ECF Funding

[Ian Thompson]

This is the big hole in your position Roger, as there is no need for the league treasurer to collect from each individual taking part in the league. Instead, he collects the membership fees from the clubs. So he deals with club treasurers, just as he does now. Indeed, the league treasurer no longer needs to calculate estimated and actual game fee twice a year.

That's why MO's, those who have experienced membership in action, say that it's simpler and choose to stick with it rather than switch back to game fee.

I'm not convinced its simpler. It doesn't take me long to calculate estimated and actual game fees twice a year. I think that if I, or another league official, had to check league player lists against ECF membership lists, then write to clubs telling them that some of their players appeared not to be members, then either collect payment from them, or check that they had joined through some other organisation, that would be much more work.

MOs probably work at the moment because the player who plays both inside and outside the MO pays twice - the MO membership fee for games played inside the MO and game fee for games played outside the MO. Although there may be few players it applies to, am I right in thinking that a player who plays in two different MO areas at the moment has to pay twice to join both MOs? That, I assume, wouldn't apply with a universal membership scheme, so procedures would have to be put in place to deal such players (of which there would be many).

[Angus French]

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.

This is the big hole in your position Roger, as there is no need for the league treasurer to collect from each individual taking part in the league. Instead, he collects the membership fees from the clubs. So he deals with club treasurers, just as he does now. Indeed, the league treasurer no longer needs to calculate estimated and actual game fee twice a year.

That's why MO's, those who have experienced membership in action, say that it's simpler and choose to stick with it rather than switch back to game fee.

Well, if it's not the league treasurer (or some other league rep) who does the work then it's club representatives. And whoever it is would need to collect payments and player details and signed membership applications for new members and do so at the start of the season.

If the money and the player details and the signed form are passed from club to league to the ECF for, what, 8,000 or 9,000 players (excluding Congress-only players) then that doesn't strike me as efficient in comparison to a game-fee-only scheme where processing occurs at the league/congress and ECF levels for, what, 1,200 events.

[Alex Holowczak]

MOs probably work at the moment because the player who plays both inside and outside the MO pays twice - the MO membership fee for games played inside the MO and game fee for games played outside the MO. Although there may be few players it applies to, am I right in thinking that a player who plays in two different MO areas at the moment has to pay twice to join both MOs? That, I assume, wouldn't apply with a universal membership scheme, so procedures would have to be put in place to deal such players (of which there would be many).

That's not true at all. Basic members, i.e. those from an MO, pay no Game Fee at all in anything ever. If, for example, a NCCU MO player plays in the Kent League, the Kent League don't have to pay Game Fee on his games.

Under the current MO structure, you don't need to join two different MOs to play in two different leagues. If the MO charges for you to be a member regardless, then that's the county who runs the MO's prerogative. So the problem you mention, of players playing in more than one league covered by different MOs, is one that occurs now, but doesn't seem to cause any difficulties for those who operate them.

[Ian Thompson]

MOs probably work at the moment because the player who plays both inside and outside the MO pays twice - the MO membership fee for games played inside the MO and game fee for games played outside the MO. Although there may be few players it applies to, am I right in thinking that a player who plays in two different MO areas at the moment has to pay twice to join both MOs? That, I assume, wouldn't apply with a universal membership scheme, so procedures would have to be put in place to deal such players (of which there would be many).

That's not true at all. Basic members, i.e. those from an MO, pay no Game Fee at all in anything ever. If, for example, a NCCU MO player plays in the Kent League, the Kent League don't have to pay Game Fee on his games.

If true, it seems very unfair to me that a Direct Member does not get exemption from game fees on league games they play, but an MO member would if they played in a league outside the MO area. Is it true? I don't see anything in the MO agreement saying that. It just says that MO members are exempt from congress game fee charges.

[David Sedgwick]

MOs probably work at the moment because the player who plays both inside and outside the MO pays twice - the MO membership fee for games played inside the MO and game fee for games played outside the MO. Although there may be few players it applies to, am I right in thinking that a player who plays in two different MO areas at the moment has to pay twice to join both MOs? That, I assume, wouldn't apply with a universal membership scheme, so procedures would have to be put in place to deal such players (of which there would be many).

That's not true at all. Basic members, i.e. those from an MO, pay no Game Fee at all in anything ever. If, for example, a NCCU MO player plays in the Kent League, the Kent League don't have to pay Game Fee on his games.

If true, it seems very unfair to me that a Direct Member does not get exemption from game fees on league games they play, but an MO member would if they played in a league outside the MO area. Is it true? I don't see anything in the MO agreement saying that. It just says that MO members are exempt from congress game fee charges.

This has come up before. The MO agreements don't specifically state that MO members are entirely exempt from Game Fee, but they are so exempt under the terms of the Game Fee Regulations.

You're right, it is very unfair that a Direct Member paying £25 has to pay Game Fee for his / her league games, but a Basic Member paying £12 does not. That's one of the reasons why some of us have felt for several years that the whole system needs to be reformed.

[Andrew Farthing]

This has come up before. The MO agreements don't specifically state that MO members are entirely exempt from Game Fee, but in fact they are (in practice anyway).

You're right, it is very unfair that a Direct Member paying £25 has to pay Game Fee for his / her league games, but a Basic Member paying £12 does not. That's one of the reasons why some of us have felt for several years that the whole system needs to be reformed.

I don't know, but I suspect that it has always been felt that the number of games played by Basic Members in non-MO leagues would be so small that the extra income would not have justified the additional complexity. I wouldn't like to state with certainty that in practice the game fee in these cases would not have been paid anyway; the local league treasurer would have to identify that the games were played by a Basic Member and make a point of not paying the Game Fee for those results.

As for the "unfairness", this is really another way of highlighting the choice at the heart of Option 1 vs Option 2, namely "one size fits all" (same price, regardless of amount of chess played) vs "members pay more than non-members" (different prices for, in practice/on average, different levels of activity). I wouldn't claim that either approach is inherently fairer than the other; it's just a choice.

I won't say more, mindful of Carl's earlier post:

this thread has got a bit long and is repeating similiar posts to be honest

[Roger de Coverly]

If the money and the player details and the signed form are passed from club to league to the ECF for, what, 8,000 or 9,000 players (excluding Congress-only players) then that doesn't strike me as efficient in comparison to a game-fee-only scheme where processing occurs at the league/congress and ECF levels for, what, 1,200 events.

If you look at the list of organisations represented at the ECF Council, you are talking about the 200-300 range. Leagues can be counted as one event, as can Congresses with multiple sections.

It still amazes me as to the claimed FTE count for handling Game Fee from that relatively small total of organisations particularly given that dealing with many of them should only be a twice a year activity. Is there some other unreported activity being bundled in with "Cost of collecting Game Fee"?

I'm also amazed how difficult some organisations claim it is to count games. I go back to our local experience, the job of being county treasurer got simpler when Game Fee replaced affiliation fees. Bucks, Berks and presumably Border run their local budgets pragmatically. You collect a fee per club and team and make a payment to the ECF based on counting games. You aim to balance the budget, or otherwise in the longer run. You don't have to balance the club/team fee and the payment to the ECF for every single club and every single player. If your IT skills were good enough, you probably could, but why bother if everyone is quite happy with the current approach. Yes it also means you might have to charge the price of a pint or two as entry fee to new event, if you aren't prepared to subsidise it.

[Roger de Coverly]

As for the "unfairness", this is really another way of highlighting the choice at the heart of Option 1 vs Option 2, namely "one size fits all" (same price, regardless of amount of chess played) vs "members pay more than non-members" (different prices for, in practice/on average, different levels of activity). I wouldn't claim that either approach is inherently fairer than the other; it's just a choice.

There is an even more fundamental issue. This is whether you expect individuals, clubs, leagues and counties to finance the whole of the ECF or whether you should expect some contribution from national leagues, local congresses and international events.

Local congresses are usually financed by player entry fees, so at that level the individuals are still paying. At higher levels for bigger and more important events, additional sources of funding can be available. These include legacies, sponsorship, patronage, naming rights etc.

When Game Fee came in, it meant the bigger events were for perhaps the first time making a reasonable contribution to the BCF's finances which relieved the pressure on local county associations. Over the years, all the Game Fee exemptions which have been demanded and granted have eroded this source. In fact if you had an Option 1 scheme in place, a well financed something could come in and enjoy the benefits of a national chess structure without itself paying anything at all.

I don't think it's right that the player base should be expected to finance the ECF for the rest of eternity and that organisations offering chess should pay nothing when they aren't the local club.

[Matthew Turner]

The latest Northern Membership list shows 681 members. Lets imagine these are all adults paying £12. I guess the NCCU will claim the early rebate for most of these players. So next year that will be £10.80 per player. However, 20% of this will have to go in VAT, so we have £8.64 left for the ECF. Assuming numbers stay the same, next year the total income from the Northern Membership Scheme to the ECF will be £7439.04. The ECF is budgetting for a £84,850 deficit on Management Services. However successful the Northern Mermbership Scheme is being I am not sure how easy it will be to apply it's success to address the ECF financial issues.

[Mick Norris]

The NMS does not cover all of the NCCU as there are separate MOs (I assume Cleveland, Northumberland and maybe Yorks)

We have:
Cheshire N Wales - 97
Cumbria - 105
Durham - 10
Lancs - 219
Merseyside - 247
Yorks - 3

Clearly, this represents good coverage for some areas and not for others - how you work out which is which, given that Lancs totals include a number of MCF players I have no idea

[Sean Hewitt]

Would the schemes be equally successful if the fees were £18 or £25? Remember members in the rest of the country pay £25 and still have to pay game fee in league chess.

All I can say is that I have asked every club in Leicestershire, together with the league management committee, which way I should vote next week. They were unanimous in asking me to vote for membership at £18.

[Mick Norris]

I'm also amazed how difficult some organisations claim it is to count games

Bury 1 play a match in the Manchester league

Theoretical example, Team is Norris, Trafford, Howley, Sharples, Lee, Evans, Baron

What is the game fee?

Norris is an ECF member, Trafford is from Yorkshire, Howley may or may not still be in the NMS, Evans still is in the NMS, you expect Baron would be, Sharples and Lee are not

And that's just half the match

And 2 ECF directors have given different answers to a similar question!

[Alex Holowczak]

You're right, it is very unfair that a Direct Member paying £25 has to pay Game Fee for his / her league games, but a Basic Member paying £12 does not. That's one of the reasons why some of us have felt for several years that the whole system needs to be reformed.

The difference used to be much smaller: I think it was £16 and £11 at one point only a few seasons ago? Membership went up 25% per year for the last two years though, whereas the price of Basic membership went up by much less. Finance Council is coming up though; I guess it provides an opportunity to narrow the gap if Option 1 is voted for.

[Angus French]

If the money and the player details and the signed form are passed from club to league to the ECF for, what, 8,000 or 9,000 players (excluding Congress-only players) then that doesn't strike me as efficient in comparison to a game-fee-only scheme where processing occurs at the league/congress and ECF levels for, what, 1,200 events.

If you look at the list of organisations represented at the ECF Council, you are talking about the 200-300 range. Leagues can be counted as one event, as can Congresses with multiple sections.

It still amazes me as to the claimed FTE count for handling Game Fee from that relatively small total of organisations particularly given that dealing with many of them should only be a twice a year activity. Is there some other unreported activity being bundled in with "Cost of collecting Game Fee"?

I should have explained. By "event" I meant something which produces a results file submission for grading. For 2009/10 I understand there were just over 1,000 of these for which a game fee payment was due. I upped the number to err on the side of caution and to allow for submissions where no game fee payment is currently due.

I'm also surprised by the FTE count for administering Game Fee. On his ChEx blog, Andrew Farthing comments (14 March) on the allocation of staff time: "(3) "Funding Support" = 1.25 FTE [full-time equivalent, i.e. person]. This breaks down into Game Fee administration (50%), membership administration and queries (30%), membership benefits, i.e. Yearbook, Chess Moves, diary (20%)". I reckon that 50% of 1.25 FTE equates to something like 1,000 hours (based on a 35 hour week with 25 days of annual leave) - roughly an hour on average for each results submission for which a game fee payment is due.

[Angus French]

You're right, it is very unfair that a Direct Member paying £25 has to pay Game Fee for his / her league games, but a Basic Member paying £12 does not. That's one of the reasons why some of us have felt for several years that the whole system needs to be reformed.

The difference used to be much smaller: I think it was £16 and £11 at one point only a few seasons ago? Membership went up 25% per year for the last two years though, whereas the price of Basic membership went up by much less. Finance Council is coming up though; I guess it provides an opportunity to narrow the gap if Option 1 is voted for.

Or if option 2 is voted for.