ECF Funding

[Roger de Coverly]

The argument about collection as a sticking point of option 1 does seem rather strange to me. I would have thought local organisations would actually prefer not to be told how to do it, and left to their own devices as to how to come up with a collection model that suits them best.

It's not strange at all. It's about the relationship between local bodies and the ECF and between players and local bodies. The ECF might be marginally less unpopular if the local body is seen as the tax collector. It's also whether the finances of the ECF depend on several dozen treasurers with spreadsheets or something a little less 1990.

[Alex Holowczak]

Underpinning the analysis in the Game Fee paper is a large, fairly complex spreadsheet which lists every event that generates Game Fee and calculates how much should have been paid (based on the nature of the event and the number of ECF members participating). As a result, the paper is founded on precisely the type of case-by-case analysis recommended by Angus, except that it is not based on a sample set of events but a dataset encompassing all events.

In my view that's an incorrect method to use when you could have done it properly. By properly, I mean that you analyse every game on the grading database to establish how much Game Fee (which could be zero) it attracted.

You can then summarise, both grouping by event (which checks the accounting records) and by player category. You could also do it geographically. If it's too big to fit on a single spreadsheet, then use Access or an equivalent database tool. The database approach gives you very powerful grouping tools.

Had you done this, you would know for certain whether Game Fee had been under-collected and have a fairly good idea where to look for the missing money. You would also know, or have a fair stab at, just how much the ECF gives away with all its Game Fee rebates.

You also know that you are looking at reliable data, since grading data is reasonably accepted to be complete.

I don't see why this would make any difference?

We already know from the spreadsheet Andrew is referring to where the Game Fee is going missing. Since Game Fee payments come from the organiser or treasurer; the Office can input amount received next to expected amount, and you can see whether you've got everything. For the sake of chasing up money, this is all the information you need.

We know how much the ECF gives away in Game Fee rebates. The spreadsheet can be told to sum up all the money received for a 12 month calendar year. It can also add up all the halfgames played. You then do (halfgames played * 0.54) - total game fee received. Hey presto, you have your answer. The information for direct members and basic members is in the sheet too if you want to discount them from your calculation.

Why isn't it done in a database? Because the grader provides it as a spreadsheet, which is probably written as a .csv file. Can databases open .csvs?

In any case, doing it game by game makes no difference to the Maths of the situation at all. You just need Game Fee Paid - Game Fee Expected, and hope you get a value greater than or equal to 0!

[Alex Holowczak]

The argument about collection as a sticking point of option 1 does seem rather strange to me. I would have thought local organisations would actually prefer not to be told how to do it, and left to their own devices as to how to come up with a collection model that suits them best.

It's not strange at all. It's about the relationship between local bodies and the ECF and between players and local bodies. The ECF might be marginally less unpopular if the local body is seen as the tax collector. It's also whether the finances of the ECF depend on several dozen treasurers with spreadsheets or something a little less 1990.

The logical thing to me is that it would be stupid for the ECF to dictate how - for example - a League pays its money to the ECF. The ECF may say it should be done on a club-by-club basis. However, the League might prefer a League-by-League basis. As long as the ECF gets all the money from it, what difference does it make?

[Roger de Coverly]

Can databases open .csvs?

In any case, doing it game by game makes no difference to the Maths of the situation at all. You just need Game Fee Paid - Game Fee Expected, and hope you get a value greater than or equal to 0!

Of course databases can open csv's (you use an import function). The point about doing the analysis using database tools is that you can then group and report the results in multiple dimensions. So if you want a split of game Fee by player grading category, you can do so. If you want Game Fee by the home area of the player, you can do so. The July 2002 grading list reports the use of Paradox v7, so it's not as if database tools are totally alien.

[Andrew Farthing]

Just one more point. The funding paper suggests that option 1 would be deferred until October 2012, whereas option 2 (increased Game Fee/ memberships) clicks in from 2011. I can accept that you have to prepare a budget on a fixed assumption and that Option 1 was chosen, but why in the order of the meeting do you first vote on a no-change approach to Game Fee and only then move on to debating Option 1 or 2. If you've voted for no change to Game Fee earlier, how do you go back if you want one of the Option 2's?

Roger,

You're perfectly entitled to your view about the methodology used in the Game Fee paper. I don't share it.

The Council meeting agenda generates a number of complications. You're right that the budget would have to be revisited if option 2 were to be selected on the basis of immediate implementation. Of course, it's possible that Council may prefer to postpone implementation until 2012, in which case the budget as written would be valid.

Similarly, if Council were to reject both options and fail to agree on an alternative which closed the funding gap for 2012-13 and beyond, I myself would want Council to reconsider the budget (assuming that it had been previously approved), because I would no longer favour funding the 2011-12 budget deficit through a transfer from the PIF. As a one-off event, I believe that such a transfer is acceptable, but if there was no realistic prospect of the gap being closed through normal means in subsequent years, it would be wiser to agree to make cuts in spending at once and not drain the reserves further.

Personally, I would also consider that there was a need to revisit the whole issue if it was clear that a majority decision in favour of either option had come at the price of a sizeable proportion of the ECF's membership (or potential membership) walking away from the Federation. This may seem like it flies in the face of majority democratic opinion, but it's financial pragmatism. Any significant loss of national coverage would alter the financial equation (i.e. we'd be looking to raise funds from a smnaller population, so the amount per individual or per half-game would have to be increased again), so the options as presented would be moot.

There are other crossovers. If Council were to reject the proposal to seek a transfer from the PIF in the budget, there would be little point (to my mind) including the item in the Business Plan proposing to come up with ideas for investing more of the PIF on developing English chess, since Council would have made it clear that it's preference was to scale back the Federation's activities, not develop them.

All in all, it will undoubtedly be a complex meeting, which will need to be flexible enough to accommodate interlinking proposals. Spare some sympathy for Mike Gunn, who will be in the hot seat as Chairman on the day.

I think I've made this point before, but the complexity of the meeting and the likelihood of material amendments and proposals to pull the elements together serve to underline why as many Council delegates as possible should attend the meeting or appoint a proxy with discretion to make decisions on the day and vote accordingly. Directed proxies (the equivalent of postal votes) can only be applied to the proposals as set out in the agenda, so those selecting this option may find that their votes apply only to some of the issues voted upon.

[Roger de Coverly]

The logical thing to me is that it would be stupid for the ECF to dictate how - for example - a League pays its money to the ECF. The ECF may say it should be done on a club-by-club basis. However, the League might prefer a League-by-League basis. As long as the ECF gets all the money from it, what difference does it make?

I wouldn't disagree with that.

The issue on this is that at present the league treasurer doesn't have an awful lot to do. You collect entry fees from clubs ( it's usually the same person every year) and you pay an estimated Game Fee amount to the ECF (you use the fixture list to work it out). At the end of the season you pay or agree a balancing amount to the ECF (you ask the grader or use the results web page). You also have to draw up accounts for the AGM.

Compare that to the job of collecting from each individual taking part in the league.

So it's a big difference as to whether the ECF does the collection (potentially expensive for the ECF if it doesn't get the IT right) or whether it's done locally ( "free" to the ECF, but at a high cost in volunteer goodwill to the local organisation)

[Ian Thompson]

Compare that to the job of collecting from each individual taking part in the league.

Writing as a league treasurer, there's no way I'd want to collect membership fees from 250 to 300 players in the league. I'd want the clubs to collect the money from their players and send it to me in one instalment with their league fees. That would keep the Treasurer's workload at manageable levels.

It's not clear to me how players who take part in more than one league should be dealt with though. If they say they have, or will, pay their fee through another league what happens if they don't? Who's responsible for doing something about it?

[Alex Holowczak]

Compare that to the job of collecting from each individual taking part in the league.

Writing as a league treasurer, there's no way I'd want to collect membership fees from 250 to 300 players in the league. I'd want the clubs to collect the money from their players and send it to me in one instalment with their league fees. That would keep the Treasurer's workload at manageable levels.

It's not clear to me how players who take part in more than one league should be dealt with though. If they say they have, or will, pay their fee through another league what happens if they don't? Who's responsible for doing something about it?

Common sense suggests ignoring the league altogether and the club paying straight to the ECF. Then you can play in as many leagues as you like and there's no problem.

Who would the ECF chase up? The Leagues, but only as a proxy to get to the club and/or player, I'd have thought.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Players who take part in more than one league should be dealt with though. If they say they have, or will, pay their fee through another league what happens if they don't? Who's responsible for doing something about it?

Common sense suggests ignoring the league altogether and the club paying straight to the ECF. Then you can play in as many leagues as you like and there's no problem.

Now all you have to do is find a method of dealing with players who play for more than one club. (Players who play for 0 clubs also fall out of this model, but players who play graded games without playing for clubs should be paying via the congress-based methods.)

[Ian Thompson]

Common sense suggests ignoring the league altogether and the club paying straight to the ECF.

That deals with the player who plays for one club and the club plays in more than one league, but not with the player who plays for different clubs in different leagues, where the player may say he intends to join through one of those clubs, but never actually does.

It also doesn't deal with the responsibility of the league to check that all its players have joined the ECF. The league's going to need an up-to-date membership list from the ECF to do that.

[Alex Holowczak]

Players who take part in more than one league should be dealt with though. If they say they have, or will, pay their fee through another league what happens if they don't? Who's responsible for doing something about it?

Common sense suggests ignoring the league altogether and the club paying straight to the ECF. Then you can play in as many leagues as you like and there's no problem.

Now all you have to do is find a method of dealing with players who play for more than one club. (Players who play for 0 clubs also fall out of this model, but players who play graded games without playing for clubs should be paying via the congress-based methods.)

Players who don't play for clubs are unlikely to play in leagues. So they'd be mainly restricted to congresses. (This would be a lot of juniors.) So the onus would be on the congress organiser to collect the money, potentially via the Pay-to-Play system if needs be.

That deals with the player who plays for one club and the club plays in more than one league, but not with the player who plays for different clubs in different leagues, where the player may say he intends to join through one of those clubs, but never actually does.

As long as one club collars him and gets the money, it doesn't really matter.

It also doesn't deal with the responsibility of the league to check that all its players have joined the ECF. The league's going to need an up-to-date membership list from the ECF to do that.

This can easily be provided on the website. It is now in password-protected form. Carl said in another thread he's probably going to use it on the grading site with the grading enhancements.

This also solves the problem of needing to check whether the player playing for different clubs in different leagues has become a member through the other club or not.

[Roger de Coverly]

Writing as a league treasurer, there's no way I'd want to collect membership fees from 250 to 300 players in the league. I'd want the clubs to collect the money from their players and send it to me in one instalment with their league fees. That would keep the Treasurer's workload at manageable levels.

There's still the job of sweeping up at the end of the season for new and guest players. I know you have to do it for grading but that doesn't involve money.

It all sounds increasingly like the BCF's old affiliation scheme, so dig out those old year books and reinstate the bit in the local constitution about registrations secretary.

The big problem to my mind is the same as it was under BCF Affiliation, namely that local clubs and leagues end up paying almost all the ECF's bills whereas national leagues and Congresses pay next to nothing.

I was trying to work out a way of keeping a county bill under an option 1 scheme, the same as it is at present. One idea is that the county will pay your £ 18 ECF membership out of club entry fees, but only if you just play in local events. If you want to play all known Congresses, that's at your expense on top of your club fee (as at present). You need quite a large number of existing ECF £ 25 members to get some way towards this working. Even better would be if you could get the saving they make from the downgrade from £ 25 to £ 18 into the county or club coffers.

[Roger de Coverly]

(Players who play for 0 clubs also fall out of this model, but players who play graded games without playing for clubs should be paying via the congress-based methods.)

Don't forget county matches. Counties have local players who don't, can't or won't play club chess in the evening, but still play Saturday afternoon matches. If you presume their chess is restricted to Saturday afternoons, they aren't playing Congresses either.

[Michele Clack]

If the grading system is integrated with the members database wouldn't non-members be automatically flagged up when results are entered? Then an e-mail to whichever league county or congress was involved to chase up the membership payment would do the trick.

However, in the medium/ longterm it would surely be better for the ECF to take payment directly. With cheques being phased out a Direct Debit to the ECF would be a lot easier. In fact this could be a way for the ECF to add value. It could set up a system that clubs and congresses could use as well. If an individual club/ congress was to use Direct Debit they would be hit with big charges. En masse the ECF could arrange a much cheaper system with economies of scale.

[IM Jack Rudd]

(Players who play for 0 clubs also fall out of this model, but players who play graded games without playing for clubs should be paying via the congress-based methods.)

Don't forget county matches. Counties have local players who don't, can't or won't play club chess in the evening, but still play Saturday afternoon matches. If you presume their chess is restricted to Saturday afternoons, they aren't playing Congresses either.

Ah, yes. We don't have many of those in the South-West. (If nothing else, how would the county captains know about them?)