English Chess Forum

From the latest Board Minutes.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... 16-1-1.pdf

The Board accepted the proposal to introduce three free games per subscription year and abolish game fee.
Leagues will be invoiced £25 for every non-member who plays more than three games.
It was agreed that a formal proposal should be put to the Finance Council meeting.

What prevents Leagues undercutting this by putting through players as Bronze members? Admittedly that just reduces the cost to around £ 4 per game.

(edit) Perhaps it's just £ 6.25 per game, if the fee only applies on the fourth game. Alternatively it's £ 25 for the fourth game. (/edit)

Remind me again. What is wrong with the concept that the voting membership of the ECF, namely Congresses, Counties and Leagues should finance the ECF in proportion to the amount of chess they organise?

Excellent proposal long overdue.

How have they got round the problem of a player playing a small number of games across several leagues?

Presumably the thinking (if any) is to persuade clubs to insist on (the cheaper) bronze membership as soon as anyone (including the cleaner) walks through the door?

Kevin Thurlow wrote:Presumably the thinking (if any) is to persuade clubs to insist on (the cheaper) bronze membership as soon as anyone (including the cleaner) walks through the door?

Marvellous (not) for encouraging new league players and contrary to the promises of the membership advocates that no such compulsory membership would be required for league play.

If the intent is to abolish all references to Game Fee, that will require a constitutional change requiring more than a 50% majority.

In general, I like the proposal, BUT:
1. Why should the charge for non-members who play more than three games be £25 and not the cost of Bronze membership (turning the non-member into a Bronze member)? £25 seems punitive and would, I believe, place an unnecessary burden on leagues and clubs.
2. Is the limit three games per player per league or three games per player (Richard's point I think)? If the latter, how would the penalty charge (for exceeding the limit) be apportioned between leagues?
3. Is the limit three games regardless of type (standard or rapidplay)? Elsewhere two rapidplay games count as one standard play game.
4. I think a better idea would be to create a new entry level category of membership which allows a small number of league games for a small charge + any number of internal club games (to encourage newcomers) + any number of games in junior-only competitions (for junior players, obviously). This would provide some income for the ECF and some membership benefits to players (beyond the ability to play a limited set of graded games). This is documented in the attached proposal.
5. Isn't £3.75 a game for players who play 4 games (or £3 each for 5 games etc.) unfair?

Edit: Added point 5. I'm now leaning to being against the proposal.

Angus French wrote:+ any number of games in junior-only competitions (for junior players, obviously).

One of the reasons why Game Fee was retained was that the original membership proposals failed to recognise that the membership costs for Junior Organisations were historically much lower than for adult ones, primarily because they had always had a concessionary Game Fee rate. Where do Junior Organisations fit into this? Such is the moribund state of adult league chess that new players are relatively rare. Not so with Junior chess which requires a constant turnover of new players. Giving away free memberships is all very well, but it doesn't raise any revenue to pay for Nigel's Olympiad expenses.

Angus French wrote:In general, I like the proposal, BUT:
1. Why should the charge for non-members who play more than three games be £25 and not the cost of Bronze membership (turning the non-member into a Bronze member)? £25 seems punitive and would, I believe, place an unnecessary burden on leagues and clubs.
2. Is the limit three games per player per league or three games per player (Richard's point I think)? If the latter, how would the penalty charge (for exceeding the limit) be apportioned between leagues?
3. Is the limit three games regardless of type (standard or rapidplay)? Elsewhere two rapidplay games count as one standard play game.
4. I think a better idea would be to create a new entry level category of membership which allows a small number of league games for a small charge + any number of internal club games (to encourage newcomers) + any number of games in junior-only competitions (for junior players, obviously). This would provide some income for the ECF and some membership benefits to players (beyond the ability to play a limited set of graded games). This is documented in the attached proposal.

Angus

Is introducing another membership category moving further away from a simple system, and therefore justified?

Do we have any idea how many players would qualify for the copper rather than bronze membership, and therefore what the potential financial loss would be to the ECF?

EDIT any chance of changing Pevention to Prevention in the title of this thread?

1. Three games per league, not player. The issue of players playing three games or fewer across more than one league is not particularly significant financially.

2. Players who play more than three games in a league can sign up for Bronze membership at any time before the end of the season. The £25 is only levied if they are still non-members at the end of the season.

It looks like Roger has got board (pardon the pun) with all the London Classic news, and goes back to what he is good at, basic whinging on ECF Membership fees

Mike Truran wrote: The £25 is only levied if they are still non-members at the end of the season.

So it's a fine on leagues for not insisting on membership or having someone check through the end of season playing records.

Roger de Coverly wrote:So it's a fine on leagues for not insisting on membership or having someone check through the end of season playing records.

Not quite - there are some people who have some sort of moral objection to singing up as ECF members. Mainly in Yorkshire I think.

Rather odd once the club they're playing for is comited to paying at least X pounds anyway but there you are

A far simpler solution to the whole problem is to allow a club a certain number of games that may be played during the season by non-members, taking no notice of who the non-members are. If this number is exceeded they are invoiced for the surplus at so-much per game. This enables new players in a club to be introduced to the concept of league matches and if clubs behave responsibly it will be at no cost to anyone but will still leave it financially disadvantageous for a club to allow an active member to avoid joining the ECF.

Mick Norris wrote:Is introducing another membership category moving further away from a simple system, and therefore justified?

You could say that conceptually it is simpler – every player is a member of one type or another (there are no non-members and there is no game fee). But yes, there is some complexity in the implementation. But there is also fairness (no excessive charge when a player plays a small number of games) and there is automation (through use of an MO-style spreadsheet for sign-ups). And – importantly, I think – there is encouragement and engagement.

Mick Norris wrote:Do we have any idea how many players would qualify for the copper rather than bronze membership, and therefore what the potential financial loss would be to the ECF?

Perhaps this could be calculated. Mightn't the ECF lose less that it would if it allows three free games per player per league?

[Edit - removed nonsense comment.]

Michael Farthing wrote:A far simpler solution to the whole problem is to allow a club a certain number of games that may be played during the season by non-members, taking no notice of who the non-members are. If this number is exceeded they are invoiced for the surplus at so-much per game. This enables new players in a club to be introduced to the concept of league matches and if clubs behave responsibly it will be at no cost to anyone but will still leave it financially disadvantageous for a club to allow an active member to avoid joining the ECF.

Would all clubs - be they large or small in membership - get the same allowance? Can we be sure that a player's club would be accurately reported in grading submissions?