Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

[William Metcalfe]

But you wont have to pay league fees under membership so your anual club subscriptions should also be reduced.What you lose with 1 hand you gain with the other

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean, you shouldn't have risen to the bait. It's like Groundhog Day.

They say we're young and we don't know
We won't find out until we grow
Well I don't know if all that's true
'Cause you got me, and baby I got you

Babe
I got you babe I got you babe

[Mike Truran]

Phil: Do you ever have déjà vu, Mrs. Lancaster?
Mrs. Lancaster: I don't think so, but I could check with the kitchen.

[Mike Truran]

Rita: Do you ever have déjà vu?
Phil: Didn't you just ask me that?

[Sean Hewitt]

I would love to stay here and talk with you... but I'm not going to.

[Roger de Coverly]

But you wont have to pay league fees under membership so your anual club subscriptions should also be reduced.What you lose with 1 hand you gain with the other

That's only true if the league agrees to reduce its fees. It might decide to spend the annual windfall on something completely different. In any event, fifteen games even at 70 p a game is £ 10.50 which is less than £ 18. So even if you are a fairly active league player, your costs have gone up. For the five games a season person it's an increase from £ 3.50.

If it's expected that leagues should collect in the style of MOs, then their liability for payments to the ECF changes from (local game count) * 70 p to (local head count) * £ 18. For almost every league the head count formula is going to give a higher payment unless, like Surrey, and one or two other "rich" southern counties, there's already a high percentage of Direct Members, so that the head count can be reduced because of existing memberships. Congresses will always win unless they're expected to pay the £ 6 non-member fee and have a large non-member entry. As internationally rated events are currently excused paying Game Fee even on non-ENG players, what's the odds that they will continue to get ECF grading for nothing under the proposed regime even for overseas players who aren't ECF members?

[Mike Truran]

Phil: [to Rita] I'm reliving the same day over and over.

[William Metcalfe]

Well the two leagues i play in now no longer charge any league fees which add up when you run 6 or 7 league teams.
Because we no longer pay league fees our chess club subs have gone down to such a extent that i now pay less chess club subs than i did 11 years ago when i first learned to play and joined darlington chess club.

[benedgell]

Going back to how a Membership-scheme would specifically effect the Somerset League.

Fair points about people being members already, and rapidplay games, both of which I forgot about when providing the previous data. If you take into account the 3 graded rapidplay tournaments held in or around Somerset this previous season (Teignmouth, Millfield, and Chipping Sodbury) then the number of people in Category 'C' or less may fall slightly, but the picture would still be largely the same in that the majority of chess players in Somerset are Category 'C' or less.

If you take total number of games played in Somerset and multiply by game fee and compare you could have a few people playing a high number of games and a lot of people playing only a few games, and it would appear that a membership scheme would be suitable for all. For example, if you have one person playing 70 games, two people playing 10, then using this method it would appear to be fair for all, when in reality one person benefits, two lose out.

My idea when providing the original data was that people in Category 'A' would be well off under the membership scheme compared with game fee, people in Category 'B' would be at least okay under the membership scheme, whilst people Category 'C' or less would be worse off.

Roger de Coverly wrote a couple of points I tend to agree with: "The beneficiaries are those players who play a lot of chess... It's obvious why the most active players like MOs... It's less obvious why the player of 10 games a year should sign up with enthusiasm..."

My thinking is this: people who are around Category 'C' would pay a lot more under a membership scheme then they would under game fee, whilst people who are in 'A' category would pay a lot less. So essentially areas where a lot of chess is played (central London as an example) would save money compared to game fee, whilst more rural areas where chess is played less (Somerset as an example) would pay a lot more then with game fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

My thinking is this: people who are around Category 'C' would pay a lot more under a membership scheme then they would under game fee, whilst people who are in 'A' category would pay a lot less.

The current theory is that a Game Fee of 70p can be regarded as approximately equivalent to the £ 18 membership.

So 25*0.7 = 17.5 and 26*0.7 = 18.2, so that gives you the benchmarks for the break evens.

London and the South East are generally unenthusiastic about per head charging structures. Such is the proliferation of clubs and leagues that there's a full spectrum of club players from those who play nearly every night in multiple clubs and leagues to those who just play every month or two and a one size charging model struggles.

Many of the "top" London & South East players have already been forced to become ECF members through the 4NCL and other international tournaments. The ECF should know, but probably won't bother to find out, how much revenue it will lose both by charging them a lower membership cost and abolishing Game Fee for the leagues in which they play.

[Alex Holowczak]

If you take into account the 3 graded rapidplay tournaments held in or around Somerset this previous season (Teignmouth, Millfield, and Chipping Sodbury)

Only two of those events have actually submitted their results for grading. Either that, or the third one is very, very late. It wouldn't surprise me if there was never any intent to grade it.

[Sean Hewitt]

My idea when providing the original data was that people in Category 'A' would be well off under the membership scheme compared with game fee, people in Category 'B' would be at least okay under the membership scheme, whilst people Category 'C' or less would be worse off.

That's only true where clubs charge on a pay as you play basis. Most clubs (in my experience) charge a flat fee regardless of the number of league games you play.

[Roger de Coverly]

Most clubs (in my experience) charge a flat fee regardless of the number of league games you play.

In most parts of the country it would be impossible to obtain an A grade by only playing in matches in one league team for one club. So the A grade player has to enter Congresses, county individual events or play county matches. These are usually charged separately and the entry fees probably contain an element of Game Fee. Congresses charge pay as you play, the more Congresses you enter the more you pay by way of Congress entry fees, only some of which is potentially returned as prize money. County teams as well usually charge per match, so if you play every match you pay more than someone just playing the single match. A club sub might allow you to enter the county individual for nothing, but probably doesn't.

Research on who play where is something ECF should do, but probably won't. Analyse game counts by both event type and player to understand its current revenue sources. It will after all be giving up major amounts of income by ceasing to collect on a per game basis from leagues.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Most clubs (in my experience) charge a flat fee regardless of the number of league games you play.

That's been my experience as well. At my club (Cowley Chess Club in Oxford) the subs are £30 for adults. If someone needs to become a direct member of the ECF so that they can play in the 4NCL or whatever, then they pay that themselves. If the membership scheme comes in then we'd need to raise subs to about £42 (£18 - how much we pay per player to play in the Oxfordshire league). The club will end up paying the ECF (via the League) roughly three times as much as we do at present.

Those who would have become direct members anyway will pay the same, everyone else will pay £12 more. Those who enter congresses may find that their entry fees are lower than in previous years, but that's not going to affect the club.

I really like the idea of everyone who plays competitive chess in England being a member of the ECF, but not if it means clubs have to fork out vastly more money.

If this has all been covered before then perhaps someone could PM me the appropriate thread and page to look at.

[Mick Norris]

Most clubs (in my experience) charge a flat fee regardless of the number of league games you play.

In most parts of the country it would be impossible to obtain an A grade by only playing in matches in one league team for one club. So the A grade player has to enter Congresses, county individual events or play county matches. These are usually charged separately and the entry fees probably contain an element of Game Fee. Congresses charge pay as you play, the more Congresses you enter the more you pay by way of Congress entry fees, only some of which is potentially returned as prize money. County teams as well usually charge per match, so if you play every match you pay more than someone just playing the single match. A club sub might allow you to enter the county individual for nothing, but probably doesn't.

Research on who play where is something ECF should do, but probably won't. Analyse game counts by both event type and player to understand its current revenue sources. It will after all be giving up major amounts of income by ceasing to collect on a per game basis from leagues.

I play a flat rate club membership fee as I think nearly everyone else does - in my case £30 of the £45 I pay goes to become a member of the Sports Club where we play

The congresses I am involved in, or play in, generally have a two tier entry fee, with reduced rates for ECF/NMS members

Greater Manchester county teams are free to the players (no board fee, they just pay travelling expenses) - the MCF covers the entry fees and any game fee - is this unusual?