Finance Meeting

[Adam Raoof]

We need someone who plays currently to describe what happens now.
But it is not true to say that every game of bridge requires a payment to the EBU.
I believe EBU master points are issued at the end of each session, however a club decides before the session is played whether they will be issued.
If the club decides not to issue them then they pay nothing.
Comparisons between the two games are always difficult mainly because a rating of some sort is necessary for chess, to determine board order etc, but is irrelevant for a bridge game.

Just have a trawl around the EBU website -

http://www.ebu.co.uk/

and then a look at their detailed accounts

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minut ... ements.pdf

However there is a limit to the comparisons one can make between the games, since the EBU has a much tighter control over the organisation of tournaments than the ECF, and they have the manpower to administrate it (21 staff as opposed to 3).

[Roger de Coverly]

Having had a quick look at the accounts, and I am certainly not the right person to onterpret them.
However it appears that they have 23000 direct members paying £24 per annum so my point above holds good.

The Bridge experts will know the correct answer, but it may well be the case that "pay-to-play" was only introduced in 2010. The accounts presented on the website being the last under the old system. Thus there's a reference to member subscriptions at £ 24 per head rather than to "pay-to-play" amounts.

If I've understood the Bridge financing model correctly then

(a) Clubs pay a relatively modest affiliation fee to the EBU.
(b) If you are a member of an affiliated club, you can join the EBU for nothing.
(c) If you play competitively (this includes weekday afternoons at the local club), then the club pays a fee to the EBU based on the number of people playing. In return, players are entitled to Master Points and the new rating scheme.
(d) If you aren't a member of an affiliated club, you can still become a Direct Member. You would need this to play in a "Bridge Congress" or representative match.
(e) Various member benefits, such as a diary and a magazine are available at extra cost, but if you play frequently, then you earn them as rewards.

In Bridge, it's expected practice for there to be a fee ("table money") for each event, including club sessions.


The geographical distribution of members is quite different from what I would imagine a parallel chess one would look like.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think your statement regarding joining the EBU for nothing is wrong, but as above i dont know.

I took it from http://ebunews.blogspot.com/2010/04/join-us.html

The Benefits of Membership
If you are a member of one of our affiliated duplicate bridge clubs you automatically become a member of the EBU. You can find out about the services and benefits available to you here.

http://www.ebu.co.uk/pay2play/BENEFITS% ... 202009.pdf

from which

BENEFITS FOR INDIVIDUAL EBU MEMBERS
From April 2010 all members of an EBU affiliated club will become members of the EBU.
Membership will be funded through the Pay to Play system.

That answers the question about the accounts showing direct member payments.

On a completely different note they appear to have reduced expenditure on Internationals by 100K last year.
If only chess was able to do this.

It's more than possible that like chess, some international events in Bridge are every two years. For example the ECF usually has higher expenditure in odd numbered years than even numbered ones. The reason for this being that the hosts of the Olympiad in even numbered years provide (some) of the accommodation costs, whilst in the Europeans in odd numbered years, teams have to pay all their own expenses.

In practice travel costs are equivalent since the Olympiads haven't been much out of Europe since Manila in 1992. When Olympiads have been in areas outside main travel routes, there's been a special flight or several. This applied to Siberia last year and I think to Armenia in 1996 and Elista in 1998.

If in the absence of sponsorship you want to cut international costs, then you can only do it by solving for the strongest possible team who are
(a) sufficiently well-off to be able to pay their own flights, meals and accommodation.
and
(b) have the time and inclination to spend two or more weeks at an international chess event.

It can be done, that's usually how the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Channel Islands send teams. Their results in terms of world or European ranking are usually relatively modest.

[Adam Raoof]

How much does it cost for a bridge club to affiliate to the EBU?

[Mick Norris]

If in the absence of sponsorship you want to cut international costs, then you can only do it by solving for the strongest possible team who are
(a) sufficiently well-off to be able to pay their own flights, meals and accommodation.
and
(b) have the time and inclination to spend two or more weeks at an international chess event.

It can be done, that's usually how the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Channel Islands send teams. Their results in terms of world or European ranking are usually relatively modest.

The Finance Council agreed that in the absence of sponsorship, the International Director should run the European championship on the basis that no fees were paid to players. The rationale was that, as the Council meeting accepted by voting for this, if we could not turn out our strongest side then we should turn out a "development side" in order to save money while giving experience to our younger players.

[Roger de Coverly]

How much does it cost for a bridge club to affiliate to the EBU?

It's here

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Membe ... s/Fees.pdf

The EBU wants £ 30 per club, with some counties wanting an additional fee for themselves.

Similarly the pay to play. It's 31p to the EBU with a locally varying amount going to the local county association.

I'm not sure whether you get a whole afternoon or evening's Bridge for the 31p+, or whether a typical Bridge session involves multiple 31p s.

Some county associations are using pay to play exclusively , most are hybrid and a few have retained pay per head.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Finance Council agreed that in the absence of sponsorship, the International Director should run the European championship on the basis that no fees were paid to players. The rationale was that, as the Council meeting accepted by voting for this, if we could not turn out our strongest side then we should turn out a "development side" in order to save money while giving experience to our younger players.

Presumably still paying travel and accommodation expenses for the players though?

[LozCooper]

If in the absence of sponsorship you want to cut international costs, then you can only do it by solving for the strongest possible team who are
(a) sufficiently well-off to be able to pay their own flights, meals and accommodation.
and
(b) have the time and inclination to spend two or more weeks at an international chess event.

It can be done, that's usually how the Scots, Welsh, Irish and Channel Islands send teams. Their results in terms of world or European ranking are usually relatively modest.

The Finance Council agreed that in the absence of sponsorship, the International Director should run the European championship on the basis that no fees were paid to players. The rationale was that, as the Council meeting accepted by voting for this, if we could not turn out our strongest side then we should turn out a "development side" in order to save money while giving experience to our younger players.

To clarify, it was agreed that if I can find funding from outside the ECF that when added to the budget allows me to send the strongest available team then that is fine. If not, then no fees are to be paid to players from the budget this year.

[Mick Norris]

Good luck with finding the funding - I assume you are exploring some possibilities - when do you need to finalise it?

[LozCooper]

Good luck with finding the funding - I assume you are exploring some possibilities - when do you need to finalise it?

The date for submitting the list of players is October 2nd.

[John Philpott]

7 pages ago on this thread, Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

Interesting. Thanks for that! I wonder why there is an exception for Corporate Vice Presidents? Are these organisations, rather than individuals?

Apologies for the delay in replying. Corporate Vice Presidents are typically chess clubs that receive a package of benefits including one copy of the ECF Year Book free of charge and of p.& p., one free copy of the ECF Grading List, Grading print outs for seven named players, exemption up to £15 from Game Fee for one team for one event each year, exemption from Game Fee for the grading of their internal club games and a reduced entry fee to the National Club Championship. To allow in addition Game Fee exemption from congresses for all members of a club that was a Corporate Vice President would seem to be too generous a concession.

This reference to chess clubs raises an interesting point in the context of the comparison with the EBU that has been taking place on more recent pages. Option 1 was not explicit as to how membership fees were going to be collected, treating this as part of the implementation detail, and the possibilities that I have so far seen referred to are an extension of the network of MOs (which under the existing Membership Bye Laws can be Constituent Units, County Associations or Chess Leagues) or direct central collection from individual players.. Is there any mileage in considering making the chess club the "unit" through which memberships are collected and remitted to the ECF?

[Angus French]

Corporate Vice Presidents are typically chess clubs that receive a package of benefits including ... exemption up to £15 from Game Fee for one team for one event each year, exemption from Game Fee for the grading of their internal club games ...

... which make the calculation of game fee payments less simple. This should have been covered in Option B (simplification of funding arrangements), shouldn't it?... Which make me wonder: John were you, as Chairman of the Governance Committee, asked to review the Funding paper?

Is there any mileage in considering making the chess club the "unit" through which memberships are collected and remitted to the ECF?

Individual -> Club -> ECF sounds like a possible improvement on Individual -> Club -> League -> ECF. Would the club have to be "the unit", couldn't it be an additional type of unit?
Something related: there's been discussion of the possibility of membership payments attracting exemption from VAT through Gift Aid and I wonder: if payments are made through a third party and not direct from the individual to the ECF might that have a bearing on eligibility for Gift Aid?

[John Philpott]

Angus French wrote

John were you, as Chairman of the Governance Committee, asked to review the Funding paper?

In my official capacity I am copied in on all Board e-mail communication, and tend to comment whether I am asked to or not. I made a number of observations on earlier drafts of the funding paper, some of which were adjusted for and others (e.g. I stongly recommended dispensing with the 10% rebate to MOs in the interest of keeping the headline figure for the subscription as low as possible) were not.

Angus French wrote

Individual -> Club -> ECF sounds like a possible improvement on Individual -> Club -> League -> ECF but would the club have to be "the unit", couldn't it be an additional type of unit?

Certainly it could be - I was raising a debating point to try to ensure that all reasonable ideas were considered rather than making a specific recommendation as to what the structure ought to be.

Angus French wrote

Something related: there's been discussion of the possibility of membership payments attracting exemption from VAT through Gift Aid and I wonder: if payments are made through a third party and not direct from the individual to the ECF might that have a bearing on eligibility for Gift Aid?

Gift Aid eligibility and VAT exemption are two quite separate elements of the tax regime, and one does not necessarily follow on from the other. However, it might well be the case that membership subscriptions need to be paid directly from individuals to the ECF in order to be gift-aided, in which case we may just have knocked on the head not just collection via clubs but all options other than central collection by the Office from players!

[E Michael White]

However, it might well be the case that membership subscriptions need to be paid directly from individuals to the ECF in order to be gift-aided, in which case we may just have knocked on the head not just collection via clubs but all options other than central collection by the Office from players!

I believe that collection could be made through clubs but the cheques must be drawn on a members bank account, made payable to the ECF and then forwarded in batches to the ECF from time to time. An exception is for junior arrangements where a parent can pay the lot for all family members including him/herself. Clubs could issue member cards or member PINS as I expect we are not quite ready for digitally signed plastic.

However I guess the ECF should be looking at online payment for all these items

[Mike Truran]

A few quotes worth drawing out:

"In practice, Pay-to-Play is a tax on clubs and organisers" (did Sean ghost the article?)

"However, I feel ill at ease with the Pay-to-Play proposals".

......and as a contribution to another thread: "Any move to have 'mind sports' recognised by the Sports Council and hence the National Lottery died four years ago. At that time, the International Olympic Committee dismissed the applications of bridge and chess to be in the Olympic programme and asked them not to re-apply" (do you think Kirsan didn't notice?)

I suppose it all depends on your point of view really. If it were an easy choice to make ecforum wouldn't have had almost 1,200 posts on the subject. No doubt whatever the bridge equivalent of ecforum is has similar polarised views.