Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
User avatar
Sebastian Stone
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sebastian Stone » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:47 am

Alan Walton wrote:Sebastian, you are most likely to be around net neutral, under £18 per annum 30 games equates to approx 60p per game, playing less than 30 games is obviously going to cost you more per game, the question is whether the ECF should be helping the "active players" or "less active players". Personally by having a membership fee may actually engage the less active players a little more and give them more reason to enter congresses at no extra cost, this would only give boost to congresses around the country without doing extra work
People who are willing to play one night a week may not be willing to commit an entire weekend to chess.
AKA Scott Stone

"Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

That's Mr Stone to you, f**kface.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1326
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:51 am

Sebastian Stone wrote:
Alan Walton wrote:Sebastian, you are most likely to be around net neutral, under £18 per annum 30 games equates to approx 60p per game, playing less than 30 games is obviously going to cost you more per game, the question is whether the ECF should be helping the "active players" or "less active players". Personally by having a membership fee may actually engage the less active players a little more and give them more reason to enter congresses at no extra cost, this would only give boost to congresses around the country without doing extra work
People who are willing to play one night a week may not be willing to commit an entire weekend to chess.
That may be true, and that's why i would hope there is some structure to the MO scheme, which allows said people to become part members at a discounted rate (say half the price), this would mean they will get games graded through their league and club, but if they decide to enter congresses they would pay a non-member fee on top of their entry each time they play

That is why maybe paying a extra £10 up front gives them the option to play tournaments without having to worry about the non-member fee, only a thought though

Sean Hewitt

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:18 am

Mick Norris wrote:OK, so do we need a different rate for schools only players e.g. £6?

Or, do we need a rate for schools to be some kind of corporate member?
When I was at school, inter-school matches were never graded. I can't think that doing so would be a good idea either.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:21 am

Sebastian Stone wrote: However, it seems better than this membership scheme, which seems to be offering discounts at every turn. Latest being a discount for club internal games, which would reduce what my club pays the ecf to a fraction of what it currently pays.
The only discount mentioned in Andrew Farthing's paper is for juniors, who pay £12 instead of £18. There are exemptions for new players in their first year but that's it.

I can't imagine that the multitude of discounts that people are suggesting on this forum will see the light of day. They add far too much complexity and you would end with something completely unworkable. Like game fee. :D

User avatar
Sebastian Stone
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sebastian Stone » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:25 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Sebastian Stone wrote: However, it seems better than this membership scheme, which seems to be offering discounts at every turn. Latest being a discount for club internal games, which would reduce what my club pays the ecf to a fraction of what it currently pays.
The only discount mentioned in Andrew Farthing's paper is for juniors, who pay £12 instead of £18. There are exemptions for new players in their first year but that's it.

I can't imagine that the multitude of discounts that people are suggesting on this forum will see the light of day. They add far too much complexity and you would end with something completely unworkable. Like game fee. :D
Touche. :lol:

However, from what I've been told internal club tournaments may be graded for free. Which would slash what my club pays the ECF, providing they do away with their league teams, which considering they only play in all play all 4 or 5 team (4 man teams) divisions wouldn't be too much of a hardship.
AKA Scott Stone

"Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

That's Mr Stone to you, f**kface.

LozCooper

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by LozCooper » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:27 am

Having paid £7.45 for a pint & half a mineral water at the last 4NCL, £18 for a year's ECF membership sounds like good value :oops:

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:27 am

Sean Hewitt wrote: I can't imagine that the multitude of discounts that people are suggesting on this forum will see the light of day.
The ECF proposals are that customers (for grading services) should upgrade to members. Get the pricing of this wrong and they will walk away. Instead of increasing the ECF's income, you reduce it.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:30 am

Sebastian Stone wrote:However, from what I've been told internal club tournaments may be graded for free. Which would slash what my club pays the ECF, providing they do away with their league teams, which considering they only play in all play all 4 or 5 team (4 man teams) divisions wouldn't be too much of a hardship.
The internal club games would be graded for free provided that the players were all ECF members.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 800
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Mike Gunn » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:31 am

I think £12 membership for a junior who plays in some adult events (tournaments and/ or leagues) is reasonable.

On the other hand the ECF clearly wants to encourage schools chess' and so some special arrangement for school leagues could be appropriate (either corporate membership or special charge like the pay on the day one for tournaments).

On the other hand:

1. introducing a significant number of exemptions could drive up the basic membership cost;

2. there comes a point at which collecting small sums of money re-introduces the complications of game fee and it just isn't worth it.

... I see very similar points have been made above, but I'll leave this as it is.

User avatar
Sebastian Stone
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sebastian Stone » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:34 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Sebastian Stone wrote:However, from what I've been told internal club tournaments may be graded for free. Which would slash what my club pays the ECF, providing they do away with their league teams, which considering they only play in all play all 4 or 5 team (4 man teams) divisions wouldn't be too much of a hardship.
The internal club games would be graded for free provided that the players were all ECF members.
In which case they could simply pay a one off congress fee of £6. Still a net reduction.
AKA Scott Stone

"Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

That's Mr Stone to you, f**kface.

Sean Hewitt

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sean Hewitt » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:43 am

Sebastian Stone wrote: In which case they could simply pay a one off congress fee of £6. Still a net reduction.
Depends how you define congress. Mine would not include an event that is a season long.

User avatar
Sebastian Stone
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Sebastian Stone » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:45 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Sebastian Stone wrote: In which case they could simply pay a one off congress fee of £6. Still a net reduction.
Depends how you define congress. Mine would not include an event that is a season long.
It's not me defining congress. :D
AKA Scott Stone

"Give a man fire and he's warm for a day, set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

That's Mr Stone to you, f**kface.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19262
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:53 am

Sebastian Stone wrote: In which case they could simply pay a one off congress fee of £6. Still a net reduction.
The proposals as drafted contain all sorts of anomalies and unintended(?) consequences.

The costs to players of running a local league become higher if that's their only chess. Here's one idea to avoid them. Suppose you have six clubs locally. You scrap the local team league. Instead each club agrees that it will allow wild card entries from each of the other five clubs into their club championship. You run each event as a five (or whatever) round Swiss. You can then play any number of games from 5 to 30, with half point byes it's even more flexible. If it counts as a Congress, then the net fee is £ 5 per player per Swiss and only those intending to play in more than 3 of the events become members.

One of the presumably unintended consequences is that if you recruit a famous name grandmaster to play in the 4NCL , or even a critical match in the London League, is that if said player has played previously and hence has an ECF grade, then you have to sign them up as an ECF member.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Alex Holowczak » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:59 am

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Sebastian Stone wrote: In which case they could simply pay a one off congress fee of £6. Still a net reduction.
Depends how you define congress. Mine would not include an event that is a season long.
In the ECF Articles, there is League and Congress, but as far as I can tell it may as well say Team and Individual. They don't make any mention about the length of the event.

Steve Rooney
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:36 pm
Location: Church Stretton

Re: Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

Post by Steve Rooney » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:00 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote:
Sebastian Stone wrote: However, it seems better than this membership scheme, which seems to be offering discounts at every turn. Latest being a discount for club internal games, which would reduce what my club pays the ecf to a fraction of what it currently pays.
The only discount mentioned in Andrew Farthing's paper is for juniors, who pay £12 instead of £18. There are exemptions for new players in their first year but that's it.

I can't imagine that the multitude of discounts that people are suggesting on this forum will see the light of day. They add far too much complexity and you would end with something completely unworkable. Like game fee. :D
I don't think you can avoid some levels of complexity in order to achieve a settlement that raises the money that the change is intended to. Why you would want to reduce the fee for those who are currently happy to pay for direct membership beats me; and imposing a significant price increase for less active players, as the original paper suggested, makes the 85% conversion rate very questionable.

It would not seem too difficult to have a three-tier membership structure which covers, say, Local (Club/League), National (Club and Congress etc), and Premium (including FIDE rating). You then need to juggle the numbers to make it attractive for maximum take-up in each category.

Post Reply