ECF Membership FAQs

[Simon Ansell]

Any decent secure online service should provide a password reset service, so you don't actually have to remember every random combination of letters/numbers/symbols that you use.

Regarding the supplier, I'm not filled with confidence by their website (edit: or indeed the 'Google Translate' links provided by Roger above: these alone should be a huge warning. I suppose you get what you pay for), but it's hard to judge without having been involved in the tender process. Does the ECF even have an IT director currently?

[Graham Borrowdale]

Laurie Roberts wrote:

What I'd like to know is which method of payment ensures the ECF get the most money?

In addition to grading, the ECF provide support for junior chess and English professionals which, as a supporter of chess, I think is a 'good thing'.

I'd like to pay by the method which maximises the ECF's income.

I would imagine that filling out a form and sending a cheque to the ECF office will ensure that they get all of the money. Presumably the online provider will not be taking a percentage of that. You could also consider making a donation to the ECF to help them provide the support you mention.

[Roger de Coverly]

I have to say the ECF's system design is somewhat disappointing.

Under the membership system the ECF is demanding £12 per head for participating in graded chess in local leagues. I agree that's a simplification of the more complex actual position. Provided you play enough games this isn't greatly less than what you pay indirectly through club and other fees. For existing ECF members, it's likely to be an absolute saving.

So provided paying the £ 12 is as painless as possible, you, as a local club, can minimise the danger of losing members. Having to record and maintain a login ID and a password isn't painless and it compares unfavourably with the process of entering an e2e4 Congress or the London Chess Classic. One of the parallels is subscription based magazines, which seem to manage without user ids and passwords.

For many players, the only benefit of ECF membership will be a negative one. Their club, league or county won't be hit for £ 2 for every game they play.

[Laurie Roberts]

Laurie Roberts wrote:

What I'd like to know is which method of payment ensures the ECF get the most money?

In addition to grading, the ECF provide support for junior chess and English professionals which, as a supporter of chess, I think is a 'good thing'.

I'd like to pay by the method which maximises the ECF's income.

I would imagine that filling out a form and sending a cheque to the ECF office will ensure that they get all of the money. Presumably the online provider will not be taking a percentage of that. You could also consider making a donation to the ECF to help them provide the support you mention.

Some banks charge small businesses for processing cheques but not sure how that compares to online fees. There are fees for processing credit card payments too. The easiest way to donate is to pay for a higher membership than one requires

[Sean Hewitt]

Clarification of the actual charges would be helpful as 3.95% + 50p for 10,000 members is considerably more than £5k.

Helpful to whom?

The ECF have a board who are elected by council and empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company. The accounts tell everyone how much the system is going to cost. It would appear that it's going to come in under the figure council authorised them to spend on this system.

If we don't like what the board are doing, there are mechanisms to change the board.

[Paul Cooksey]

Clarification of the actual charges would be helpful as 3.95% + 50p for 10,000 members is considerably more than £5k.

Helpful to whom?

The ECF have a board who are elected by council and empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company. The accounts tell everyone how much the system is going to cost. It would appear that it's going to come in under the figure council authorised them to spend on this system.

If we don't like what the board are doing, there are mechanisms to change the board.

I dislike how polarised ECF threads get - I don't want to go from "different vendor, that is important" to "back them or sack them" so quickly.

Good communication between the board and its stakeholders seems to me as helpful to the ECF as it is to any other organisation.

[Sean Hewitt]

Clarification of the actual charges would be helpful as 3.95% + 50p for 10,000 members is considerably more than £5k.

Helpful to whom?

The ECF have a board who are elected by council and empowered to make decisions on behalf of the company. The accounts tell everyone how much the system is going to cost. It would appear that it's going to come in under the figure council authorised them to spend on this system.

If we don't like what the board are doing, there are mechanisms to change the board.

I dislike how polarised ECF threads get - I don't want to go from "different vendor, that is important" to "back them or sack them" so quickly.

Good communication between the board and its stakeholders seems to me as helpful to the ECF as it is to any other organisation.

I agree entirely with this, but I think you you misunderstand my point Paul. It is not for us [IMO] to analyse the minutiae of the deal that the ECF have done. That is a matter for the board. Seeking clarification of the 3.95% + 50p seems to be be too detailed [to me]. The board have said that they spent less than they were authorised to spend, and claim the system delivers all the key requirements. Whether it does or does not is the issue, not detail such as the per transaction cost.

I would have classed publishing the FAQs as good communication.

[Roger de Coverly]

Seeking clarification of the 3.95% + 50p seems to be be too detailed [to me].

You know why this has been raised. Abolition of the previous system and replacement by a per head system was touted by the supporters of the policy as leading to a reduction in costs to the ECF. The argument that any commercial payment system seeking to collect small amounts of money from lots of people would prove expensive in transaction costs was ignored, not least by some of the ECF Directors.

Actually there's something the FAQ doesn't address and neither does the website. Does the software contain a voting sub system?

[E Michael White]

The proposals have two plus points.

1. The 3.95% reduces to 1.95% if the ECF become a registered charity according to the providers website. This means that for up to about 10500 members paying £12 the costs will be below £5000 pa but as a registered charity the numbers increase to about 21400 members or costs reduce for fewer members.
2. On the ECF website it says they will no longer require adult members to give their dates of birth.

However :-

The ECF say they require this information for Juniors but that is of course nonesense they should make the system work using just birthyear. Parents should avoid giving their offsprings' full date of birth to tournament organisers/graders and the ECF for security reasons. For many years the ECF have been rather slipshod in this respect and subjected members to unnecessary data secutiy risks.

Having to record and maintain a login ID and a password isn't painless and it compares unfavourably with the process of entering an e2e4 Congress or the London Chess Classic.

Having to give dates of birth on the e2e4 system is a security downside.

[Roger de Coverly]

The 3.95% reduces to 1.95% if the ECF become a registered charity according to the providers website.

I didn't spot any references to support for Gift Aid processing on the provider's site.

[E Michael White]

I didn't spot any references to support for Gift Aid processing on the provider's site.

That is correct. There is some mention of gift aid but not of any supported logging. Chess players dont tend to be very good at looking more than 1 step ahead outside the 64 squares. Using a logon and password in that respect is a step in the right direction but further alterations may be needed to obtain full gift aid on member subscriptions. Global submission of lists by clubs is a step in the wrong direction.

[Mick Norris]

Clarification of the actual charges would be helpful as 3.95% + 50p for 10,000 members is considerably more than £5k.

Will the system also charge 3.95% + 50p everytime someone upgrades from bronze to silver etc?

Or has the ECF negotiated a deal wherebye the maximum charge will be £5k regardless of the actual number of transactions?

You were sat in the same meeting as me on Saturday when Andrew Farthing said it would cost the ECF £5,000 but they would save more than that in staff costs as someone will move from 5 to 2 days a week work

[Roger de Coverly]

but they would save more than that in staff costs as someone will move from 5 to 2 days a week work

Did he actually say what the saving represented? The implication is that the existing membership scheme is costing 3 days per week to run. Are they moving Congress Game Fee / Pay to play to the new system as well?

Much was made of the office costs of running Game Fee, but thinking about it, that must be Congress Game Fee. As far as leagues are concerned there would only have been two transactions a year per league, the brought forward/estimate in the November/December period and settlement or carry forward in the May/June period.

[Roger de Coverly]

but further alterations may be needed to obtain full gift aid on member subscriptions.

I've always found it as clear as mud whether that's even allowed. Obviously a gift is exactly that, but doesn't it fail when the subscription is of the nature of a periodic fee for use of services? You could argue that avoiding charges of £ 2 per game isn't a service, but being allowed to take part in a closed league probably is.

This is what Andrew Farthing had to say in his Finance Council paper.

There remains considerable uncertainty over whether membership subscriptions would be accepted as “donations” for the purposes of Gift Aid eligibility. There are charities which have successfully benefited in this way. In the case of the ECF, it is less clear. The expert view from the Charitable Status committee is that, as matters stand, there is a blurring between “donation” and “purchase” which would make Gift Aid on membership subscriptions open to challenge. Specifically, the existence of the Game Fee option for non-members places a market value on the benefits of membership in excess of the threshold for Gift Aid.

Presumably in that context, Game Fee option includes Pay to Play for Congresses.

[Martyn Harris]

Clarification of the actual charges would be helpful as 3.95% + 50p for 10,000 members is considerably more than £5k.

Will the system also charge 3.95% + 50p everytime someone upgrades from bronze to silver etc?

Or has the ECF negotiated a deal wherebye the maximum charge will be £5k regardless of the actual number of transactions?

PaySubsOnline prices seem to have two components, a fixed charge dependent on the size of the membership database and a per transaction charge. Assuming transaction charges are only generated for people paying through the site rather than through their MO or directly through the ECF office then the number of transactions will be (considerably) less than 10000, even allowing for online upgrades to count as transactions. The annual number of transactions will be further reduced by some players taking out multi-year memberships.
Presumably the board will have needed to estimate the likely number of annual transactions in order to compare the merits of various offerings.