It changes quite a lot. How much are you now charging for a vote, and does this cover the funding hole of Â£150k?Paul Cooksey wrote:OK. If I accept I got the non-voting member rate wrong, and it should be Â£100, does that change anything?Alex Holowczak wrote:I don't like your general idea because the differential in costs from now would be significant. Warwickshire only runs 1 event; a congress which it grades. The Game Fee won't be more than Â£100. If this became Â£250, we'd have to double the costs of entry to the congress, which means it wouldn't happen. So we probably wouldn't bother. It's not a case of us not wanting to run more events; there are three leagues within the territory, and lots of other local congresses in other counties.
Smaller counties would be similarly disadvantaged.
Some counties may opt not to pay for a vote, simply because the county can't afford it. So what's to stop those counties who do have a vote putting up the price for the counties who don't have a vote? So counties drop out altogether.
Alternatively, the richest counties can put the price of having a vote up, causing some to drop to the lower tier. This can repeat in sequence until only the most affluent counties can afford to vote.
You'd end up without a chess Federation.