2011 AGM: October 15th

[Mike Gunn]

Roger, I don't understand your objection to the use of "sub" (short for subscription).

I expect that (although there may be a few pockets of resistance) if the new membership scheme is introduced the vast majority of those who do not approve of the idea will go along with the democratic verdict and try to make it work.

[Roger de Coverly]

I expect that (although there may be a few pockets of resistance) if the new membership scheme is introduced the vast majority of those who do not approve of the idea will go along with the democratic verdict and try to make it work.

The nature of the change in demanding more money from less active players or clubs is going to encourage
(a) players to retire from playing
(b) leagues to remove events from grading
(c) clubs and leagues to be creative in exploiting the three games for free rule
and perhaps
(d) fewer Congresses to be run

Within the tent, you might encourage more games to be played. This does nothing for the ECF's revenues unless you encourage more players. I fail to see how a universal or mandatory scheme encourages more players.

All of which will mean that the necessary revenues won't be achieved and the cost the following year to be somewhat higher than £ 12.

[Alex McFarlane]

Personally I was against squirrelling away so much of the JRT money in the way it was done. But that's democracy.

But is it not a wise move to do so when Board members leave the Federation open to law suits. Would members want their funds squandered in that way now as it, I believe, has been in the past?

[David Pardoe]

Those in MO schemes certainly wont want to move to the present `Membership` plans, I doubt.
But I do suspect that these MOs are a tad on the cheap side, so some `middle ground` should be found, with the aim of boosting numbers.
Voting rights are a `must have` if we are to get grass roots members to contribute more actively, and feel a greater sence of `belonging`. Once some of these people start to feel that there views `actually count`, they might start to put themselves forward and contribute more actively in other ways.
Those looking to try it before they buy it are catered for by most clubs, and hopefully welcomed and introduced to the club, and given a period of grace. Clubs need to ensure a warm welcome for these new members, and to involve them in the clubs activities..particularly through club competitions, etc..
However, I do believe that the current Membership plans are overlooking an important ingredient....Temporary Membership. I`ve suggested maybe £7.50p, allowing players to play up to 10 graded games. This would both enable newbies to start contributing at a generous rate, and enable them to smell the coffee, join in, and hopefully upgrade to full membership status. It also acts as an incentive to these players to actually `commit` and try to positively get involved. Many half hearted attempts fail and lead to these people drifting on to the next fad. It takes real effort to get started from scratch...thats why clubs need to encourage such new recruits. Yes, of course a period of grace before any money is required is only right.

[Alex Holowczak]

Those in MO schemes certainly wont want to move to the present `Membership` plans, I doubt.

Leicestershire do, I believe.

[John Upham]

As a matter of protocol, does the AGM expect to have reports of the various Mangers from the Director to whom they report?

Does, for example, the Manager of ICT produce a report to be read by the Director of Home Chess on their various activities of the past year?

[Sean Hewitt]

Those in MO schemes certainly wont want to move to the present `Membership` plans, I doubt.

I can't speak for other MO's, but I've been mandated by Leicestershire's Policy Committee (by a unanimous decision) to vote for the membership scheme. Indeed, Leicestershire's clubs voted to move to a compulsory membership scheme for this 2011-12 season.

Subsequent to that vote, the county's league has seen an increase in teams entering. We believe this is because we have been able to reduce the marginal cost of club's running additional teams.

[Alex McFarlane]

I believe there will be a proposed amendment on behalf of the Blackpool Congress and certainly supported by Scarborough Congress that the £6 levy on non-members will only apply to English resident players. I'm not sure on the exact wording so, like the ECF Board, 'don't quote me'.

I would hope that such a proposed amendment would receive significant support.

[Roger de Coverly]

I believe there will be a proposed amendment on behalf of the Blackpool Congress and certainly supported by Scarborough Congress that the £6 levy on non-members will only apply to English resident players. I'm not sure on the exact wording so, like the ECF Board, 'don't quote me'.

How do you define an English resident player? Remember the billing for this is driven by the grading file which does not, as presently constituted, contain the Post code of the address used by the player to enter. Remember also, that legally and constitutionally it remains a Game Fee which can be waived for members, but not, as far as I'm aware, for non English residents. On FIDE rated events, they don't have a £ 6 add-on because they waived Game Fee for international events.

Is it the amount of £ 6 which is the difficulty? The principle of offering ECF members a discount on the entry fee (or a surcharge for non-members) is long established. Previously it would have been an amount of the order of 5*Game Fee, in other words in the range £ 2.50 to £ 3.00 .

[Stewart Reuben]

John Upham>As a matter of protocol, does the AGM expect to have reports of the various Mangers from the Director to whom they report?<

I would expect each director to handle each manager differently. Rather than provide a long stream of possibly indigestible reports, the director would summarise activity as he sees fit.

JU >Does, for example, the Manager of ICT produce a report to be read by the Director of Home Chess on their various activities of the past year?<

Why do you assume the manager of ICT reponds to Home Chess? When advertised it was directly to the Chief Executive. Why would you expect the manager of ICT to produce a report on the activities of the Home chess director?

[Carl Hibbard]

Does, for example, the Manager of ICT produce a report to be read by the Director of Home Chess on their various activities of the past year?

Ok that's funny, do we still have an ICT manager

[Adam Raoof]

I believe there will be a proposed amendment on behalf of the Blackpool Congress and certainly supported by Scarborough Congress that the £6 levy on non-members will only apply to English resident players. I'm not sure on the exact wording so, like the ECF Board, 'don't quote me'.

I would hope that such a proposed amendment would receive significant support.

The levy has to apply to all non-members of the ECF, except perhaps those who can demonstrate membership of another home Federation (by agreement between the BICC nations). Everyone else should be a member of the ECF if they wish to take part in graded competitions or pay the levy.

[Roger de Coverly]

Subsequent to that vote, the county's league has seen an increase in teams entering. We believe this is because we have been able to reduce the marginal cost of club's running additional teams.

I do struggle with the underlying logic. If perhaps I presume that an additional team will play 10 matches over 6 boards, the usual rule of thumb is that you need 8 extra players. So these will have become members through the MO at £ 12 a head, so £ 96 in total. Once you've paid that, you don't have any extra costs to the ECF for your new team. But one can ask, given that if you didn't have membership, you could save the £ 96, then why doesn't that give you the funds to finance the Game Fee of 10 * 6 * .58 = £ 34.80?

[Alex McFarlane]

Roger - I believe, though this is straw poll only, that anything up to £3 would be acceptable. The club field could be used as an identifier.

Adam - Why? Most Scottish players would welcome not having an inappropriate English grade based on only a few games and sometimes a few years old when they have more accurate Scottish/Welsh grades that are ignored.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Subsequent to that vote, the county's league has seen an increase in teams entering. We believe this is because we have been able to reduce the marginal cost of club's running additional teams.

I do struggle with the underlying logic. If perhaps I presume that an additional team will play 10 matches over 6 boards, the usual rule of thumb is that you need 8 extra players. So these will have become members through the MO at £ 12 a head, so £ 96 in total. Once you've paid that, you don't have any extra costs to the ECF for your new team. But one can ask, given that if you didn't have membership, you could save the £ 96, then why doesn't that give you the funds to finance the Game Fee of 10 * 6 * .58 = £ 34.80?

Your £96 figure contains a possibly inaccurate hidden assumption: that the players who make up the new team wouldn't be playing sufficient graded games to trigger a membership requirement otherwise. That wouldn't be true for most of the clubs I've been a member of.