Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

[Andrew Farthing]

If the Farthing paper is no longer a statement of the ECF's intentions, then it should be withdrawn.

The paper forms part of the documentation prepared for the April 2011 Finance Council meeting. As such, it will continue to be made available on the ECF website, which routinely includes Council papers.

My paper was positioned as a description of options for consideration by Council, not "a statement of the ECF's intentions". It formed the basis for considerable discussion and debate, on this forum and elsewhere beforehand (and since) and at the meeting. I don't see why the fact that the points made in the discussion, along with the arithmetic of the vote, are being listened to and factored into the current work creates a need to "withdraw" the paper.

I do appreciate that it may be frustrating that I haven't posted details of what will be presented to the AGM, but as I've already said, I'm still working on these. I am paying attention to the constructive suggestions made in this thread, and I am sympathetic to the wish to offer tiers of membership based on activity. Steering a course through the often conflicting poles of 'consumer tailoring' and simplicity isn't easy.

If I said more, I'd just be repeating my earlier post.

[Roger de Coverly]

My paper was positioned as a description of options for consideration by Council, not "a statement of the ECF's intentions".

Their was/is a very clear message that if it wasn't in the Council paper, then it wasn't going to happen. We had various tiered schemes etc. floated on this very forum before the vote, usually with the feedback that they were irrelevant to the Council discussion.

I think by withdraw the paper, I meant that if it no longer described the membership options to be presented in October, then it would be as well to say so. Also if the April meeting changed the likely outcomes, then reports of the meeting would or should have said so. Given the huge, relatively speaking, numbers that you have to convince to pay for membership, public statements become much more important. Anyone researching the issue from scratch is going to come across the Council papers and the reports of the meeting and draw the conclusion that the proposals were set in stone apart from tinkering round the edges on the precise mechanics and rewording of the ECF's Articles and Rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think we can rely of the opposition captain to check if he can claim any boards for non-registration.

You might. If you want to turn local leagues into a rules based nightmare, that's the way to go. Net result is the same - defaults and match captains just not wanting the bother.

[Mike Truran]

Anyone researching the issue from scratch would get trapped in this thread and never re-emerge alive.

Has anyone seen The Cube?

[Paul Cooksey]

I think we can rely of the opposition captain to check if he can claim any boards for non-registration.

You might. If you want to turn local leagues into a rules based nightmare, that's the way to go. Net result is the same - defaults and match captains just not wanting the bother.

I'm tempted to quote the rule which meant my game for our B team was defaulted this year to prove the kind of world we live in already. But I don't want to seem bitter

"You have to have an ECF registration number before you can play a competitive match" is not so complicated in my opinion.

[LozCooper]

Anyone researching the issue from scratch would get trapped in this thread and never re-emerge alive.

Definitely the funniest post to the thread so far

[Paul McKeown]

Anyone researching the issue from scratch would get trapped in this thread and never re-emerge alive.

[You beat me to it Loz!]

[Andrew Farthing]

Anyone researching the issue from scratch is going to come across the Council papers and the reports of the meeting and draw the conclusion that the proposals were set in stone apart from tinkering round the edges on the precise mechanics and rewording of the ECF's Articles and Rules.

I think that anyone looking at what I've written on this subject before and after the Council meeting would conclude that I have gone out of my way to encourage people to express their views. On this Forum, I set out variations on a "third way" (and even a fourth) in an attempt to make sure that everyone understood that the future was still open to change. I've also tried hard to maintain a neutral stance in my public statements.

Readers of this thread and its precursors can draw their own conclusion about whose views have been "set in stone".

[Roger de Coverly]

Readers of this thread and its precursors can draw their own conclusion about whose views have been "set in stone".

''


Ok so if you don't believe in

(a) individuals need to be a member of the ECF to play in graded chess
and
(b) the ECF should charge the same amount for every individual player

what options are left?

So if the ECF no longer believe in (b) or even (a) as a policy objective, feel free to tell us.

[Roger de Coverly]

"You have to have an ECF registration number before you can play a competitive match" is not so complicated in my opinion.

There's a long list of possible rule changes that a local league could adopt in response to the ECF's membership changes.

One of them is that you have to be a member in order to play in the league. If you aren't a member your game will be forfeited.

This doesn't go as far as suspending the entire league if a non-member takes part.

Other options include

(1) all games are submitted to the ECF but the grades of non-members are not published
(2) all games are submitted to the ECF but grading calculations are only done for members
(3) all games are submitted to the ECF but only games between members count for grading
(4) only games where at least one of the players are members are submitted
(5) only games where both of the players are members will be submitted.
(6) no games at all are submitted because the league has opted out of the ECF.

It's not an exhaustive list, you could have an upper limit on the number of non-members permitted to play.

There's no immediate need to make a decision in 2011, 2012 on the other hand ....

[Andrew Farthing]

Readers of this thread and its precursors can draw their own conclusion about whose views have been "set in stone".

Ok so if you don't believe in

(a) individuals need to be a member of the ECF to play in graded chess
and
(b) the ECF should charge the same amount for every individual player

what options are left?

So if the ECF no longer believe in (b) or even (a) as a policy objective, feel free to tell us.

I think that my posts have been clear.

As far as I'm concerned, the majority vote at the Finance Council meeting was a directive to pursue a universal membership scheme. Your point (a) covers this. As for (b), the original funding paper already included a variation from the notion that "the ECF should charge the same amount for every individual player" in its differential pricing for adults and juniors (plus the option of a higher rate for anyone choosing to become a "Patron").

I acknowledge the comments made at Council and elsewhere about the wish for some further variability in the price payable depending on the category of player (leaving open the definition of "category" so as not to rule in or out any specific suggestions while I am in the process of working out the details for the AGM). People would justifiably feel that their energy was being wasted if the ECF ignored the points made in the discussions leading to the vote in favour of the universal membership option.

Why not acknowledge that a willingness to listen to and act upon the views of the interested parties is a good thing rather than give the appearance of complaining about an absence of dogmatism?

[Mike Truran]

It does seem a little illogical to have spent most of the thread complaining about a "one size fits all" membership scheme and then to also complain when Andrew says the ECF are open to the possibility of a more flexible membership scheme.

[Roger de Coverly]

The majority of Council voted in favour of an approach which in broad terms spreads the burden evenly across all English players.

AGMs have been discussing and in some cases rejecting this premise. A tiered membership scheme would spread the burden with regard to interest and activity as well.

[Matt Harrison]

Seems quite straightforward to have a flat rate annual membership and a competition membership. Then any congress or league would have to charge competition membership to those people who wanted to play but didn't want to pay annual membership.

This is the approach used in many sports (eg. athletics, triathlon). When you enter you provide your membership number. If you don't have it, then you pay either an additional £2 (athletics - the 'levy') or £5 (triathlon - day membership). In athletics, the clubs collect membership on behalf of the athlete and pay £5 per member to UK Athletics. In triathlon there is the option of direct membership as well.

The competition membership would be cheaper than the annual membership, but set at a level that would encourage annual membership.

A de minimis rule (eg 3 games) would avoid people having to pay just to be a filler in a league match - I've done that before, and I'm not certain I would for £5.

[Michele Clack]

If you are going for a tiered membership scheme then Alex's Bronze Siver Gold idea sounds really good. Matt is right though it still leaves a problem with the occasional player. I'm sure all these things can be sorted out.
It seems to me that Roger would not be happy with any system other than straight board fee. So any solution that gives a broad brush approach to matching membership fees roughly with activity level is never going to meet his approval. I suspect he would prefer board fee only even if it meant that the overall cost of activities to the ECF was higher.