for 8.33 per game, I will confess to being a living example. I decided to drop out of league chess this year, but continue to play county matches- that will be 6 games of chess, so I have to be an ECF member, and now I have learned that I also need to be a member of a club to be eligible for my county. I am not complaining, but I think I could be forgiven for not bothering, and I am sure lots of marginal players would indeed, not bother.

Angus French
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Angus French » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:23 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote:It is hard to tell if the ECF is spending less money on collecting its income since the switch from game fee to membership. On the basis of the accounts published, I'd guess not. It seems a large proportion of the membership fee still goes on collecting the membership fee.
I'm sure it spends more, principally as there's an annual Paysubsonline charge. There may be also be extra credit/debit card charges due to a greater volume of (membership acquisition/upgrade) transactions (though some of these may be rolled up into the Paysubsonline fee).

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:24 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote: Players are being required to register to be included in the ECF grading database
That isn't the case though. Everyone who plays at least one graded game is given a grading code and added to the grading database regardless of membership, there being no such formal concept of a registered player as far as the ECF is concerned.
Currently, a player incurs grading fees on every game played which incurs a great deal of administrative effort by the ECF and event organisers.
The proposal provides an incentive of three games exempt from grading fees and reduces the administrative burden.

Players don't seem to realise how much 'busy' work the current game fee system causes the ECF and event organisers. The proposal simplifies the system and everyone benefits.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:26 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: If the system is for members to pay, I'd be happy to see membership enforced through grading by not grading the games of non-members.
There is an important question of principle at stake, namely whether grading should be compulsory at player level. When the membership scheme was started, some organisers wanted to only submit games between members. They were very firmly told by the ECF that it was all or nothing.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=4936

Angus French
Posts: 1603
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Angus French » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:27 pm

Michael Flatt wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote: Players are being required to register to be included in the ECF grading database
That isn't the case though. Everyone who plays at least one graded game is given a grading code and added to the grading database regardless of membership, there being no such formal concept of a registered player as far as the ECF is concerned.
Currently, a player incurs grading fees on every game played which incurs a great deal of administrative effort by the ECF and event organisers.
The proposal provides an incentive of three games exempt from grading fees and reduces the administrative burden.

Players don't seem to realise how much 'busy' work the current game fee system causes the ECF and event organisers. The proposal simplifies the system and everyone benefits.
I don't believe there would be less work for the ECF. It would still need to count the number of games played by non-members and bill for those.

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Paul Cooksey » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:It was the assertion of a former CEO that universal membership would result in a saving of ECF expenses.
A position I supported. We never found out because the ECF went for a hybrid model. That introduced the new costs Angus notes without making it any simpler for the office. At least as far as we can tell from the outside.

Every time time I see a new idea, I fear the system getting more complicated will outweight any other benefits.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:28 pm

Michael Flatt wrote: Currently, a player incurs grading fees on every game played
It's not the player, but the organiser of the League who is invoiced by the ECF.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18090
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:32 pm

Paul Cooksey wrote: We never found out because the ECF went for a hybrid model.
Retention of a limited amount of Game Fee doesn't increase the costs of individual collection from around 10,000 people. These are paysubsonline, bank charges and the extra office costs of dealing with customer queries. None of these seemed costed on the Farthing model.

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1231
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:33 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Michael Flatt wrote: Currently, a player incurs grading fees on every game played
It's not the player, but the organiser of the League who is invoiced by the ECF.
The player incurs a charge for which the organisers are invoiced and they in turn recover it from the player.
That is what I term 'busy' work.

Post Reply