ECF Membership - The proposal

[Mike Truran]

Jon, I have no doubt that that is the answer, and in that sense my question was somewhat rhetorical. The ECF charging structure for FIDE rated events seems to be based on little more than the belief that if they can get away with it they will.

It's somewhat unedifying. However, as we all know, "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." It would be nice though if they at least came out and said that that is what they are doing. All this stuff about 'premium' events is just an attempt to flatter the geese into acquiescence in the absence of a convincing value added case to justify a smash and grab raid.

[Richard Bates]

Would the new charity have to pay VAT?

Charities have to pay VAT but they may be able to claim it back for some things. Much more useful is the fact that they are able to claim the VAT of any donations made. For example if someone gives an ECF charity £1000, the charity would be able to claim an extra £250 back, i.e. as if the person had donated £1250 but £250 (20%) had been paid to the government as VAT.

Are you talking about Gift Aid?

[Mike Truran]

No, Gift Aid is about reclaiming basic rate tax and tax deducted on certain other income. It's not a VAT reclaim.

[Richard Bates]

No, Gift Aid is about reclaiming basic rate tax and tax deducted on certain other income. It's not a VAT reclaim.

Yes i know. That was going to be my follow up if the answer to my question was yes! I thought that charities could claim gift aid on all donations. I was a bit surprised to hear that they can claim the equivalent of VAT as well.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Are you talking about Gift Aid?

Sorry, yes. Getting my VAT and tax mixed up.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Jon, I have no doubt that that is the answer, and in that sense my question was somewhat rhetorical. The ECF charging structure for FIDE rated events seems to be based on little more than the belief that if they can get away with it they will.

It's somewhat unedifying. However, as we all know, "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." It would be nice though if they at least came out and said that that is what they are doing. All this stuff about 'premium' events is just an attempt to flatter the geese into acquiescence in the absence of a convincing value added case to justify a smash and grab raid.

That's my main problem with the idea that the ECF is going to try to get more money from those players for whom chess is not so important. It seems that players like me, those who play ten or so league games a season and rarely travel more than thirty miles for a game, will be asked to pay between two and three times as much as they presently do. I think that a sizable proportion of these will give up playing instead and that could have a very detrimental effect on many leagues.

[Ian Thompson]

It seems that players like me, those who play ten or so league games a season and rarely travel more than thirty miles for a game, will be asked to pay between two and three times as much as they presently do. I think that a sizable proportion of these will give up playing instead and that could have a very detrimental effect on many leagues.

Under the latest proposal, players in this situation have three options (assuming their league doesn't voluntarily impose any restrictions on non-members playing in it):

1. Play 10 games, pay the ECF £13 (or whatever amount it ends up being being) and get a published grade.
2. Play 10 games, don't pay the ECF £13, and don't have a published grade (but do have a non-published grade which will be used in their opponents' grading calculations).
3. Don't play at all.

I'd be surprised if many people thought 3. was a better option than 2.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Another option is for the league to operate it's own grading scheme. Rather than having some of the players in the league with an official ECF grade and some without, everyone would have a League grade. As a bonus no game or membership fees would need to be paid to the ECF and so club membership fees could be reduced.

[Martyn Harris]

It seems that players like me, those who play ten or so league games a season and rarely travel more than thirty miles for a game, will be asked to pay between two and three times as much as they presently do. I think that a sizable proportion of these will give up playing instead and that could have a very detrimental effect on many leagues.

Under the latest proposal, players in this situation have three options (assuming their league doesn't voluntarily impose any restrictions on non-members playing in it):

1. Play 10 games, pay the ECF £13 (or whatever amount it ends up being being) and get a published grade.
2. Play 10 games, don't pay the ECF £13, and don't have a published grade (but do have a non-published grade which will be used in their opponents' grading calculations).
3. Don't play at all.

I'd be surprised if many people thought 3. was a better option than 2.

But if lots of people think that either 3 or 2 are better than 1 the ECF will fall short of its revenue target.

Nor is there just a problem for people for whom chess does not matter that much.
Membership also requires those for whom it is difficult to get a large number of games to pay as much as those for whom it is easy to do so. Or with the new improved tiered scheme, those for whom it is difficult to get a lot of games are expected to pay more than those for whom it is easy to do so:

Those in say the West Midlands or around London can easily run up an A grade on league games alone given the number of leagues around them. Those in say Cornwall or Lincolnshire (each have a first division of four teams) may well find that a diet of league chess alone is insufficient. Start playing congresses to make up the shortfall and they are immediately asked for silver membership. Still I'm sure that there are plenty of reasons why the chattering classes should be subsidised by their country bumpkin brethren. After all no-one of any consequence is likely to come from such remote areas.

[Alex Holowczak]

Those in say Cornwall or Lincolnshire (each have a first division of four teams) may well find that a diet of league chess alone is insufficient.

For what it's worth, Lincolnshire's delegate to the MCCU meeting revealed they're now in favour of the proposal.

[Richard Bates]

It seems that players like me, those who play ten or so league games a season and rarely travel more than thirty miles for a game, will be asked to pay between two and three times as much as they presently do. I think that a sizable proportion of these will give up playing instead and that could have a very detrimental effect on many leagues.

Under the latest proposal, players in this situation have three options (assuming their league doesn't voluntarily impose any restrictions on non-members playing in it):

1. Play 10 games, pay the ECF £13 (or whatever amount it ends up being being) and get a published grade.
2. Play 10 games, don't pay the ECF £13, and don't have a published grade (but do have a non-published grade which will be used in their opponents' grading calculations).
3. Don't play at all.

I'd be surprised if many people thought 3. was a better option than 2.

I would think that the biggest danger in the proposals is that they effectively ask people to consider the question of how much they care about having a (published) grade. The ECF is gambling that the widespread answer is that they do. If they don't then the fallback position is that leagues and tournaments consider it important enough to impose restrictions on those that don't have one, and that they don't just choose to bank the reduced costs imposed on them (possibly whilst developing their own rating systems etc)

The danger of moving to a transparent system where people have a direct relationship with the ECF is that it increases the onus on the ECF to give people something that they value.

What is a danger, however, is also a big opportunity.

[Martyn Harris]

For what it's worth, Lincolnshire's delegate to the MCCU meeting revealed they're now in favour of the proposal.

Not worth a great deal as put.
Are Lincolshire prepared to run a three line whip to ensure that no-one plays in their league without paying membership? If so how confident are they that this will lead to insignificant loss of players? If not how confident are they that several players won't decide that they can effectively have bronze membership for free - as all their games are local it wouldn't be difficult for someone to generate grades for such players locally. Other posters have indicated this as a possibility were people to wish to go down this route.

[David Robertson]

Contrary to some, possibly majority, opinion I regard the fresh proposals as missing the mark just as much as earlier ones. I feel very frustrated, having read through interminably long threads, that colleagues grope and stumble their way towards the light, yet blunder into a brick wall all the same.

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: the financial crisis of the ECF is also a political crisis for the ECF. The former cannot be resolved independently of the latter. Yet the latest Farthing proposals, albeit made in good faith but observing few sound principles of economics or politics, seek to solve the financial by exacerbating the political. Wrong!

Mercifully, the tensions can be resolved - tiered pricing is indeed the way (as I outlined to deaf ears four years ago on the Atticus forum) - but not by tiering the wrong thing. If you wish to raise cash effectively by tiering chess-as-played, you'd likely tier game fee rather than membership. That would solve the financial crisis without dramatically impeding chess activity. But if you wish to adopt a membership model, tiered necessarily in my opinion, it should be decoupled from chess-as-played. Instead membership should be tiered according to individuals' different commitments to, and expectations of, membership of ECF.

It would take me an hour's lecture to explain my thinking, from basic principles of political economy to the specific conditions of ECF. Alas, that is a 10,000 word assignment I don't have time to write; hence my frustration at the turn of events here.

For avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely persuaded that a membership model is the right way forward. Equally, I believe the arguments of Roger de Coverley are not wholly misplaced. But I believe the 'missing link' in the latest Farthing paper is the absence of any solution to the political crisis within ECF his fresh proposals will provoke. It's too late (at night) now for me to elaborate. I'll try to say more tomorrow.

[Alex Holowczak]

For what it's worth, Lincolnshire's delegate to the MCCU meeting revealed they're now in favour of the proposal.

Not worth a great deal as put.
Are Lincolshire prepared to run a three line whip to ensure that no-one plays in their league without paying membership? If so how confident are they that this will lead to insignificant loss of players? If not how confident are they that several players won't decide that they can effectively have bronze membership for free - as all their games are local it wouldn't be difficult for someone to generate grades for such players locally. Other posters have indicated this as a possibility were people to wish to go down this route.

Lincolnshire's delegate said words to the effect of, they're going to vote for it. I can't comment on any of your questions, because I'm not the Lincolnshire delegate.

[Andrew Farthing]

Where is it envisaged would county chess fit into the tiered membership structure?

Would the new charity have to pay VAT?

1. Bronze

2. Others have beaten me to the answer, which is "Yes, but possibly not as much".