Chief Executive Officer, 2010 - onwards?

[Roger de Coverly]

The simple reason is it now costs less to be a member of Darlington chess club than it did under game fee

Roger you have got things wrong the ECF makes more money from Darlington chess club now than it ever did under game fee this year

The other way I can make these statements consistent is if you presume that Darlington increased their membership count from Game Fee to MO. Either that or the money monster reduced his take.

If you want to analyse the relative effects of ECF membership costs measured by game against ECF membership costs measured by head, you really must start with the same number of people and the same number of games.

As far as I'm aware the new Director of Finance was/is analysing this.

[William Metcalfe]

What happened was our Club membership fees went down as our league fees went down to zero i think we also increased membership by 1 player.The only fees we have now are league registration fees

[Sean Hewitt]

If you want to analyse the relative effects of ECF membership costs measured by game against ECF membership costs measured by head, you really must start with the same number of people and the same number of games.

That would be a flawed measure. It would be predicated on the [false] assumption that any increased playing activity generated due to the existence of the MO would have occurred even if there was game fee liability.

[William Metcalfe]

If my memory serves me right i also think Cleveland paid more to the ECF in MO fees than it did in game fee fees.

[Roger de Coverly]

That would be a flawed measure. It would be predicated on the [false] assumption that any increased playing activity generated due to the existence of the MO would have occurred even if there was game fee liability.

If you start from the premise that you need to raise the same amount of money however you collect it, then it's pretty obvious (to me at least) there will be winners and losers if you restructure the basis of collection. So the starting point is to be hypothetical on a season just gone or a season projected. You can hand wave if you like about "proceeds of growth" but the starting point should be exactly the same amount of chess activity. On a "pure" membership scheme, it's obvious that the losers (in the sense of being asked to pay more) are those who play few games whilst the winners are those direct members (such as myself) who play a lot of league chess as well as congresses. The point being that if congresses claim the existing direct member rebates that's the change is revenue neutral to the ECF, but the ECF loses the Game Fee from league participation.

[David Clayton]

William

We can only voice our opinion based on our experience on how successful Membership Organisation (MO) is.

At Leyland, ECF members at the club before MO - zero. ECF members after MO - 16(total).

Increase in games played that are now graded, difficult to quantify of course. Our club championship now gets graded, it didn't before MO.

League membership fee is next to nothing, so we can enter more teams and new clubs don't have a financial burden.

Congresses offer cheaper entry fees for ECF members (£3 for the August Leyland Chess Congess, £2 for the rapidplay for example). Difficult to determine how many more people this attracts of course.

Regards

David

[John Upham]

In order to find candidates for those who do not wish to stand for election at the 2010 AGM we need to know who is standing and who is not.

I believe that CEM is not standing for the role of CEO or any other role.

Does anyone know of anyone else who is not standing?

I would like to see the current board and President returned with the exception of two Directors who have not indicated their intentions.

The remainder are doing good work and I will continue to support them.

[David Sedgwick]

Does anyone know of anyone else who is not standing?

Yes, but I've been told in confidence - sorry.

I understand that there is an ECF Board Meeting in Canterbury on Saturday 31st July. I hope that any member of the Board who is not seeking re-election will make his intentions public following that meeting.

[Laurie Roberts]

[quote=Extremely difficult - the basic problem is the amount that you have to collect from people playing a small number of games and the probable barrier to new and infrequent players this would represent. You would be asking those who play one game a season to contribute as much to the maintenance of the ECF as those who play a hundred.[/quote]

Then simply have a system whereby players who play under 5 games a season don't have to pay the membership fee, but any who play above that amount do. If someone is prepared to play 5 games a season, I reckon they're serious enough to pay £10-£15 for a year's membership (with discounts for the unwaged, OAPs, juniors etc)

[John Upham]

Assuming that the board meeting took place we should now know who is not standing and therefore for what positions we need to find candidates.

Would anyone like to shed light on this matter?

[LozCooper]

Assuming that the board meeting took place we should now know who is not standing and therefore for what positions we need to find candidates.

Would anyone like to shed light on this matter?

I wasn't at the Canterbury meeting so I can't help on this occasion.

[Andrew Farthing]

Assuming that the board meeting took place we should now know who is not standing and therefore for what positions we need to find candidates.

Would anyone like to shed light on this matter?

I wasn't at the Board meeting either, but I can confirm that after considerable reflection I have decided to stand for Chief Executive.

[John Upham]

I wasn't at the Board meeting either, but I can confirm that after considerable reflection I have decided to stand for Chief Executive.

Andrew,

I am confident that this forum will join me in wishing you the best with your candidature.

[matt_ward]

"I don't wish to appear flippant, but so what? Why should we be that bothered about someone who plays one game per season? We'd hardly miss them if they didn't play, and they might actually play more if they've coughed up £12 or so."


Yes I totally agree with you Sean it would be there problem no one else.

Matt.

[Mick Norris]

Assuming that the board meeting took place we should now know who is not standing and therefore for what positions we need to find candidates.

Would anyone like to shed light on this matter?

I wasn't at the Board meeting either, but I can confirm that after considerable reflection I have decided to stand for Chief Executive.

Andrew

Excellent news and best of luck