ECF Membership

[Alex Holowczak]

MG said the SCCU were reasonably in favour. I

I'm not sure whether he speaks for the individual county associations. If you assume local collection, isn't the net result that leagues and county associations are expected to pay more to the ECF and Congresses less (or even nothing)? This takes us back to where we were before Game Fee was introduced.

He speaks as Chairman of the SCCU. He said that when it was raise at the SCCU pre-AGM meeting, he was surprised at how many people were in favour of it.

I don't assume local collection in the county sense. I assume that the club pays the ECF directly. If a player isn't paid for by his club, then the grading team know which club to chase, because he'll appear in the grading list as playing for a club. If he doesn't, then chase the congresses in which he played, which the grading system also knows.

[IM Jack Rudd]

If a player isn't paid for by his club, then the grading team know which club to chase, because he'll appear in the grading list as playing for a club.

You'd hope so. In practice, people are often listed under clubs they no longer play at or for - I was listed under Girton College for many years after I'd left.

[Alex Holowczak]

If a player isn't paid for by his club, then the grading team know which club to chase, because he'll appear in the grading list as playing for a club.

You'd hope so. In practice, people are often listed under clubs they no longer play at or for - I was listed under Girton College for many years after I'd left.

There's a difference between what the website shows and the information that Richard has access to. He'll be able to see all the grading results, and be able to see exactly which clubs players played for in the preceding 12 months.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't assume local collection in the county sense. I assume that the club pays the ECF directly.

So as a club secretary and treasurer, you expect me to do the ECF's work for it. Suppose I do a Yorkshire and refuse.

[Richard Haddrell]

There's a difference between what the website shows and the information that Richard has access to. He'll be able to see all the grading results, and be able to see exactly which clubs players played for in the preceding 12 months.

This will usually be true, for a club player, but it doesn’t help a lot with congress-only players. A congress may report the club you belonged to ten years ago, or it may report no club at all.

[Sean Hewitt]

MG said the SCCU were reasonably in favour. I

I'm not sure whether he speaks for the individual county associations. If you assume local collection, isn't the net result that leagues and county associations are expected to pay more to the ECF and Congresses less (or even nothing)? This takes us back to where we were before Game Fee was introduced.

I think the payers will not be leagues and counties or congresses for that matter but clubs and individuals. Leagues, counties and congresses (possibly clubs) will collect the cash and pay the ECF - but that's just as it is now. No more, no less.

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't assume local collection in the county sense. I assume that the club pays the ECF directly.

So as a club secretary and treasurer, you expect me to do the ECF's work for it. Suppose I do a Yorkshire and refuse.

At the moment, a league treasurer and grader has to do the ECF's work for it. So nothing really changes.

An association (club or whatever) could refuse to pay under any financing system, so it's a moot point.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the moment, a league treasurer and grader has to do the ECF's work for it. So nothing really changes.

I don't agree. The volume of work involved in chasing people to get them to sign up for the ECF's debts is somewhat greater than just counting the number of games played. This would particularly apply in year zero.

Game Fee reduced the volume of work required by clubs and counties. It follows that abolishing it would increase it.

Surely a universal membership scheme would have to abolish guarantor membership for reasons of practicality.

[Sean Hewitt]

I don't agree. The volume of work involved in chasing people to get them to sign up for the ECF's debts is somewhat greater than just counting the number of games played. This would particularly apply in year zero.

Surely a universal membership scheme would have to abolish guarantor membership for reasons of practicality.

I agree entirely. There is absolutely no logical reason for the ECF to require individiual members to be guarantors of the company and I hope that the current board will scrap that requirement forthwith. There's no benefit and it's bureauocracy gone mad.

In football (where we also operate as companies limited by guarantee) we have council members as the guarantors. That seems to work. Or you could have just the directors acting as guarantors.

[Roger de Coverly]

. Leagues, counties and congresses (possibly clubs) will collect the cash and pay the ECF - but that's just as it is now. No more, no less.

Is that really the case? At the moment all a Congress has to do is check whether players are ECF members to claim the Game Fee rebate, count the games played and pay the bill.

Under your proposed scheme, a Congress would have to check whether players are current ECF members. If they aren't, get them to sign up for the ECF's debts and file the paper with the ECF. You also have to check for lapsed membership and collect for that. If you have non-ENG players, what rules do you follow for them? If you are happy to take entries on the day, you've got a lot more to do before the first round can be started.

Variable renewal dates could prove a nightmare for leagues. What happens to new players who come in during the season? Are you going to ask them for a year's ECF membership to cover a couple of months of the season? If not then they will be renewing at an odd time of year every year.

[Sean Hewitt]

Roger - let's deal with your objections in order.

At the moment all a Congress has to do is check whether players are ECF members to claim the Game Fee rebate.

Under your proposed scheme, a Congress would have to check whether players are current ECF members.

These are the same task so I don't understand the issue. Under game fee it's "all a congress has to do" yet under membership it's some kind of onerous task?!

If they aren't, get them to sign up for the ECF's debts and file the paper with the ECF.

You're assuming that this bizarre requirement is retained. I would remove this requirement.

You also have to check for lapsed membership and collect for that.

This is the first task ; again .

If you have non-ENG players, what rules do you follow for them?

That's a genuine one for debate. You could make them join, or you could allow them to play without joining. Either choice would not affect the viability of a universal membership scheme.

Variable renewal dates could prove a nightmare for leagues. What happens to new players who come in during the season? Are you going to ask them for a year's ECF membership to cover a couple of months of the season? If not then they will be renewing at an odd time of year every year.

You're starting with an assumption that membership must be for a minimum of one year. I don't think that's the case.

[Roger de Coverly]

I agree entirely. There is absolutely no logical reason for the ECF to require individiual members to be guarantors of the company and I hope that the current board will scrap that requirement forthwith. There's no benefit and it's bureauocracy gone mad.

I've long been puzzled by that legal interpretation. When it came in, I wondered whether it was a Poison Pill designed to make universal membership more difficult to achieve. At the very least, it succeeded in creating a major row between the NCCU and the ECF and undermined the NMS. It was probably the usual lack of strategic or even tactical thinking.

The "FIDE require BCF/ECF membership" ruling was presumably designed as a push towards universal membership. It remains my accusation that if you go back ten years that the Game Fee method of collection was generally accepted and the BCF/ECF boards since then have tried (and suceeded) in undermining it.

[Sean Hewitt]

The "FIDE require BCF/ECF membership" ruling was presumably designed as a push towards universal membership. It remains my accusation that if you go back ten years that the Game Fee method of collection was generally accepted and the BCF/ECF boards since then have tried (and suceeded) in undermining it.

Although I personally believe that membership is simpler and fairer to collect, I can understand (but don't agree with) those that prefer game fee. My primary reason is that abolishing game fee results in players playing more chess. At least, that has been the experience of MOs.

What I fundamentally object to is the current hybrid sysyem which is the worst of both worlds. I hope we get a universal membership scheme (with some deminimis limits) which is simple to operate. Failing that, abolish membership and have a single flat rate of game fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

These are the same task so I don't understand the issue. Under game fee it's "all a congress has to do" yet under membership it's some kind of onerous task?!

If you don't offer a discount for ECF members, or rely on them being honest, you can check this at your leisure at the end of the event. As Alex Mcf suggests, even this becomes a non-trivial task with a proliferation of local routes to membership. Presumably under a membership scheme you expect new and lapsed players to cough up the ECF's £12 - £15 before you let them play. Probably you also have to notify the ECF of new and lapsed members signed up. I'd imagine you need to get them to sign some piece of paper accepting that they had become ECF members or renewed members and recording things like name, date of birth and address. This is likely to be needed even if you scrap guarantor membership. So yes there is more work to do in the short period of time before the first round.

I've played in foreign tournaments where there seemed to be some need for local players to have their membership cards checked before the first round draw was made. It wasn't conducive to starting the first round on time.

No one has said whether rapidplays are inside or outside the "must be a member" fence. It would double the cost of the first event for a completely new or returning player. You may say that you see no value in a player just playing one rapidplay a year. If so then the ECF's proposed policy is to reduce the number of players taking part in the hope of increasing the number of games played by people inside the tent.

Of course you could just run your event regardless of the membership status of the participants. It comes back to what sanctions the ECF will impose on you if you do so. Under Game Fee, if you refuse to pay any money to the ECF, it can deny you rating services. If you have non-members in your event, what will happen?

[Roger de Coverly]

What I fundamentally object to is the current hybrid sysyem which is the worst of both worlds. I hope we get a universal membership scheme (with some deminimis limits) which is simple to operate. Failing that, abolish membership and have a single flat rate of game fee.

Charge leagues and counties a size related cost to become ECF corporate members. Within that allow counties to charge by head or by game. The county takes the profit or loss.

You could continue a direct membership scheme for ECF supporters (FIDE rated players as well if you must) - if you could figure out a way of doing it, you might even give them a vote.

Charge a rating fee for all congresses. It would be simplest to make this the same regardless of membership status. If counting games is considered "difficult" then charge by entrants and number of rounds. If membership discounts are considered necessary,then make it so that only national members (ie not county based schemes) get a discount. The point being that you need to be able to establish eligibility for discounts (or participation) uniquely. So a central scheme, not a local one.

You could allow Congresses to be "closed shop" if they wanted to risk it, the reward being a lower rating fee.

I suspect you'd get the true economic picture if you costed on the basis that all non-county membership was administered (as is Game Fee) from the centre. If you scrap or scale back guarantor membership, you could do national membership on-line anyway.