Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Andrew Farthing]

It was quite clear at the April meeting that, while a majority supported the principle of a membership scheme, many of those voting for it felt that the proposals needed reshaping. The June document was a consultation paper designed to elicit feedback to help with that reshaping process.

It's still missing the point that there are enough players who want neither compulsory membership, nor per head funding who could embarrass the federation financially by walking away from the ECF if or perhaps when it adopts either or both. This is regardless of what the talking heads on Council may or may not vote for or what the ECF directors think is morally right.

I don't think the vindictive attitude adopted towards internationally rated players who don't play in English events is helpful either.

Of course I'm not missing the point about the potential impact of people or organisations walking away from the ECF. However, are you really saying that the majority view should be ignored because of this? What course of action are you saying that I should have adopted?

The ECF doesn't have a "vindictive attitude [...] towards internationally rated players who don't play in English events".

[Paul Cooksey]

However it will take considerable expense and effort to implement.

Will it? We're back to the old argument that the current MOs consider it not to be an effort. I don't see where the expense element comes from?

I am not arguing membership will be more expensive to run than game fee, in fact I think it will be more efficient.

But I think the change will be expensive and will absorb a lot of time. Change usually is. In this case as well as the mechanics of setting up the new collection structures and explaining it to the people who have to pay, there are issues around it gaining acceptance.

All of this may be justified if there is a return on the investment. But if the demerger requires another change in funding structure in a couple of years, it is unlikely we will have time to see the benefit

[Andrew Farthing]

My view is that you will see a material increase in Platinum members if you carry out sensible constitutional reform. Government by Council is not consistent with a compulsory membership scheme, but I don't see many of them being like turkeys voting for Christmas...

I will personally guarantee you two additional Platinum members (my daughter, age 9, and me) even if I never play again, once reform has taken place.

Good luck - you will need it.

Simon

Thank you, on both counts!

I too hope that the number of Platinum members will grow, although I tend to think that it will happen as and when there is mounting evidence that the donated funds translate into useful activities. I've deliberately costed the scheme on the basis of nil Platinum members, so that every single person who chooses to pay the extra will know that their money can be applied for something additional to "business as usual".

My expectations as a donor may be different from yours. I don't expect my charitable donations to entitle me to a vote in how the charity spends the money or runs its operations. (Of course, if I were a political donor, my expectations might tend more towards a quid pro quo... - perhaps it depends upon how you see the role of the ECF.)

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm trying to see how the financial side of the interim scheme works.

At the moment it's my understanding that

(a) all games will continue to be processed for grading and the resulting grades published for non-members and members alike. The proposed enhancements to show detail results would be restricted to members only.

(b) In non international congresses, there will be an extra £ 6 per head charged for non-members instead of the (no of games for non-members) * (Game Fee) at present. This will even apply to Scotsmen except in the British Championships.

(c) In international congresses, the charge is £ 1.50 per non ENG player.

(d) In leagues the present charge of (games) * (Game Fee) is abolished. Instead the charge is (games played by non-members) * £ 1 per game if 85% of the players are members or (games played by non-members) * £ 2 per game if less than 85% of players are members.

For costing of (d), the minimum membership is £ 13 which is a likely increase for most leagues against 54p * (no of games). It would cover up to 13 games if otherwise 85% membership or 6 games if not.

These are only interim measures and in the longer run the ECF want you to ask its permission and pay it money before sitting at the chess board.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course I'm not missing the point about the potential impact of people or organisations walking away from the ECF. However, are you really saying that the majority view should be ignored because of this? What course of action are you saying that I should have adopted?

For many years there have been factions within the ECF and the BCF before it who have wanted compulsory membership and per head funding. Equally the attempts to introduce it by the front door have been repeatedly rejected and back door approaches have been used. The rejection of such schemes has usually been with the tacit approval of club and congress players particularly in the south and west. Given this history, isn't it apparent that careful work would be needed to obtain even a 75% consensus and that a completely compulsory scheme had little chance of immediate acceptance?

The ECF doesn't have a "vindictive attitude [...] towards internationally rated players who don't play in English events".

I call removing the rating history of players who no longer play FIDE rated chess in England vindictive. It isn't a FIDE requirement that they be members of an English individual membership scheme, so why insist? Particularly as they are probably members of the national federation where they currently live.

[Simon Brown]

Andrew, I don't expect anything for my charitable donations. But Platinum membership isn't a charitable donation!

I hope you haven't missed a trick by making the "gift" element identical to the current full membership scheme. People who habitually make donations, be it charitable or otherwise, normally have the means to make sizeable ones if they find an enterprise which ticks all their boxes.

[Paul Cooksey]

But Platinum membership isn't a charitable donation!

Currently. I don't want to labour my point

[Roger de Coverly]

The Scots are commenting as well

http://scotchess.s4.bizhat.com/scotches ... c1935.html

They may not have realised that an earlier proposal would have hit them for £ 19 particularly if they lived in England and couldn't obviously demonstrate being Scottish. Still it's at least £ 27 to play in a FIDE rated event in England if you cannot prove that you are foreign.

[Alex Holowczak]

The Scots are commenting as well

http://scotchess.s4.bizhat.com/scotches ... c1935.html

They may not have realised that an earlier proposal would have hit them for £ 19 particularly if they lived in England and couldn't obviously demonstrate being Scottish. Still it's at least £ 27 to play in a FIDE rated event in England if you cannot prove that you are foreign.

They definitely haven't realised that £6 under Pay to Play is almost identical to the Game Fee that they'd be paying if we went down that road. (OK, it's £1 out for a 5-round event, but surely that's not a problem.) They're acting like being charged to play English congresses is a new thing.

For a Scot to go to Blackpool, they must have to pay travel, accommodation (at £30 a night if they share in the official hotel?), and the entry fee. So let's say 200 miles (from Edinburgh), at 25p a mile. Return journey, £100. Two nights accommodation, £60. Entry fee of £30 (say), which'll come down next year because the organisers won't have to pay Game Fee. So for a whole weekend at £190, their costs may go up to £192.

Perish the thought!

[Stewart Reuben]

Andy Howie >Are we (The Scots, Irish and Welsh) going to have to pay £6 extra to play in the British Championships?<
Why would you? It's as much your championships as the English. Blackpool. Scarborough, Hastings, Gibraltar, LCC, etc. are all quite different.

Have people never played in the US? To do so you must be a member of the USCF if it is a US Rated event.

Stewart Reuben

[Carl Hibbard]

http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... olunteers/

I am pleased to say that I agree with the sentiment behind SGs posting, notwithstanding the reference to this Forum.

I may change in tribute to the Egregious comment or perhaps not

[Carl Hibbard]

I am still considering if I should cough for membership, I am not a member at this time and would question what the ECF does for me apart from grading if I still played that was

I was concerned by the shocking waste of money on CFS and COM and so I remain to be convinced sorry...

[Alex Holowczak]

I am still considering if I should cough for membership, I am not a member at this time and would question what the ECF does for me apart from grading if I still played that was

I was concerned by the shocking waste of money on CFS and COM and so I remain to be convinced sorry...

Carl, that vote was months ago. We've already agreed to go down the Membership route. How would you improve on the current Membership proposals?

[Paul Cooksey]

Carl, that vote was months ago. We've already agreed to go down the Membership route. How would you improve on the current Membership proposals?

I thought we still had game fee unless there was a 2/3 majority for the new proposal?

[Alex Holowczak]

Carl, that vote was months ago. We've already agreed to go down the Membership route. How would you improve on the current Membership proposals?

I thought we still had game fee unless there was a 2/3 majority for the new proposal?

We voted to have a Membership scheme, just not what form of Membership scheme we want.

We need 75% (not two-thirds!) of Council to agree to change the Articles of Association.

There has been a clear mandate for the Board to propose Membership schemes, refining them ever more until we get to one that people are prepared to go with.

Of course, more than 50% of Council want membership, so they could just vote to increase the price of Game Fee to something like £5, while lowering the price of membership. At which point we'll have people clamouring over themselves to form MOs.