DCMS Grant : contingency plans?

[Roger de Coverly]

Much of what the office does is tied to Game Fee and Membership, so the ECF's choices about how it operates these are fundamental to the office support it needs.

Don't forget the knock-on effect on local organisations. For example the MO schemes rely heavily on the sponsoring body having an unpaid someone to run around collecting tenners from local players or clubs. A compulsory membership scheme would rely on local leagues and congresses preventing non-members from participating.

[Alex Holowczak]

In my opinion you need to decide on one of the options as a Board and state that it would be impossible for the Board to continue if they don't have the confidence of the Council to pursue this strategy which is fundamental to the financial wellbeing of the ECF.

Didn't a previous Board try that, and then resign en bloc the next day when it failed to get through?

The only real option is through compulsory membership. Game Fee is ridiculously time consuming to administer. There are several reasons for this:

• Some treasurers don't understand how Game Fee works. Either they were never told how to by their preceding treasurer, or are intentionally slightly underpaying. This causes the Office to have to send off e-mails and calls to chase people up. That time could be better spent.
• No members of an MO pay Game Fee in leagues, regardless of which league they play in. Other members do pay Game Fee in leagues. So Greater Manchester causes a huge problem, because its league has a scattering of NCCU MO players in it.
• County Associations sometimes pay Game Fee in bulk, rather than make individual payments for their separate events. The Office then has to work out which events they're paying for in their bulk payment. This is a problem because for the Office has to cross-check it with the grading information, and the events are graded separately, but paid for as a whole. Bear in mind, the Office are not chess players, so it's not always obvious.
• Leagues are expected to make this payment - which we struggle to work out at the end of the season where MOs overlap with non-MO places - half-way through the season.

The problem with all that is that the leagues are always going to underestimate it, so the ECF probably loses a significant chunk of money that way. I think AF's report may have quantified this significant chunk.

I think it would be far easier (nay, humanly possible) to administer a compulsory membership scheme. It'd mean terminating the current MOs, but AF advised membership at the price currently given to the MOs anyway, so I doubt it'd be a political problem.

[Alex Holowczak]

Much of what the office does is tied to Game Fee and Membership, so the ECF's choices about how it operates these are fundamental to the office support it needs.

Don't forget the knock-on effect on local organisations. For example the MO schemes rely heavily on the sponsoring body having an unpaid someone to run around collecting tenners from local players or clubs. A compulsory membership scheme would rely on local leagues and congresses preventing non-members from participating.

Not at all. You just write this on the entry form:

Entry fee: £32
ECF Membership Discount: £12

By happy co-incidence, the price of ECF Membership advised by AF was ... £12.

Problem solved.

[Roger de Coverly]

By happy co-incidence, the price of ECF Membership advised by AF was ... £12.

Problem solved.

I'd strongly suspect that the membership cost would be far higher than £12. In any event, do you think that a local league is viable if you had a cost of £12 or more for every filler that you brought in to avoid a default?

The other problem with 100% membership is what do you do with non-ENG players. Do you insist that all international players at Hastings for instance become ECF members?

Game Fee is ridiculously time consuming to administer.

Does the same apply to FIDE rating fees ? - it's the same principle.

The 100% game fee proposal is that all the political exemptions which result in uncertainty as to whether the fee is payable should be swept away- that game fee is just number of games played * amount per game, that should be really very simple. The Scots seem to manage a very similar scheme without any difficulties.

I think though that additional research could be done. If you join (in the SQL sense) a membership list to the game by game grading detail, you could compute for each game, the game fee due, the game fee waived and the net proceeds. Group this by both players and organisations and you would have a much clearer idea of who and what was driving the finances. You would also be able to point the finger at underpayments.

[Alex Holowczak]

By happy co-incidence, the price of ECF Membership advised by AF was ... £12.

Problem solved.

I'd strongly suspect that the membership cost would be far higher than £12. In any event, do you think that a local league is viable if you had a cost of £12 or more for every filler that you brought in to avoid a default?

I'd rather base my £12 assumption on AF's report rather than someone's strong suspicions. He's seen the data, after all. Yes, I do think a local league is viable if you had to play £12 for every filler. I can't think of any club around here that has more than 2-3 one-game fillers per season. Is £24-36 going to bankrupt a chess club? I doubt it.

The other problem with 100% membership is what do you do with non-ENG players. Do you insist that all international players at Hastings for instance become ECF members?

Germany already do just that with their league, hence Karpov being a member of the German Chess Federation.

Game Fee is ridiculously time consuming to administer.

Does the same apply to FIDE rating fees ? - it's the same principle.

The 100% game fee proposal is that all the political exemptions which result in uncertainty as to whether the fee is payable should be swept away- that game fee is just number of games played * amount per game, that should be really very simple. The Scots seem to manage a very similar scheme without any difficulties.

I think though that additional research could be done. If you join (in the SQL sense) a membership list to the game by game grading detail, you could compute for each game, the game fee due, the game fee waived and the net proceeds. Group this by both players and organisations and you would have a much clearer idea of who and what was driving the finances. You would also be able to point the finger at underpayments.

The point is, FIDE-rating fees are simpler to administer because the process is simpler, and there are only a few organisers of FIDE-rated chess. Most FIDE-rated stuff will come from the 4NCL, e2e4 or Coulsdon. The people who run those organisations are quite proficient in calculating how much they're supposed to pay. It is very likely that some local treasurers are not well-versed on the complexities of Game Fee. FIDE-rating is a per-head charge, rather than a per-game charge, so it's far easier to calculate manually than the current ECF system.

Do you want to be the one who tells the NCCU that their MO will be scrapped and they have to start paying Game Fee?

The additional research you ask for does need to exist though if we proceed with Game Fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

Germany already do just that with their league, hence Karpov being a member of the German Chess Federation.

That's their league though. The way it works is that members of a German Club become members of the German Chess Federation. The ECF equivalent would be that they gave membership to every player registered with the 4NCL.

If I were to play in a tournament in Germany I would not be required to be a member of the German Federation. So the question about Hastings and similar events remains.

FIDE-rating is a per-head charge, rather than a per-game charge, so it's far easier to calculate manually than the current ECF system.

FIDE
Amount per head * no of players

ECF
Amount per game * number of games


I find it very difficult to understand why it is in the least bit difficult to count the number of games played in an event. If it's an even number of players and there are no byes or defaults it's just no of rounds * no of players /2. If you've got exempt players, it gets marginally more complex, that you subtract the count of games played by exempt players.

Do you want to be the one who tells the NCCU that their MO will be scrapped and they have to start paying Game Fee?

The NCCU MO raises about £ 6000 a year - I think the Game Fee leagues of the south are paying proportionately more to the ECF. What's wrong about the NCCU MO is that it shouldn't give Game Fee exemption outside its local area.

[Alex Holowczak]

Germany already do just that with their league, hence Karpov being a member of the German Chess Federation.

That's their league though. The way it works is that members of a German Club become members of the German Chess Federation. The ECF equivalent would be that they gave membership to every player registered with the 4NCL.

If I were to play in a tournament in Germany I would not be required to be a member of the German Federation. So the question about Hastings and similar events remains.

They can either get the £12 discount by becoming an ECF Member (which they can do without switching nationality) or not. Perhaps it should be a £20 discount to make it more appealing.

FIDE-rating is a per-head charge, rather than a per-game charge, so it's far easier to calculate manually than the current ECF system.

FIDE
Amount per head * no of players

ECF
Amount per game * number of games


I find it very difficult to understand why it is in the least bit difficult to count the number of games played in an event. If it's an even number of players and there are no byes or defaults it's just no of rounds * no of players /2. If you've got exempt players, it gets marginally more complex, that you subtract the count of games played by exempt players.

Because for leagues, you're paying without knowing how much Game Fee you have to pay. You have to estimate your payment. If you had to count the number of games, and then be invoiced at the end of the season pay, it'd be fine. At the moment, that's not the case.

Do you want to be the one who tells the NCCU that their MO will be scrapped and they have to start paying Game Fee?

The NCCU MO raises about £ 6000 a year - I think the Game Fee leagues of the south are paying proportionately more to the ECF. What's wrong about the NCCU MO is that it shouldn't give Game Fee exemption outside its local area.

It's not exclusively the NCCU MO, every MO has the same benefit (as far as I know). So if you become a member of the Norfolk MO, and move to Birmingham in November, then your games in the Birmingham League would also not have Game Fee to pay. I might be wrong on this, but I think the situation is that if you want to play in a league within the NCCU, they'd still pay Game Fee for you even though you're a member of the ECF, because you're a standard member (I assume), but only basic members get the exemption.

Telling Greater Manchester that they have to pay Lancashire players' Game Fee - when they're already members - is probably not a wise thing to ask them to do.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not at all. You just write this on the entry form:

Entry fee: £32
ECF Membership Discount: £12

I don't think this works. The cost of the event is £20 but £32 to include membership. Non-members aren't allowed to play. Don't forget the white form promising to contribute £ 1 to the ECF's liquidation debts.

AF's analysis seemed to depend on existing full direct members being prepared to continue to pay rather more than the "basic" cost.

The big financial winners of a per head scheme would be the really active players particularly those who play lots of league and county ches. The big losers would be the infrequent players.

[Alex Holowczak]

Not at all. You just write this on the entry form:

Entry fee: £32
ECF Membership Discount: £12

I don't think this works. The cost of the event is £20 but £32 to include membership. Non-members aren't allowed to play. Don't forget the white form promising to contribute £ 1 to the ECF's liquidation debts.

If you have a rule showing that the ECF gets e.g. £15/non-member who plays in a Congress, then I think you'll find a lot of congress organisers will go around chasing up non-members who want to play to become members.

AF's analysis seemed to depend on existing full direct members being prepared to continue to pay rather more than the "basic" cost.

The big financial winners of a per head scheme would be the really active players particularly those who play lots of league and county chess. The big losers would be the infrequent players.

That can only encourage infrequent participants to play more, as Sean Hewitt frequently explains. That sounds good to me.

[Roger de Coverly]

Because for leagues, you're paying without knowing how much Game Fee you have to pay. You have to estimate your payment. If you had to count the number of games, and then be invoiced at the end of the season pay, it'd be fine. At the moment, that's not the case.

Leagues know how many games are expected to be played. The number of teams in the league and the number of boards per match gives a clue. I'd agree that defaults make a marginal difference but it's surely not difficult to do a sweep-up at the end of the season. I've always been led to believe that this is what happens.

So if you become a member of the Norfolk MO, and move to Birmingham in November, then your games in the Birmingham League would also not have Game Fee to pay

I've long thought this was a ridiculous give-away. If local organisations prefer to pay per head rather than per game, then so be it - but their local events only.

[Ian Thompson]

I find it very difficult to understand why it is in the least bit difficult to count the number of games played in an event. If it's an even number of players and there are no byes or defaults it's just no of rounds * no of players /2. If you've got exempt players, it gets marginally more complex, that you subtract the count of games played by exempt players.

Because for leagues, you're paying without knowing how much Game Fee you have to pay. You have to estimate your payment. If you had to count the number of games, and then be invoiced at the end of the season pay, it'd be fine. At the moment, that's not the case.

As a league Treasurer, I don't find estimating the game fees each season, and then making a balancing payment a year later, at all difficult.

I calculate the expected number of games from the fixture list (maybe deducting a few to allow for defaults), dividing this into standard play and rapidplay games. I pay the game fees for this number of games. At the end of the season I consult the grading returns to see how many games were actually played, and record a credit/debit in the league's accounts for over/under payment of games fees. The next time I pay game fees I deduct the credit from/add the debit to the payment I make to the ECF.

If a league Treasurer can't do this, I'd have to question their suitability to be in charge of the league's finances at all.

[Alex Holowczak]

Because for leagues, you're paying without knowing how much Game Fee you have to pay. You have to estimate your payment. If you had to count the number of games, and then be invoiced at the end of the season pay, it'd be fine. At the moment, that's not the case.

Leagues know how many games are expected to be played. The number of teams in the league and the number of boards per match gives a clue. I'd agree that defaults make a marginal difference but it's surely not difficult to do a sweep-up at the end of the season. I've always been led to believe that this is what happens.

Not if you're in an MO, though. If you have basic members flying around, then you have no idea what the right amount is.

For example, the Manchester League. The following example is fictitious, but it's just an example.

Suppose they estimate they have 2000 halfresults this season. They can't pay for this, because they need to pay £1000 (assuming Game Fee of 50p), minus the number of basic member halfgames. How do they know this information? Lancashire CA or the NCCU will hold it, and they have no access. How are they supposed to guess how many basic members half games are playing? They can guess from the previous year, but they still don't know for sure.

Imagine the process of getting the money back being done for every league in the country. The Office would have to involve the grading team in every single one of them. That doesn't sound like an affective use of anyone's time.

So if you become a member of the Norfolk MO, and move to Birmingham in November, then your games in the Birmingham League would also not have Game Fee to pay

I've long thought this was a ridiculous give-away. If local organisations prefer to pay per head rather than per game, then so be it - but their local events only.

It might well be ridiculous, but that's the rule. So if you want to change it, get 3/4 of Council to agree with you, and table a motion.

[Alex Holowczak]

I find it very difficult to understand why it is in the least bit difficult to count the number of games played in an event. If it's an even number of players and there are no byes or defaults it's just no of rounds * no of players /2. If you've got exempt players, it gets marginally more complex, that you subtract the count of games played by exempt players.

Because for leagues, you're paying without knowing how much Game Fee you have to pay. You have to estimate your payment. If you had to count the number of games, and then be invoiced at the end of the season pay, it'd be fine. At the moment, that's not the case.

As a league Treasurer, I don't find estimating the game fees each season, and then making a balancing payment a year later, at all difficult.

I calculate the expected number of games from the fixture list (maybe deducting a few to allow for defaults), dividing this into standard play and rapidplay games. I pay the game fees for this number of games. At the end of the season I consult the grading returns to see how many games were actually played, and record a credit/debit in the league's accounts for over/under payment of games fees. The next time I pay game fees I deduct the credit from/add the debit to the payment I make to the ECF.

If a league Treasurer can't do this, I'd have to question their suitability to be in charge of the league's finances at all.

I agree entirely. However, I know from experience that such treasurers exist. While they're treasurer, they're costing the ECF money if they do it wrong. The leagues are unlikely to have a flood of volunteers to replace them. So the problem persists.

[Sean Hewitt]

Much of what the office does is tied to Game Fee and Membership, so the ECF's choices about how it operates these are fundamental to the office support it needs.

Don't forget the knock-on effect on local organisations. For example the MO schemes rely heavily on the sponsoring body having an unpaid someone to run around collecting tenners from local players or clubs. A compulsory membership scheme would rely on local leagues and congresses preventing non-members from participating.

No more and no less than game fee relies on someone to work it out, collect it from teams and pay it to the ECF.

In Leicestershire, having experience of both schemes, we would not want to revert to game fee.

[Ian Thompson]

I agree entirely. However, I know from experience that such treasurers exist. While they're treasurer, they're costing the ECF money if they do it wrong. The leagues are unlikely to have a flood of volunteers to replace them. So the problem persists.

If they are doing it wrong because they are incapable of doing it right, is there any reason to think that the ECF loses out as a result? Wouldn't they be just as likely to pay too much as too little, meaning the ECF ends up with roughly the right amount in total? If the ECF actually is losing a lot of money through underpayment of game fees that suggests deliberate none/underpayment to me. If that's happening, then that's a failing on the part of the ECF for not having adequate accounting procedures in place to detect it and collect the fees due.