English Chess Forum

Ian Jamieson wrote:Transitional arrangements

Graded club and league events

The rate will be dependent upon the percentage of players in the competitions who are ECF members.

(1) Is this at the end of August, the start of the event, when each game is played or the end of the event?

(2) Can clubs or leagues pay to make players members even if the players choose not to be members?

Given the answer to this is presumably no, will there be a cap on the charge levied equal to the amount payable if the club or the league was able to do it?

(3) Finally is it currently possible to see who is or is not an ECF member?

(1) It would be calculated at the end of the event.

(2) Since the member is no longer having to sign the £1 guarantee, I think that the answer is yes.

(3) Yes - there's a membership list on the ECF website.

Andrew Farthing wrote: No, but I don't see that this gives me the right to ignore the wishes of the majority of Council.

Given that you are expecting individuals to have a personal relationship with the ECF, can you not rank the views of individuals as expressed at local AGMs above those of Council and tell Council that it's out of touch with the views of those whom it purports to represent? You introduced the draft membership scheme and had a vote on it before most leagues and counties had held their AGMs. So there wasn't much consultation down to county, club and individual level.

Some of the advocates of membership schemes would abolish Council in its present form.

Andrew Farthing wrote:

Ian Jamieson wrote:(2) Can clubs or leagues pay to make players members even if the players choose not to be members?

(2) Since the member is no longer having to sign the £1 guarantee, I think that the answer is yes.

Really? I am not sure if member is still the correct term if the individual is not personally responsible. (I am tempted to pay Matthew Turner's membership for my own amusemement )

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Andrew Farthing wrote: No, but I don't see that this gives me the right to ignore the wishes of the majority of Council.

Given that you are expecting individuals to have a personal relationship with the ECF, can you not rank the views of individuals as expressed at local AGMs above those of Council and tell Council that it's out of touch with the views of those whom it purports to represent? You introduced the draft membership scheme and had a vote on it before most leagues and counties had held their AGMs. So there wasn't much consultation down to county, club and individual level.

Some of the advocates of membership schemes would abolish Council in its present form.

The views of local AGMs are represented by the rep in Council aren't they?

The logical consequence of a universal membership scheme is that everyone has to be a member.

Actually it has just occurred to me that under EU law, this is illegal. It does not apply to Scottish chess which is a part of the UK and EU. And probably many more countries that do not have this mandatory membership of a chess federation.

If I cared enough to be happy to make a gift of £20 per year to the ECF as a Platinum member, I would expect some way for my voice to be heard. Given that a vote is no doubt out of the question, how will you achieve this? Please don't say through some member representative, as presumably I don't have a chance to vote for them either?

Roger de Coverly wrote:So there wasn't much consultation down to county, club and individual level.

There's been loads in Birmingham. I first mentioned at at the Birmingham League meetings as early as last October on Dave Thomas's behalf (who's our delegate). Months have passed and it has been discussed as the proposal evolved. Indeed, we'd even planned to discuss it at tomorrow night's meeting, but the paper came out too late for that. No harm done; we knew it'd be tight, so we'll just arrange another meeting. It certainly hasn't taken us by surprise. We knew it was coming.

If there wasn't much consultation at county, club and individual level, then that's your delegate's fault. Elect a new one.

Andrew Farthing wrote: No. What we're proposing to do is to grade both sides of the game and publish the grades of all players.
.

So the proposal now is to put Game Fee up to some astronomic level in the hope that players or organisations will buy the season ticket of membership in order to get a discount. That's different in principle from both the April and June proposals. It is still, I think, shifting the funding burden away from the more active players towards the less active. As I recall, it was an option which a number of people mentioned in the run up to the April meeting. At the time it was rejected.

The April Council vote was a bit pointless really as the scheme now proposed really isn't the same at all. In fact the retention of a Game Fee element makes it look very much like one of the family of possible Option 2 schemes, namely a hybrid between individual and organisational membership.

Alex Holowczak wrote: If there wasn't much consultation at county, club and individual level, then that's your delegate's fault. Elect a new one.

In general terms, there's really not that much local interest in the ECF's activities unless it does something really annoying. There isn't enormous enthusiasm for following the twists and turns of all three of the ECF's proposals. The red lines remain compulsory membership and per head funding. If the ECF are intent on forcing something through, all that's left for the county or league is to figure out the consequences. With the ever changing proposals, this can be difficult to keep track of.

Simon Brown wrote:If I cared enough to be happy to make a gift of £20 per year to the ECF as a Platinum member, I would expect some way for my voice to be heard. Given that a vote is no doubt out of the question, how will you achieve this? Please don't say through some member representative, as presumably I don't have a chance to vote for them either?

It's no different from the current Full membership category. 300 or so members, myself included, choose to pay extra without any voting rights beyond the voice of the designated representatives (as well as the say that I have through the various chess organisations in which I'm involved).

I'm not saying, however, that constitutional reform won't happen, but rather that it's not going to be proposed right now as far as I'm concerned. Council members can put forward their own proposal if they can obtain the minimum level of support required to do so.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote: If there wasn't much consultation at county, club and individual level, then that's your delegate's fault. Elect a new one.

In general terms, there's really not that much local interest in the ECF's activities unless it does something really annoying. There isn't enormous enthusiasm for following the twists and turns of all three of the ECF's proposals. The red lines remain compulsory membership and per head funding. If the ECF are intent on forcing something through, all that's left for the county or league is to figure out the consequences. With the ever changing proposals, this can be difficult to keep track of.

Again, your delegate's fault.

Birmingham has largely ignored the proposals since April, knowing they'd evolve, and keeping in their mind that it's coming. They've been aware that the final version is coming out at the end of August, and that's the one we need to discuss. So we postponed discussions until now.

Besides, if the ECF is changing the proposal, it's the result of consultation. Surely that's a good thing!

Alex Holowczak wrote: Besides, if the ECF is changing the proposal, it's the result of consultation. Surely that's a good thing!

It had a contentious and divisive vote in April for a scheme which it isn't intended to put forward in October. It was a vote presented at the time as being for or against the abolition of Game Fee (which is now to be retained) It would have been better for the April vote to just note rather than endorse the scheme and to require additional debate over the summer.

Adam Raoof wrote:http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... olunteers/

Mr Giddins, as we know, doesn't like people who disagree with him. But is there anything unique about chess? Surely most amateur sports, games, pastimes and hobbies rely on unpaid volunteers for their organisation?

Adam Raoof wrote:http://stevegiddinschessblog.wordpress. ... olunteers/

They enter tournaments, expecting that the organisers will be working for no payment, and indeed, they will be outraged if they discover that the organiser has actually made a profit from the event and not reinvested it in the following year’s tournament. Only a crook would actually pay himself a fee for running a chess tournament.

He is missing the point, players who pay high entry fees to play tournaments expect the prize fund to reflect this, especially when there is a high entry of players, which is reasonable IMO. If he played in the Golders Green RP he would understand this principle.