ECF Membership Reform

[Ian Jamieson]

It's one of those situations where if we knew the shape of the demand curve for ECF membership, we would know a lot more than we do now. But finding it out is tricky.

I know it wouldn’t be perfect but if the ECF Board can survey the opinion of the membership on membership options then it could survey the membership on how much they would like to play, how much they would be prepared to pay etc.

I can only assume the main reason the Board doesn’t do it is because the answers may not support some of the Board’s policies.

[NickFaulks]

I know it wouldn’t be perfect but if the ECF Board can survey the opinion of the membership on membership options then it could survey the membership on how much they would like to play, how much they would be prepared to pay etc.

The trouble is that you really need to find and poll the elusive group who are not members now because they are put off by the cost but would be willing to pay a lesser amount. How are you going to do that?

[Ian Jamieson]

I know it wouldn’t be perfect but if the ECF Board can survey the opinion of the membership on membership options then it could survey the membership on how much they would like to play, how much they would be prepared to pay etc.

The trouble is that you really need to find and poll the elusive group who are not members now because they are put off by the cost but would be willing to pay a lesser amount. How are you going to do that?

Are there that many of them?

Edit

I suspect as many if not more object on principle than cost.

[Roger de Coverly]

The calculations in support of that claim will make interesting reading.

There's a claim that all members make the same implicit charge on the ECF Office. I find that a very difficult premise to accept unless it's the case that the only charge is the cost of collected the membership fee in the first place. For example the Office gives support to the British and English Championships and other events run as ECF branded. Shouldn't the participants defray the costs of doing this, or at least those likely to participate?

[Ian Thompson]

For example the Office gives support to the British and English Championships and other events run as ECF branded. Shouldn't the participants defray the costs of doing this, or at least those likely to participate?

The Board seems to think so. From the Membership Options paper:

Players who play more will inevitably pay more for their chess – but that extra cost should be through congress entry fees, accommodation/travel costs and the like rather than through differential ECF membership fee levels.

Wherever the money goes, there's no doubt that the entry fees for the British and English Championships are already significantly higher than other events of a similar type that are not British or English championships.

[NickFaulks]

Are there that many of them?

Yes, that is the question.

I suspect as many if not more object on principle than cost.

You may be right about that too.

[Mick Norris]

I'd understood it was revenue neutral

The calculations in support of that claim will make interesting reading.

The NCCU President has spoken with the ECF Finance Director

[Ian Jamieson]

I know it wouldn’t be perfect but if the ECF Board can survey the opinion of the membership on membership options then it could survey the membership on how much they would like to play, how much they would be prepared to pay etc.

The trouble is that you really need to find and poll the elusive group who are not members now because they are put off by the cost but would be willing to pay a lesser amount. How are you going to do that?

Could you run surveys on the leading online chess platforms?

[Roger de Coverly]

Players who play more will inevitably pay more for their chess – but that extra cost should be through congress entry fees, accommodation/travel costs and the like rather than through differential ECF membership fee levels.

It's a reasonable question to ask why the ECF directors believe this. In any event taking a fee for running ECF events or insisting that they make a profit is loading it onto Congress entry fees and the like.

[John Reyes]

i spoken to the my fellow Silver Rep Gavin Cartwright today and hope to have something out soon after the election nominee are out

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

But, if the focus is on removing barriers within chess, then ensuring there is no cost difference between league and congress chess seems to be ideal

Which would only be the case if you also merge Bronze with Gold at the same time.

Apologies for delayed reply. But, my natural instinct is: yes I agree; less convoluted systems are generally better. If there was one membership category (with the usual caveats of first 3 games free, or half price/free membership for first time players), then it, in fact, makes it easier for members, as a collective, to challenge and question whether what they are paying for, is value for money. When there are multiple classes, the different classes spend more time debating the costs and benefits between the different classes, instead of focusing on the big picture.

I already contribute to Chess Scotland via it’s 100 club — I don’t want to be forced to become an ECF Gold member as well.

To be slightly provocative, if Chess Scotland proposed changing their memberships fees, benefits, or structure, I don't see why I would consider such proposals from the standpoint of, 'well I already contribute to the ECF'.

[David Lettington]

A lot of people seem to be complaining about the cost of playing a sport that is incredibly cheap to participate in, compared to most other sports.
It costs £25 to take part in my local 10k run. It's £17 just to watch my local non-league football team. It's £11 to go swimming for 90 minutes at the local pool.
Annual membership of a national association for as little as £18 is a bargain, even if you only play a handful of rated games. Club memberships usually work out at a couple of pounds per week (or less). Congress entry fees are usually around £25 per day, which is very cheap for a day's participation in any kind of event.

[NickFaulks]

It costs £25 to take part in my local 10k run.

Why?

[David Lettington]

It costs £25 to take part in my local 10k run.

Why?

I've no idea. Costs of stewarding?

[Reg Clucas]

It costs £25 to take part in my local 10k run.

Why?

I've no idea. Costs of stewarding?

Fell races are much better value for money, as well as being more fun!