You can't have it both ways, Roger. Yours was one of the voices arguing repeatedly that it was a dangerous mistake to shift to a single source of income at a stroke. I accepted the argument and introduced a transitional element which maintains a financial safety net while the Federation moves towards the membership option that a majority supported.Roger de Coverly wrote: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.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.
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.
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.
The final proposals are out there now, and Council members can choose whether they support them or, if not, how they would like them modified (or rejected outright). If the majority view is that I have strayed too far from the original mandate, naturally I'll accept this and seek to implement whatever Council asks the Board to do.
I've done the best that I could within the mandate as I understood it and with the benefit of extensive feedback - direct and via the forum - which was helpful but a long way from a consensus. The fact is, there is no consensus. It's a question of the acceptability of the overall direction and the extent to which people are prepared to live with compromise compared with their own preferred solution. If Council's verdict is that my best wasn't good enough, I can live with that too. I don't take these things personally.