Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[David Pardoe]

Many questions have been asked re Funding proposals.
One of the things that strikes me (rightly or wrongly), is that various bodies have called meetings over this, and it appears to have been on a `take it or leave it` basis. ie, no-one seems to be raising questions as to other options and choices.
Or does the meeting expect any level of detailed debate, where alternatives are discussed....before `rubber stamping` takes place.
I`ve said that I believe this scheme to be deficient in various respects, and so have others on this Forum.
The impression I get is that some number crunching has taken place, and its been decided that the stategy is to `buy` the big voters (leagues) with a cheap as chips offer. And the Congress & FIDE lot can just cough up more (because they can afford to...?).
I`ve commented that, with a few additional price points (and voting options, etc), there is the potential to construct a balanced scheme, which offers genuine `buy-in`, and could generate the support and revenue to be sustainable. In short, we need a model that the membership see as `fit for purpose` and which they can support.
Simply `buying` support by discounting to a majority faction, and hoping other groups wont object, (or that they wont carry enough weight to upset the vote), doesnt really seem satisfactory.
FIDE players stumping up over twice the `bronze` rate seems excessive.
Having some additional price points could balance this and ensure fairer contributions by the various groupings. I`ve mentioned Temporary Membership, junior catogories, and `bells & whistles`. I`ve mentioned SPLITTING the `Bronze` group (league, county, club players), by `chess usage`. ie, charge Category `A` & `B` players more than `C` & `D` players.
It is only right that this group should contribute there fair share. Also, you dont want to build barriers that deter players playing in other groups. Players are very cost sensitive, and I can see FIDE players asking themselves if this extra cost is really worth it. When you look at FIDE events, how many really class as `Pretigeous`..? Certainly for those rated over say 2100 you are in the upper quartile..but many are little above the level of many of our better Congress events. And our County events can drum up some very good chess clashes. Addmitedly the 4NCL events have excellent playing conditions and venues..but do these all merit this `double tax` level.
I`ve seen much bickering about Congress charges and entry fees. Maybe the £20 `Silver Tax` is not a killer, but I reckon those playing shed loads of league chess should pay the right price (in the current model, I`d pitch that at the £16 level)....but I`m sure the league buffins would grown at any such rise.
By pitching it right at the key groups you share costs, and just possibly help raise the desired level of funding. Adam has raised his concerns about whether the current model will generate sufficient funds.

Incidentally, I was interested in Andrews remarks about Bridge, and how they currently have an element of `game fee`. They also seem to find comfortable venues, and seem to attract good support...and can support a good level of paid administrators.
I saw a peice on TV the other day where they mentioned that the Bridge community have teamed up with the National Trust and were using there venues for Bridge events. I`m not sure if they use any premises for Admin purposes. A new FIDE rated National Trust Masters...for FIDE rated players of 2100+ might be an interesting possibility...if calander space permits.

[Adam Raoof]

Adam has raised his concerns about whether the current model will generate sufficient funds.

I didn't say that - I said I was worried "that we have set the price too low" and I still think that. I have confidence that the current model can and will generate sufficient funds, but I think we should be aiming higher than 'sufficient'.

[Alex Holowczak]

One of the things that strikes me (rightly or wrongly), is that various bodies have called meetings over this, and it appears to have been on a `take it or leave it` basis. ie, no-one seems to be raising questions as to other options and choices.

That's because there aren't any other options or choices. There is only one question up for debate on Saturday:
(Q) Do you accept this proposal?
(A1) Yes
(A2) No

End of discussion. If (A2), then you come back in six months time with something else membership-related, since we still haven't undone the last vote that says we want an emphasis on individual membership over the current system.

Or does the meeting expect any level of detailed debate, where alternatives are discussed....before `rubber stamping` takes place.

Well, the BDCL managed to slug it out for 2 hours the other night, with the Chief Executive in attendance for much of it. If that's not an detailed debate, I don't know how long such a debate should happen for.

The impression I get is that some number crunching has taken place, and its been decided that the stategy is to `buy` the big voters (leagues) with a cheap as chips offer. And the Congress & FIDE lot can just cough up more (because they can afford to...?).

The reason for the tiers is simple. Nearly every chess player in the country plays league chess. Quite a few abstain from congresses. Even more abstain from internationally-rated events. Club internal was put in bronze. County chess ended up in bronze, but could have been put in silver if so desired.

I`ve commented that, with a few additional price points (and voting options, etc), there is the potential to construct a balanced scheme, which offers genuine `buy-in`, and could generate the support and revenue to be sustainable. In short, we need a model that the membership see as `fit for purpose` and which they can support.

We can sort voting options out in April. There's still time. We have a membership model that is destined to get the majority vote, and thus will be fit for purpose.

Simply `buying` support by discounting to a majority faction, and hoping other groups wont object, (or that they wont carry enough weight to upset the vote), doesnt really seem satisfactory.

Wrong, see my point above. League chess covers nearly anyone. Congress players are almost always a subset of League players. Internationally-rated events tend to be a subset of Congress players.

FIDE players stumping up over twice the `bronze` rate seems excessive.

In your opinion. Remember that gold membership also includes the price of them being on the FIDE-rating list. Also remember that players in FIDE-rated international events are a subset of bronze and silver, both of which such players are extremely likely to play in. There were very few English-registered players last season who played in FIDE-rated events, but not in other leagues or congresses. For example, Michael Adams and Nigel Short are in this category.

Having some additional price points could balance this and ensure fairer contributions by the various groupings. I`ve mentioned Temporary Membership, junior catogories, and `bells & whistles`. I`ve mentioned SPLITTING the `Bronze` group (league, county, club players), by `chess usage`. ie, charge Category `A` & `B` players more than `C` & `D` players.

We have junior concessionary rates built in to this proposal. You can't charge by category until after the event, which makes policing it impossible.

It is only right that this group should contribute there fair share.

They are. The prices for each tier weren't plucked out of thin air.

Also, you dont want to build barriers that deter players playing in other groups. Players are very cost sensitive, and I can see FIDE players asking themselves if this extra cost is really worth it. When you look at FIDE events, how many really class as `Pretigeous`..? Certainly for those rated over say 2100 you are in the upper quartile..but many are little above the level of many of our better Congress events.

FIDE-rated events are prestigious. Otherwise e2e4 wouldn't get 120+ entries all the time. 4NCL would lose a stack of entries.

And our County events can drum up some very good chess clashes. Addmitedly the 4NCL events have excellent playing conditions and venues..but do these all merit this `double tax` level.

It's not a double tax. Remember that players of gold-level chess are almost always playing bronze or silver level chess too. So they'd be members at those levels regardless of international commitment.

I`ve seen much bickering about Congress charges and entry fees. Maybe the £20 `Silver Tax` is not a killer, but I reckon those playing shed loads of league chess should pay the right price (in the current model, I`d pitch that at the £16 level)....but I`m sure the league buffins would grown at any such rise.

On what are you basing your price of £16? Have you worked out whether this would cover the money required by the ECF to maintain its current activity?

Incidentally, I was interested in Andrews remarks about Bridge, and how they currently have an element of `game fee`. They also seem to find comfortable venues, and seem to attract good support...and can support a good level of paid administrators.

Yes, because there are four times the number of bridge players as chessplayers. If we had 40,000 members and not 10,000, costs could be cut for everyone overnight!

[Mick Norris]

"
Harry Lamb produced a neat table some years ago for a BCF meeting, which showed what I said. I don't think I'm imagining it!

You certainly aren't imagining it. The table neglected to consider two points.
(1) whether the overall volume of chess being played was increasing, static or decreasing.
(2) whether the volume of Game Fee exemptions was increasing.
As you can only opt out of Game Fee by removing entire events from grading, he didn't provide evidence that events were opting out. If you get a lower volume of chess being graded, there are two explanations. One is that the events are opting out. The other is that fewer people are playing chess.

I think the table should have been challenged at the time.

Harry plays in the Bolton League which has opted out (maybe because he suggested it, I have no idea really), and would also be aware that the East Lancs league and Bury & Rochdale league locally are not ECF graded, whereas the Manchester league and Central Lancs league are ECF graded

This created such problems for local congresses that Harry started, and continues to produce, a North West ELO grading list so that congress and league organisers can ascertain the strength of players entering events

As a congress organiser, you also have to consult the Yorkshire gradings (thankfully online like the ECF) as many of their players are not ECF graded

It would be much easier if everyone was ECF graded, and the NMS has helped achieve wider coverage in this area - unfortunately, the game fee exemptions granted to the NMS have killed the concept of game fee for many of us

[Mick Norris]

Harry Lamb produced a neat table some years ago for a BCF meeting, which showed what I said.

Hmm. I'm not sure that I would consider him to be the most convincing source of game fee data.

Sean

I wouldn't consider the ECF to be the most convincing source, given how often they have supplied me with contradictory info

Harry did an analysis of data provided by the ECF grading list, I think

[Sean Hewitt]

Harry did an analysis of data provided by the ECF grading list, I think

...which would tell you diddly squat about game fee.

[Roger de Coverly]

Nearly every chess player in the country plays league chess.

In my view that's a weakness. I would suspect in the age range 20-50, perhaps even the age range 14-50, there are players who can make themselves available at weekends but not on weekday evenings. I've thought for years that the 4NCL is a means whereby the English chess scene can retain younger players who would not have any other obvious connections after leaving university.

It's an unanswered question from way back, but given that it's been established that FIDE rating doesn't imply the individual is required to be part of a direct membership scheme, why does the ECF not permit participation by non-members in FIDE rated events in its proposed scheme on an equivalent financial footing to non-FIDE rated Congresses?

[Roger de Coverly]

Harry plays in the Bolton League which has opted out (maybe because he suggested it, I have no idea really), and would also be aware that the East Lancs league and Bury & Rochdale league locally are not ECF graded, whereas the Manchester league and Central Lancs league are ECF graded

It was a local problem. In much of the rest of the country, you played league chess in a league which was a member of the BCF/ECF. If it was too much to pay, when Game Fee indirectly increased the League entry fee per head by the price of a pint, then you gave up chess. At the time Harry did his analysis, the number of games being graded was reducing. As to the reasons for this, we don't really know, but nationally, it wasn't clubs entering teams in non-graded leagues or players entering ungraded rapid-plays for the lower entry fees.

[Mick Norris]

Harry did an analysis of data provided by the ECF grading list, I think

...which would tell you diddly squat about game fee.

It tells you the number of games being graded, and I assume you get the figures for game fee paid from the ECF/BCF accounts

As you know Sean, I wish game fee had never been invented

[Alex Holowczak]

Harry did an analysis of data provided by the ECF grading list, I think

...which would tell you diddly squat about game fee.

It tells you the number of games being graded, and I assume you get the figures for game fee paid from the ECF/BCF accounts

As you know Sean, I wish game fee had never been invented

I think what Sean is saying is that:
(1) Increasing Game Fee and
(2) Decreasing number of graded games in the database

Does not mean that one is inversely proportional to the other. This was Harry Lamb's claim, as I understand it from the old SCCU archives? If so, it has been proven to be completely wrong. We've put Game Fee up continuously since then, and the SCCU website's statistics show that the numbers have been relatively stable over the last few years.

The equivalent test is global warming and pirates.
(1) The number of pirates has decreased over the last 100 years
(2) Global temperatures have increased over the last 100 years

Therefore we need more pirates to stop global warming.

Of course, the problem in the 1990s wasn't increasing cost, which Harry claimed it was. Chess had been hugely popular on TV and in the media until the early 1990s, the time at which the number of graded players started dropping off. Declining media interest means fewer players interested in the game. This has been shown in other sports in England, such as Speedway. This was almost certainly the main cause for the decline of chess during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

[Sean Hewitt]

The equivalent test is global warming and pirates.
(1) The number of pirates has decreased over the last 100 years
(2) Global temperatures have increased over the last 100 years

Therefore we need more pirates to stop global warming.

[Mick Norris]

I think what Sean is saying is that:
(1) Increasing Game Fee and
(2) Decreasing number of graded games in the database

Does not mean that one is inversely proportional to the other. This was Harry Lamb's claim, as I understand it from the old SCCU archives? If so, it has been proven to be completely wrong. We've put Game Fee up continuously since then, and the SCCU website's statistics show that the numbers have been relatively stable over the last few years.

The equivalent test is global warming and pirates.
(1) The number of pirates has decreased over the last 100 years
(2) Global temperatures have increased over the last 100 years

Therefore we need more pirates to stop global warming.

Of course, the problem in the 1990s wasn't increasing cost, which Harry claimed it was. Chess had been hugely popular on TV and in the media until the early 1990s, the time at which the number of graded players started dropping off. Declining media interest means fewer players interested in the game. This has been shown in other sports in England, such as Speedway. This was almost certainly the main cause for the decline of chess during the late 1990s and early 2000s.

We don't appear to have any pirates playing chess - is that because they have reduced in numbers, or are we doing something to put them off (venues, food, water, cost)?

[Jon Griffith]

The Yorkshire CA will oppose the new ECF Funding Proposals. Here's why:

In the 2010-11 season, there were 415 players in the Yorkshire League. Of these, 129 (31%) were Members of the ECF.
Of the total 2,382 results, 1,546 (65%) were played by non-members. The Association paid about £835 game-fees to the ECF.

Had the new funding proposals applied this year, The "transitional" game-fee rate would be £2, up to a maximum of £12 per person. At these rates, the Association would have been billed £2,418. This represents an increase of 190%. The amount is greater than our total revenues.

In the county there are nine other leagues, independent of the Yorkshire CA. The Leeds league has persuaded 58% of their players to become ECF members. Their bill would more than double. The eight other leagues together played 12,600 results, but they opted out of game-fee long ago. Their overall membership rate is 15%, so the new Funding Proposal is unlikely to tempt them back to the ECF.

There are twelve independent standardplay congresses in Yorkshire. Eleven of them paid game-fees, totalling over £1,000. Under the new Funding Proposals their ECF bills would have risen to £2,500.

The Yorkshire CA supports the ECF. At this years AGM we adopted measures to encourage ECF membership. But the majority of players see little value in the ECF, and organisers have tired of trying to persuade them otherwise. So compulsory membership is not even a dream. The new Funding Proposals will make it a nightmare.

Indeed, if the funding proposals are adopted, I will invite my colleagues to consider whether sending so much money so far away is consistent with our constitution: "To encourage and foster the playing of chess..."

[IM Jack Rudd]

The Yorkshire CA will oppose the new ECF Funding Proposals.

Fair enough. What alternative membership proposals would you like to see?

[Mike Gunn]

We don't appear to have any pirates playing chess - is that because they have reduced in numbers, or are we doing something to put them off (venues, food, water, cost)?

Pirates don't play graded chess because they have been told about the unreliability of the grading system by lighthouse keepers.