ECF Membership

[Roger de Coverly]

Don't be silly, of course it helps you. What I'm saying is, rather than have a system where you have to rigorously check who is a member to make sure you're not getting fiddled, wait until someone produces evidence on the day. Just make sure you have enough loose change with you!

If your grader delivers the grading report in a timely manner, he'll be able to tell you exactly how much to pay the ECF.

Suppose you have 100 players in the tournament, 10 of whom are ECF members. Suppose none of them tell you they are direct members by producing membership cards. How do you or the grader find out who they are without checking everyone against a current ECF membership list? If you don't find out they are direct members, you are paying Game Fee on all 100 of them. If Game Fee applied to every player regardless of status neither you or the Grader would have to check.

[Alex Holowczak]

How do you or the grader find out who they are without checking everyone against a current ECF membership list?

The ECF grading software tells you the number of members.

Failing that, the resultant spreadsheet created from the software, the data for which is collected by Richard Haddrell, contains not only the number of members (be it basic or otherwise), but also the amount of Game Fee to be paid. The latter was at my suggestion a few months ago in order for the Office to know how much to expect from anyone paying Game Fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

The latter was at my suggestion a few months ago in order for the Office to know how much to expect from anyone paying Game Fee.

Ah - so the missing piece of the jigsaw (calculation of Game Fee from grading data) is finally in place. This was supposed to have been delivered with the start of Game Fee 16 or 17 years ago. As the grading system was being revamped at the time, it got lost when time scales for delivery of a reliable grading system slipped.


Does this confirm or deny whether Game Fee has been correctly collected in the past?

[Alex Holowczak]

Does this confirm or deny whether Game Fee has been correctly collected in the past?

I don't know how retroactive the data provided was - I may not have seen the full spreadsheet. Presumably, someone with enough time and patience could investigate more thoroughly than I had time to. Certainly in the proceeding 12 months, there were some red numbers, the most severe of which were chased up.

AF's document for future funding options suggested 25% of Game Fee was going missing. Robert Richmond commented at the AGM that thought he was wrong. I have no idea what the number as a percentage of total game fee expected was, but without going through some analysis that I don't have time to perform, the raw figure was sizeable. Bear in mind that when I last looked at the data, not all of the expected payments had been made (with which there was no problem in the payments being outstanding). This could have distorted that slightly.

I reckon it wouldn't be incorrect to conclude that the ECF didn't get 100% (or more!) of its Game Fee due in 2009/10, but I'm not sure exactly what % they did collect.

[Roger de Coverly]

As a group we were quite clear that we wanted a very robust ECF with a compulsory membership -with OMOV - at a higher rate than current members pay, but we were quite prepared to accept that chess players did not want that.

None of which was said at the time.

The SCCU website asked the direct question

3) Membership Issues. That's what the papers call it, and we can only do them justice by quoting them verbatim.
"The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme and gives Council notice that it will present such a scheme for consideration to the AGM in October. The Board also believes that such a scheme should carry some element of direct empowerment - ie an element of One Man One Vote. Both clearly carry major policy issues so the CEO takes the opportunity to give Council the chance to discuss the principles behind the concept and for members to take soundings from their constituents."
What is a Universal Membership Scheme? You may well ask. Our private unofficial information is that it means grades are calculated for everyone, but the grades of non-Members are replaced by *** in the published grading list. We've met this scheme before somewhere. But our information may be wrong. The Board's intention will emerge when they tell us it.
So, we must hope, will their understanding of "an element of one man one vote". May we delay our soundings till informed?
rjh 27.3.08

It would have been plausible for the Board to address these questions before the meeting (but they didn't).

The best way to find out was to ask them what they wanted the ECF to actually do, as whatever they want will pay for it.
.

What I never saw from your board was any sort of appreciation that the ECF had a monopoly position. As national chess federation for England there were certain activities that it had to do by virtue of its position either because of its national and international status or because of tradition. So running a national grading system, ensuring that the British Championship takes place, getting strong teams to Olympiads and European Team, being the national contact for FIDE were all things that you couldn't not do without ceasing to be the national chess federation. Asking people what they wanted the ECF to do is only really possible for non-core activities.

[Roger de Coverly]

AF's document for future funding options suggested 25% of Game Fee was going missing.

It was disappointing that the review was done with a broad brush rather than properly. What I mean by properly are that for each game in the grading database, you compute what game fee should be payable (could be zero of course) and then group by the sponsoring body, whether league, county or congress. You then compare the hypothetical totals with the actual totals from the accounting records. If you are 25% out, then you can see where. On the first iteration it could be the program of course. I would have thought it was little more than a page worth of sql code provided the data was decently organised. You need to join to membership data to figure out zero game fee. Whether membership data needs to be dated is affected by whether there's a problem with non-renewers continuing to play.

[David Clayton]

Looks like the positive benefits of becoming an ECF member are being highlighted in the 'Junior Chess' section.

"N.B. The NJCA likes getting the kids gradings - the kids like them too! To avoid problems with game fee we insist on all the kids playing in our events become ECF basic members through the Northumberland MO. This was my idea some years ago when I was NJCA Events Organiser - but at the NJCA AGM this year, the parents agreed unanimously to continue the policy. Of course all players (adults and juniors) taking part in the Northumberland League and Championships are expected to become ECF members. (I think this is true of Durham and Cleveland too)".

Excellent news Paul. Well done.

David

[Roger de Coverly]

Looks like the positive benefits of becoming an ECF member are being highlighted in the 'Junior Chess' section.

"N.B. The NJCA likes getting the kids gradings - the kids like them too! To avoid problems with game fee

You wonder what his problem is with Game Fee though.

[Alex Holowczak]

Looks like the positive benefits of becoming an ECF member are being highlighted in the 'Junior Chess' section.

"N.B. The NJCA likes getting the kids gradings - the kids like them too! To avoid problems with game fee

You wonder what his problem is with Game Fee though.

I wonder what your problem with Membership is.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what your problem with Membership is.

very simple - It's a barrier to new entrants (to use an economics term) . Unless compelled would you make membership of the ECF compulsory for those forming teams taking part in BUCA events?

Also I don't think it's right that the ECF should be aiming to collect the same amount from a player playing just one game or one playing over a hundred. Even in bastions of compulsory membership such as the USA, they charge both membership and a rating fee.

[David Sedgwick]

Instead we were howled down for lack of detail – missing the point entirely – or for daring to suggest the members - rather than directors - should decide the longterm future direction of the ECF.

You weren't howled down at all. There was a perfectly constructive, albeit rather tedious, debate on the matter at the Council Meeting in question.

It should have been the start of an ongoing process, but, for reasons still really understood only by you and your colleagues, you chose to resign the following day.

You persist in repeating the same old canard – as though repetition itself will make the fictional factual.

[Roger de Coverly]

There was a perfectly constructive, albeit rather tedious, debate on the matter at the Council Meeting in question.

It was suggested that the Board were taking Council for granted in that the very first question should have been

Do Council endorse the Board's opinion that a universal membership scheme is the way ahead?

As it was the answer to that question was assumed to be Yes and the Board only wanted to discuss what sort of format of scheme should be put in place. It was a bit like the salesman's tactic of asking what colour you want thereby pre-empting the decision to buy in the first place.

At the very least Council wanted more details of what a universal membership scheme might look like before it endorsed the Board's opinion as to its desirability.

[Paul Bielby]

My problems with game fee? - it's too complicated to work out when you run 3 or 4 events a term - and results in lengthy arguments with the ECF office. Membership is simple - all the kids are members, paid for when they play their first event. All arranged simply and easily with the MO organiser (a clubmate of mine) - no fuss and more time to enjoy the chess.

I am an ECF full member and have been since the start of the BCF membership scheme.

I am one because I love the game.

If there were no ECF one would need to invent one. For the same reason I am an arbiter, a coach and have run a school chess club for more than 50 years. I try - sometimes more succesfully than others - to convey that love of the game to the children I teach.

[Roger de Coverly]

My problems with game fee? - it's too complicated to work out when you run 3 or 4 events a term

I really struggle when people say that it's too difficult to count the number of games played and multiply by a per game value.

[Alex Holowczak]

Unless compelled would you make membership of the ECF compulsory for those forming teams taking part in BUCA events?

If we did it alone, then it would hurt entry. If it were the generally accepted norm, it'd make no difference. Objections to the concept of membership isn't coming from younger players. Indeed, some less experienced players asked me whether they had to be an ECF member to play in the event or get a grade.