ECF Funding - An Attempt to Take Stock

[Andrew Farthing]

The March/April issue of Chess Moves, which goes to all ECF members, will include a special supplement on the funding proposals, explaining what's going on and trying to answer the questions likely to be in readers' minds. The e-mail about this, which draws attention to the supplement, should be going out on Monday, all things being well.

I hope that there doesn't turn out to be a widespread feeling that the funding discussion has been "hidden", as Paul Buswell mentioned. From an ECF perspective, I do feel that we've gone out of our way to promote discussion wherever we can.

[Andrew Farthing]

We know that chess players are prepared to pay to play chess, you only need look at the sucess of the 4NCL and the e2-e4 events (which are not the cheapest event but are recognised for their quality).
However, If you stated well if you don't pay up then we won't have an ECF. I don't think hands would suddenly reach for pockets.
However, I think if you asked a cross section of chess players Do you think C.J. Andrew Farthing, Lawrence Cooper etc. are doing a good job you would get the answer yes.
How do we focus attention on the second question?

Personally flattering as this may be, I think it's a false distinction. If the people involved in the ECF are "doing a good job", this would imply that the ECF was doing a good job as well. If the latter isn't true, I'd struggle to argue that the former could be.

The trouble is, not only do many ordinary chessplayers not know who the individuals are - I'm not surprised by the 'Who?' reaction suggested in an earlier post - but they also don't have a clear picture of what the ECF does. I'd like to change this, of course, but it's not an overnight job.

[Andrew Farthing]

True, but many people break even at the moment, or have aspirations of doing so. It's in their own hands so to speak, so the motivation is totally different from a league.

Is it really true that "many people" break even at congresses? If you factor in expenses (travel, sometimes accommodation, entry fee), I can't believe that more than a handful of players win prizes consistently enough to break even.

I may not be typical in how much I play (above average), but I am in how well I play (distinctly average). In five years of playing 15-20 congresses a year, I reckon that I only won enough prize money to cover my true expenses once.

It doesn't bother me, mind you. It's a hobby, and hobbies cost money. An aspiration to break even isn't the motivation; winning a prize just produces a little bonus endorphin rush.

[Roger de Coverly]

The March/April issue of Chess Moves, which goes to all ECF members, will include a special supplement on the funding proposals, explaining what's going on and trying to answer the questions likely to be in readers' minds.

On Option 1, it's not going to be existing ECF members, particularly existing Direct ones who will greatly affected. It's the non-members, perhaps call them customers , who will be the ones hit. Essentially the option 1 proposals would withdraw grading services to customers in the case of league players and hit them for a higher price in the case of Congress players. They would have the option to convert from customers to members, but at a much higher price. Clubs, Leagues, Counties and Congresses will have to decide their future policy in the light of this potential major policy switch by the ECF.

In another thread you wanted to communicate what the ECF does. Narrowing that a bit, how about what the ECF spends money on. The answer as we know is International, Junior, Office and grading. International and Junior are, if you like, services which the ECF does for the greater good as it were. The same presumably applies to at least part of Office. The point I'm making is that the amount (some Office and grading) the ECF will spend on members and customers will always be very much smaller, in the absence of patronage, sponsorship or grants, than the amount it seeks to raise from members and customers. That hasn't always be so, from about the mid seventies onwards, the BCF had support from the Government Grant, the British Championships and national teams also were sponsored, as was a lot of junior development. You may have seen the piece on the Streatham blog where they dug out an old letter by Julian's mum commenting that 50p a year was far too little for the BCF to do anything useful with.

[Paul Buswell]

The March/April issue of Chess Moves, which goes to all ECF members, will include a special supplement on the funding proposals, explaining what's going on and trying to answer the questions likely to be in readers' minds. The e-mail about this, which draws attention to the supplement, should be going out on Monday, all things being well.

I hope that there doesn't turn out to be a widespread feeling that the funding discussion has been "hidden", as Paul Buswell mentioned. From an ECF perspective, I do feel that we've gone out of our way to promote discussion wherever we can.

Andrew: I don't think the word "hidden" appears in my post. The ECF has been transparent in this debate. But it is a fact of chess that the decision will be taken by delegates, the majority of whom will not have consulted their constituents. Our culture is not one that engages in direct democracy. (Not that I necessary 'believe' in direct democracy, but let's not pretend we have a shadow of it in any walk of life)

In response to another poster I have flagged the ECF Council papers with two of the three Secretaries concerned.

PB

[William Metcalfe]

I guess Darlo chess club is the same as most clubs we have players who play 50+ games a year and players who play 1 to 9 games per year.At our club every member pays £22 per year £16 for juniors unemployed or senior citizens that includes the £12 MO fee not 1 single player has refused to pay even the people that play less than 5 games per season.So all these arguments from down south at how membership would lose us members has proved unfounded at our club and clubs across the North East.

[Andrew Farthing]

Andrew: I don't think the word "hidden" appears in my post.

Paul,

You're quite right, and I apologise for the misleading quotation marks. The word appeared in an e-mail to me from a third party, discussing the issue raised in your post and I apparently merged the two in my memory.

Andrew

[Mike Truran]

Ernie, I don't think your comment that people who oppose membership are somehow reluctant to give up power is entirely fair. The Oxfordshire Chess Association committee, for example, (the members of whom I don't think anyone could describe as power-crazed dinosaurs) has thought through the issues quite carefully and concluded that as far as they are concerned game fee is a cheaper option for the majority of local fee players and is also easier to administer. Theirs is a different financial model to, for example, the 4NCL board, which has concluded that membership is a better option than game fee.

I happen personally to be a membership supporter, but my view of the world is not so solipsistic as to be unable to accept that there can be more than one reasonably held point of view - and I will cast my votes at council as I am instructed to, not based on my own personal preferences.

[Mike Truran]

I still struggle how a cash-strapped organisation like the ECF would get OMOV to work in practice, even if were theoretically the best model. Postage is expensive, not everyone is on email, venues catering for everyone who wants to/might attend a meeting don't come cheap etc etc. Members electing a representative to speak for them seems as good a practical system as any.

Reps not voting as directed by the members they represent doesn't to my mind necessarily make the system bad. MPs and governments often do the same after all! If reps don't vote as directed they can (and should) be voted out in the same way as MPs and governments.

[Richard Bates]

To play chess and get a grade- pay a mebership feee and have some say, if one wants it, in the way the national organisation is run.

I think this is a bit simplistic. A major concern for many about "membership=>grade" is not so much the effect on those who choose to opt out. It is the effect that people opting out will have on the rest of us, especially in league chess. Basically that the regular, committed chess playing population need the "infrequent players" more than the "infrequent players" need chess. At the moment the former is prepared/able to effectively fund the latter if necessary because the costs of doing so are so are relatively small.

[Roger de Coverly]

I still struggle how a cash-strapped organisation like the ECF would get OMOV to work in practice, even if were theoretically the best model. Postage is expensive, not everyone is on email, venues catering for everyone who wants to/might attend a meeting don't come cheap etc etc. Members electing a representative to speak for them seems as good a practical system as any.

This is wandering sideways into Governance, but price permitting, could you have a structure whereby the ECF directors are elected by the subset of players who are members in their own right, rather than just customers? Council is made up of bodies organising chess, some of whom like the County Associations could reasonably be described as member-led bodies, whilst others like the 4NCL or e2e4 are rather more commercial in structure. I'm aware that the 4NCL holds captains' meetings but that's in the nature of a consultation, I don't think a team or any individual player has any, even theoretical constitutional power, over 4NCL decisions which remain in the hands of the directors. By contrast, county associations usually give power to individual members or clubs, if they can gain support, to change the direction of the organisation.

The risk, and I suppose it's not desirable, is that you could get a Board and Council at loggerheads. Not much different from past experience though.

[Roger de Coverly]

The trouble is many chess players want the game on the cheap.

I rather agree with you. The problem with per head financing schemes is that the people who play on average once every three or four days pay exactly the same amount as those who only play once a year. Under per head it's the once every three or fours days people who are getting it on the cheap, as a percentage of their overall spend on chess at least.

I part company with you when you say that you want to drive low volume players out of chess entirely. Many of us, even those who now play every four days have had periods of our life where external pressures or even the need to take a break have forced us well down the activity scale. If you looked at the activity stats, on this forum as well as in Andrew's paper, you can get a measure of how many fewer participating players there would be if you drive away those who play graded chess relatively infrequently. It may not even be the case that they are uninterested in chess, they might spend much of their available time playing on-line whether turn based correspondence style or real time blitz.

In terms of the future for the ECF, I think it has to look at a governance structure whereby it has both members and customers and a pricing structure which is both per head and per event or game.

[Neill Cooper]

A UNIVERSAL MEMBERSHIP SCHEME which would cost every graded player £18 a year.[/b]

I think this is a good idea for adults, but not for juniors.

(1) I do not think it should include juniors who only play for their schools in National Schools Tournament. Otherwise for some inexperienced schools this would up the entry fee per team by £108 to possibly play one match and be knocked out.

(2) Does it include local schools leagues? I would estimate that over half of the 200+ school players in the Briant Poulter (Surrey) league do not play any other graded games. Schools would not pay that so the matches would have to be ungraded, which would reduce ECF income.

(3) Does it include junior only individual events?

(ps Apologies if this issue has been raised elsewhere in these long discussions.)

[Richard Bates]

To play chess and get a grade- pay a mebership feee and have some say, if one wants it, in the way the national organisation is run.

I think this is a bit simplistic. A major concern for many about "membership=>grade" is not so much the effect on those who choose to opt out. It is the effect that people opting out will have on the rest of us, especially in league chess. Basically that the regular, committed chess playing population need the "infrequent players" more than the "infrequent players" need chess. At the moment the former is prepared/able to effectively fund the latter if necessary because the costs of doing so are so are relatively small.

If we have to rely on infrequent players we would be in a sorry state. £18 a year is a pittance really, £1.50 p per month! The trouble is many chess players want the game on the cheap. I doubt very many would opt out if we had a national membership scheme and if any did opt out are we really that bothered about people who dont offer very much to the game?

Two points - firstly i don't mean "rely on" in a financial sense. I mean "rely on" in the sense of providing a pool of players who enable clubs/counties to consistently put out full teams. Without these players you get problems on many levels. Obviously you create dissatisfaction on lower boards of teams where players are consistently denied games because it is the lower boards where forced defaults arise. You also reduce enjoyment for regular players because they are called upon to play more often than is otherwise convenient. And you also have intra-club problems where players are often forced to "play up" (eg from 2nd to 1st team) which in many leagues can often result in them being barred from playing in their usual team once they play a certain number of games at the higher level.

However I think you must also recognise that whilst i agree we don't want to rely on infrequent players in a financial sense - doing so is implicitly recognised in the initial membership proposals. Membership fee levels have been calculated on the basis of a % take up of existing graded players, frequent or infrequent - if those % are optimistic then the fee levels go up. Still probably cheap, as far as i'm concerned, but it changes the terms of the debate to some extent.

[Richard Bates]

I think one could also make a point that whilst most are agreed that chess is a relatively "cheap" leisure activity some of these comparisons being made with other membership organisations could be a bit misleading. When you pay your £50 to the National Trust or whatever, that is often all you pay. Chessplayers will not be handing over their £20 to the ECF and not drawing into their bank account again for 12 months. They still have club membership, entry fees, etc to throw into the mix.