Winners and Losers under 'Membership Only'

[Alex Holowczak]

- I've just seen Alan Walton's comment; he agrees with my placement of the two events, and I don't immediately have a problem with his proposed sanction either.

But Alan only mentions congresses. I agree that what he says for congresses is reasonable. It's all clearly within the congress organiser's control. It's less clear for leagues though. They won't know a non-member has played in the league until after its happened. It's important to be clear who ends up bearing the cost of players not being members because that determines who is really responsible for policing the system and checking everyone who should be a member is. It also places obligations on the ECF to make sure that everyone who needs to know an individual's membership status can easily find it out.

Sure, but this isn't unique to what I wrote above.

It is essential for me that the membership list is freely downloadable from the ECF website. Neon flashing lights around it are perhaps too much, but it should be obvious where to find it.

[Roger de Coverly]

They won't know a non-member has played in the league until after its happened.

On the premise that a Congress is 5 rounds and the ECF proposed non-member fee is £ 6 for 5 rounds, you apply the same principle to leagues. So non-members incur a charge of £ 1.20 per game. If you note that this doubles the cost to club non-members, this precisely communicates what the ECF is attempting to do, namely to double the cost for the club player, whilst providing rating services for nothing to everyone else.

Whether the ECF could invoice this reliably is another story entirely.

Note the Canadian example above, a rating fee of about £ 2 per head. So an international event with 200 players would pay the ECF about £ 400 for rating services. That's equivalent to 22 club players.

[Sean Hewitt]

On the premise that a Congress is 5 rounds and the ECF proposed non-member fee is £ 6 for 5 rounds, you apply the same principle to leagues. So non-members incur a charge of £ 1.20 per game. If you note that this doubles the cost to club non-members, this precisely communicates what the ECF is attempting to do, namely to double the cost for the club player, whilst providing rating services for nothing to everyone else.

Utterly flawed logic leading to a completely nonsensical conclusion.

[Roger de Coverly]

Utterly flawed logic leading to a completely nonsensical conclusion.

£ 18 is twice £ 9 which is 15 games at a hypothetical Game Fee of 60p - so that's where the double comes from.
Also if a Congress has every single entrant who is already an ECF member (through their club) , it will have its games graded for nothing.

So I don't think my conclusions are in any way nonsensical. How would you explain the ECF's new approach to a club member just playing 15 games a season, or for that matter to a club treasurer wanting to report winners and losers to their AGM?

[Mike Truran]

"Utterly flawed logic leading to a completely nonsensical conclusion."

No change there then.

[Sean Hewitt]

Also if a Congress has every single entrant who is already an ECF member (through their club) , it will have its games graded for nothing.

Congresses don't have their games graded. Players do.

How would you explain the ECF's new approach to a club member just playing 15 games a season, or for that matter to a club treasurer wanting to report winners and losers to their AGM?

Probably in the same way that I did it to an open meeting of Leicestershire clubs and players when we considered whether to go down the MO route or not. I used real examples of real clubs with real players rather than hypothetical made up scenarios created to give a false impression.

Once they had seen what it really meant they went for the MO. They have stayed with it ever since. I wonder why they did that?

[Roger de Coverly]

Congresses don't have their games graded. Players do.

A Congress can decide whether or not to submit its games for grading or FIDE rating for that matter. Players have no say in the matter, other than deciding whether or not they wish to enter the event. For an English event, at the moment, all games played are graded or none at all. You need such rules to maintain the integrity of the grading system. Congresses could decide to save money by not having games graded. Here and there you see events, usually rapid-play ones which do this. Some you wouldn't expect to see graded, for example a 15 minute tournament. In a membership world, you might see a growth in non-member, non-rated tournaments. They will after all be £ 6 cheaper to enter.

Conventional wisdom was that with the exception of some rapid play events, Congress players wouldn't enter ungraded events in any numbers.

Probably in the same way that I did it to an open meeting of Leicestershire clubs and players when we considered whether to go down the MO route or not. I used real examples of real clubs with real players rather than hypothetical made up scenarios created to give a false impression

In what way do my made up examples give a false impression?

Surely one of two things is expected to happen
(a) club subs increase by between £ 8 to £ 10 to cover the cost of sending £ 18 to the ECF . This assumes league fees are reduced by the Game Fee component being removed. For existing Direct members, they offset this by not renewing directly with the ECF thereby saving themselves money.
(b) club subs are reduced by between £ 6 to £ 9 to reflect the removal of the Game Fee element. At the same time and separately you expect club members to join or renew with the ECF at a cost of £ 18 per head. Existing Direct members benefit in two ways, firstly by a reduced club sub and secondly by a reduction in their Direct Member payment down to £ 18.

[Sean Hewitt]

In what way do my made up examples give a false impression?

Quite simply you focus on one hypothetical individual instead of focussing on a group of players, otherwise known as a club. In my experience such clubs usually have a mix of players and it's by considering the mix holistically that you get to see the real picture.

Or maybe all the clubs and players in Leicestershire are stupid and we've pulled the wool over their eyes.

[Roger de Coverly]

Quite simply you focus on one hypothetical individual instead of focussing on a group of players, otherwise known as a club. In my experience such clubs usually have a mix of players and it's by considering the mix holistically that you get to see the real picture.

I don't see that it's wrong to focus on the effect on individuals within a club. It is after all a hypothetical club AGM that I'm asking about. In my experience these questions will and should be asked.

If you charge a flat rate club sub based on all levels of activity, you have to have some method of setting discussion benchmarks and basing it on median players is as good a method as any. Where fees vary with activity, then the more active players will expect to pay slightly less. For instance locally we also have county individual tournaments. The effect for players who play in this is that their entry fees might be reduced.They won't become zero because of prize money. For county match teams, there is a charge per game for home matches. Removal of Game Fee might reduce these. Again they won't become zero because of venue and refreshment costs. The effect of players who don't play in these is nil and the effect for those who play in all of them is a financial gain.

It just reinforces the message that moving to a per head scheme may benefit or not disadvantage those who play most whilst being neutral or disadvantageous to those who play average amounts or less.

If you look at the grading list by level of standard play activity, 12,13,14,15,16 games is a band that contains an awful lot of players.

Or maybe all the clubs and players in Leicestershire are stupid and we've pulled the wool over their eyes.

[/quote]

It is my opinion that promoters of MO schemes have been economical with the truth in some of their promotions. I haven't seen any Leics material so I cannot comment.

[Alex Holowczak]

It just reinforces the message that moving to a per head scheme may benefit or not disadvantage those who play most whilst being neutral or disadvantageous to those who play average amounts or less.

I think this was blindingly obvious to everyone two thousand posts ago.

Or maybe all the clubs and players in Leicestershire are stupid and we've pulled the wool over their eyes.

It is my opinion that promoters of MO schemes have been economical with the truth in some of their promotions. I haven't seen any Leics material so I cannot comment.

I doubt it. If they were being economical with the truth, the practical implications would have been known by now, and the MO promoters would be facing a rebellion in their own counties. Sean hasn't reported such a rebellion in Leicestershire. Administrators in the NCCU don't seem to have noted a problem either.

[Steve Rooney]

"Utterly flawed logic leading to a completely nonsensical conclusion."

No change there then.

I'm not sure this is called for or helpful.

Congresses don't have their games graded. Players do.

A Congress can decide whether or not to submit its games for grading or FIDE rating for that matter. Players have no say in the matter, other than deciding whether or not they wish to enter the event. For an English event, at the moment, all games played are graded or none at all. You need such rules to maintain the integrity of the grading system. Congresses could decide to save money by not having games graded. Here and there you see events, usually rapid-play ones which do this. Some you wouldn't expect to see graded, for example a 15 minute tournament. In a membership world, you might see a growth in non-member, non-rated tournaments. They will after all be £ 6 cheaper to enter.

Conventional wisdom was that with the exception of some rapid play events, Congress players wouldn't enter ungraded events in any numbers.

Probably in the same way that I did it to an open meeting of Leicestershire clubs and players when we considered whether to go down the MO route or not. I used real examples of real clubs with real players rather than hypothetical made up scenarios created to give a false impression

In what way do my made up examples give a false impression?

Surely one of two things is expected to happen
(a) club subs increase by between £ 8 to £ 10 to cover the cost of sending £ 18 to the ECF . This assumes league fees are reduced by the Game Fee component being removed. For existing Direct members, they offset this by not renewing directly with the ECF thereby saving themselves money.
(b) club subs are reduced by between £ 6 to £ 9 to reflect the removal of the Game Fee element. At the same time and separately you expect club members to join or renew with the ECF at a cost of £ 18 per head. Existing Direct members benefit in two ways, firstly by a reduced club sub and secondly by a reduction in their Direct Member payment down to £ 18.

If the idea is the original single £18 member fee then I would continue to oppose the membership option as I think it shifts too much of the burden onto less active players and as a consequence may fail utterly in getting the required numbers to fund the organisation. However, the Finance Council vote appears to leave all of the details of the scheme to be developed by the board, which clearly includes the fee structure. There are options considered earlier in this thread for a tiered membership fee structure which could address many of the concerns, albeit they still require financial appraisal.

It is of course possible that the changes will fail at the AGM as suggested by some, but for the moment it would seem to be more fruitful to focus the debate on ideas for a viable membership proposal and park the subject of game fee, and the passions and insults it generates.

[Roger de Coverly]

I doubt it. If they were being economical with the truth, the practical implications would have been known by now

In its first year the Northern Scheme was reported to have made more money for the ECF than Game Fee would have done. Leics make the same comment. This might ignore the ECF's losses from Direct Members downgrading to Basic, but presumably there weren't so many.

If you collect more money from the same group of club members for much the same activities, this rather implies that prices have gone up. I thought this was strange for a scheme that was marketed as a money saver. Was not the reality that most were now paying more for their chess , with a few, the most active players, paying less? As you say, they seem to have got away with it.

[Alex Holowczak]

As you say, they seem to have got away with it.

Whoa there!

I didn't say that they'd got away with being economical with the truth; that's what you said. Contrary to your opinion, I don't believe they were economical with the truth.

[Mick Norris]

In its first year the Northern Scheme was reported to have made more money for the ECF than Game Fee would have done. Leics make the same comment. This might ignore the ECF's losses from Direct Members downgrading to Basic, but presumably there weren't so many.

If you collect more money from the same group of club members for much the same activities, this rather implies that prices have gone up. I thought this was strange for a scheme that was marketed as a money saver. Was not the reality that most were now paying more for their chess , with a few, the most active players, paying less? As you say, they seem to have got away with it.

Obviously, we are all stupid in the North and it isn't just limited to Leics

What has actually happened is that existing players are playing more chess - some are paying less, some the same and some more than before - which is the nature of any change

Also, some players are paying something who were previously paying nothing - whether these are new to chess, new to competitive chess or simply previously played in non-game fee leagues or events (or more likely, all 3) is open to debate

What is clear is that if people like Sean and Bill O'Rourke believe in something, and actively promote it, then this is a gain for the ECF - you would hope for a similar result from whatever membership scheme the ECF finalise, or we can continue down the current road to oblivion if Council prefer

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you ignore the fact that a membershipship scheme allows clubs to organize more chess for their members without incuring additional expense.
Think graded summer tournament for example.
So even if people were paying more in many cases they would be getting more

Yes I do ignore extra events. That's for the very good reason that I don't think that reducing the per game cost from 54p or whatever down to zero would make the slightest difference to whether you chose to run one and whether you could get anyone to play in it. Aren't there many clubs that either close completely or have a reduced opening schedule during the summer months? So you would be likely to have additional venue costs in running a summer event.

There are any number of excellent Congresses, some of them local, for those wishing to play over the summer.

You can sell membership as having additional benefits. If the additional benefits are of no interest or value to the potential purchaser, it's just a sales pitch.