Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

[Sean Hewitt]

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.

Clubs don't fork out anything.

What clubs do is collect money from players, and pass it to the ECF (via their league or county). This is what happens now, and it is what will happen in the future whether the charging scheme is per player or per game.

Unfortunately, the timing of this membership change coincides with the withdrawal of the government grant - which represents 1/3 of the ECF's current total income. With VAT to add on top of game fee or membership, the ECF will need to collect 40% more from players than they do now to maintain the current activities.

I suspect that many people are falling into the trap of comparing this years ECF game fee costs with the proposed membership costs. Because of the withdrawal of the government grant, this is not a like for like comparison.

[Roger de Coverly]

the MCF covers the entry fees and any game fee - is this unusual?

I would have said so. You can have players who are not part of the local club scene, either because they are "... bussed in ..." or because they only want to play at weekends. You need to cover venue hire costs and refreshments as well, so raising money per match from the participants makes a certain sense. Sussex used to have, may still have, the notion of being a Patron of Sussex chess. In return there was no additional fee to play in county matches. This had the advantage to the match organiser of collecting up front from all the regular players whilst avoiding having to seek a subsidy from non county-match players.

4NCL teams vary with the fund raising as well as to whether to use per head for the whole season, per match or per weekend. If you are paying players to participate, presumably it would be per weekend or per match. Do counties that run 4NCL teams expect the players taking part to pay most or all of the bills?

[Mick Norris]

the MCF covers the entry fees and any game fee - is this unusual?

I would have said so. You can have players who are not part of the local club scene, either because they are "... bussed in ..." or because they only want to play at weekends. You need to cover venue hire costs and refreshments as well, so raising money per match from the participants makes a certain sense. Sussex used to have, may still have, the notion of being a Patron of Sussex chess. In return there was no additional fee to play in county matches. This had the advantage to the match organiser of collecting up front from all the regular players whilst avoiding having to seek a subsidy from non county-match players.

4NCL teams vary with the fund raising as well as to whether to use per head for the whole season, per match or per weekend. If you are paying players to participate, presumably it would be per weekend or per match. Do counties that run 4NCL teams expect the players taking part to pay most or all of the bills?

County - we are still looking for a bus

4NCL - the Manticores are run at no cost to the MCF

[Steve Rooney]

Is there any news on progress with detailed proposals on the mandatory membership scheme? And is there an intention to conduct a more formal consultation on any revised proposals through counties, clubs etc?

[Roger de Coverly]

What clubs do is collect money from players, and pass it to the ECF (via their league or county). This is what happens now, and it is what will happen in the future whether the charging scheme is per player or per game.

What we are trying to get to grips with is whether the amounts paid by clubs will in aggregate be higher or lower than under the current system. All the indications are that it will be higher unless you are both a really active club that enables players to play approaching 30 games under your auspices or you already have a high proportion of existing Direct Members.

Look at it from the point of view of a County Treasurer. At the present, he will pay to the ECF, (game count) * 70p (using the post Grant hypothetical value). If converted to an MO, so the county does the collection, he/she will have to pay (individual count minus exemptions) * £ 18. Setting aside for the moment how and from whom the amounts are raised, will the 70p method be higher or lower than the £ 18 method?

Fork out is an entirely appropriate expression. Under the new regime, Congresses, even highly sponsored ones, will pay next to nothing to the ECF, so it follows that club players will. Also existing Direct Members, currently paying £ 25 a head will benefit from a price cut.

[Sean Hewitt]

Is there any news on progress with detailed proposals on the mandatory membership scheme? And is there an intention to conduct a more formal consultation on any revised proposals through counties, clubs etc?

I haven't seen anything on detailed proposals and suspect we won't for some time yet. The formal consultation will be with council and each county has a representative there. Whether your local rep consults with clubs and players is of course a local matter. I shall ceratinly be consulting with those clubs that I represent and voting in accordance wioth their wishes.

[Roger de Coverly]

And is there an intention to conduct a more formal consultation on any revised proposals through counties, clubs etc?

I think that's unlikely. It will be a "take it or leave it" motion at the October meeting. The underlying problem that club players are being asked for more whilst Congresses are being given a free ride seems unlikely to be addressed.

[Sean Hewitt]

What we are trying to get to grips with is whether the amounts paid by clubs will in aggregate be higher or lower than under the current system.

You might be trying to get to grips with that, but it is not relevant.

What is is relevant is how much players pay in total to the ECF and that is going up, whatever the system, because of the loss of the government grant.

Under the proposed membership system, the player will make one payment per year (probably via their club would be my guess). Under the current system, the player pays separately via each club they play for, via their county team, via each congress they play in, via their ECF membership fees, etc.

Some people think the latter is the simpler system

[Roger de Coverly]

What is is relevant is how much players pay in total to the ECF and that is going up, whatever the system, because of the loss of the government grant.

I'm sorry but it's immensely relevant and the case for membership is not helped by the refusal of the advocates of membership to discuss the financial implications. Before changes you will have n people with £X paid in aggregate. The individual amounts usually being proportionate to the amount of chess they play and where they play it. After changes you will have n people paying £X in aggregate, with the proposal that each pays £X/n. So there will be players who will pay more and players who pay less. Who are these people?

[Steve Rooney]

Is there any news on progress with detailed proposals on the mandatory membership scheme? And is there an intention to conduct a more formal consultation on any revised proposals through counties, clubs etc?

I haven't seen anything on detailed proposals and suspect we won't for some time yet. The formal consultation will be with council and each county has a representative there. Whether your local rep consults with clubs and players is of course a local matter. I shall ceratinly be consulting with those clubs that I represent and voting in accordance wioth their wishes.

I think where it concerns a substantive change to the relationship between players and the ECF, direct consultation should be used as well as the representative route. It may not be able to target individual players, apart from existing members, but if the ECF has access to club/county contacts via email then why not send the proposals out to all?

[Roger de Coverly]

Under the proposed membership system, the player will make one payment per year (probably via their club would be my guess). Under the current system, the player pays separately via each club they play for, via their county team, via each congress they play in, via their ECF membership fees, etc.

Some people think the latter is the simpler system

I think it's unlikely that Congresses will be giving free entry to ECF members, so players will still have to pay Congress entry fees. Congresses will have one less payment to make, if they have to pay non-member fees at £ 5 a head not even that.

Given that county matches incur venue cost and refreshment cost, it's unlikely that that will be free to players either. You've probably still got a payment of residual funds to the county treasurer or reinbursement of expenses.

At the club level, you still have individual payments to the club treasurer, a bulk payment to the county treasurer and a bulk payment to the ECF. Again it's the same number of payments. If you are in two leagues, the second league might let you off ECF membership, but it's probably still going to want a membership fee from the club for its own internal purposes. Again no saving in the number of payments.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think where it concerns a substantive change to the relationship between players and the ECF, direct consultation should be used as well as the representative route. It may not be able to target individual players, apart from existing members, but if the ECF has access to club/county contacts via email then why not send the proposals out to all?

The ECF is a federation made up of member organisations such as counties, leagues and congresses. It is those organisations which have the right to vote, such rights beng delegated to their council member.

The ECF could consult with whomever it chooses. However, it doesn't matter a jot if council votes the opposite way.

It is for clubs and counties to ensure that their delegates are aware of their views and vote accordingly. If they don't, you need to elect a new delegate!

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Clubs don't fork out anything.

What clubs do is collect money from players, and pass it to the ECF (via their league or county). This is what happens now, and it is what will happen in the future whether the charging scheme is per player or per game.

Well OK, so at the beginning of the season the treasurer of Cowley Chess Club has two choices:

a) Ask everyone for the £24 club subscriptions and at the same time ask for another £18 from anyone who is likely to play any league chess.

b) Ask everyone for £42 club subscriptions and send £18 of this to the ECF. Everyone in the club will be allowed to play in the league and any inter-club competitions (there are none which are eligible for grading at present) can sent in for grading as well.

It's taken a while for me to realise, but I guess that basically the ECF is asking for more financial support from players who play the least number of competitive games. Have I got that right?

[Roger de Coverly]

It's taken a while for me to realise, but I guess that basically the ECF is asking for more financial support from players who play the least number of competitive games. Have I got that right?

Got it in one. Conversely less financial support from those who play the most. Congresses will able able to vote on financial matters without contributing anything financially.

You could combine membership with per use charges like the YHA or the EBU but the ECF Council ruled it out.

[Roger de Coverly]

a) Ask everyone for the £24 club subscriptions and at the same time ask for another £18 from anyone who is likely to play any league chess.

You might at a pinch be able to reduce the club sub, but could get away with £6 ? That's conditional on two issues. First you have to persuade the OCA to reduce its entry fees and secondly even if you get a reduced OCA fee, that your club treasurer is prepared to pass it on as reduced subs. Both bodies might wish to enhance their reserves, introduce enhanced or any prize money, splash out on new equipment etc.

(edit) reread the thread, you have already assumed you could reduce your club sub from £ 30 to £ 24.