ECF Membership - a (summary) reply to the Proposal

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

It's typical for most Megafinals only to have clocks in the top few sections.

Which Megafinals do you have experience of? All the ones I've been to or know about use clocks on the vast majority of sections, at most it's the under 8s and under 7s who don't have them.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's typical for most Megafinals only to have clocks in the top few sections.

Which Megafinals do you have experience of? All the ones I've been to or know about use clocks on the vast majority of sections, at most it's the under 8s and under 7s who don't have them.

Worcestershire: Clocks only in the merged U12-18 section.
Warwickshire: Clocks only in the merged U14-18 section, and the U12-13 merged section.

They may have gone into the U11s - I forget - but they certainly went no further than that.

[Rob Thompson]

Certainly in Devon the situation is similar to that which Alex describes. I was under the impression that this was the norm with megafinals.

[David Robertson]

I was going to post further to this thread. Seems utterly pointless now.

Well done to the resident blog monkeys: the continuity of another thread f*cked

[Mike Truran]

Carl, you might want to think about stripping out the various unrelated posts and placing them somewhere else in an attempt to get the thread back on track?

[John Hickman]

Is the dispute ridden nature of Surrey down to the perpetual fights with CCF or was it always that way?

It's sad, so sad, it's a sad, sad situation
And it's getting more and more absurd
It's so sad so sad, why can't we talk it over?
Oh, it seems to me
That Surrey seems to be the hardest word

[David Pardoe]

David,
Don`t be put off by the crowd `noise`....
These threads seem to have a tendancy to wonder off track, sometimes down some interesting corners. The problem with that is that some useful comments can get lost because they end up in the wrong slot, so might get overlooked by those who might be interested.

Your points are interesting...and have received the attention of those they are directed at....
One of the main concerns for me is about `focus` and connectivity. I see the ECF as a figurehead body, with various other bodies loosely associated. With such a situation, its hard to recognise `company` as being quite reflective of the actual relationships. So many separate bodies with individual agendas, different goals. Getting some kind of meaningful combined direction on major issues is quite a challange. This forum could be helpful in identifying key objectives that could help to establish common direction. With so many differing views on many issues, trying to harness key drivers, so the ship travels in the desired direction can be an elusive art.

[Rob Thompson]

I was going to post further to this thread. Seems utterly pointless now.

Well done to the resident blog monkeys: the continuity of another thread f*cked

I think there's enough other threads about membership for you to find a place for your post, somehow. Perhaps finding one would be a more useful enterprise than what you actually did post, which fails to enhance anything very much.

[Carl Hibbard]

Carl, you might want to think about stripping out the various unrelated posts and placing them somewhere else in an attempt to get the thread back on track?

I am at only at home in front of a PC on a Sunday now and that is hard to sort on a mobile!

[Matt Harrison]

I would urge you to continue to post on this David. Your opening post was excellent in analysing the right factors to determine tiers of membership.

My view on lots of these issues is that the ECF tries to do too much. Why produce a yearbook? Why produce Chessmoves? Both of these are made redundant by the website. It seems to me that some of these things are either done because theyv'e always been done, or to make membership 'attractive'. Your analysis takes it back to core principles. The ECF is there as the NGB for competitive chess. It has a role to regulate and encourage that activity, not to restrict it.

[Paul Cooksey]

I would urge David to continue to post. His opening post did not convince me he was analysing the right factors to determine tiers of membership. But his position is interesting, I would like hear it out.

Thread jacking seems epidemic on this forum So I imagine people are used to coming back to check for updates on the original theme.

[Roger de Coverly]

Well I think that someone who starts a precise thread about a particular subject has a right to be a bit narked if the usual suspects derail it.

If he's that put out, he can always start another thread.

I found it interesting that the Council structure is blamed on Game Fee. If you look at the history (personal memory for many of us ) you can observe that the Council structure long pre-dates Game Fee. Indeed the BCF's money raising prior to Game Fee was based on a per head system called "Registration" based around taxing territorial county associations by their size and presumed head-count. All the the Game Fee changes did was to provide a method whereby the BCF could raise money from non-territorial leagues and Congresses. These also got votes but the proxy system probably meant that the individuals attending Council meetings didn't change much.

It would appear Membership means different things to different people, to Andrew it is just raising money directly from individuals rather than indirectly from institutions. Changes to voting rights in particular or the whole reporting structure in general haven't been part of the proposals.

[David Robertson]

If he's that put out, he can always start another thread

Presumably this 'he' refers to me. If Roger wishes me to find an insulting personal epithet to describe him, he sic can be sure I'll not be lost for choice.

And why start yet another thread? I started a new thread originally, yet another new thread!

Frankly the only purpose in starting threads on this Forum is to allow the resident blog monkeys the opportunity to f*ck them up

[David Pardoe]

David,
Those of us who enjoy open debate try to ignore the `disruptive monkey` element....
A reasonably effective tactic is simply......

..Returning to the original discussion.....

Please continue.....

[David Robertson]

I'll continue....but only on condition....

you stop......

using...f*c*...i*...g....ellipsis....