Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Paul Cooksey]

The Yorkshire CA will oppose the new ECF Funding Proposals.

Jon's analysis is interesting. I suspect with many leagues in the same geographic area, players compete in more than one competition, which has a major impact on the maths. I think it is also a bit dubious to compare the existing game fee, since if retained it is proposed it will rise substantially.

But the main issue when looking at Yorkshire seems to me the disaffiliation of many leagues. It is not far from a prisoner's dilema, where if a few leaues are disaffiliated it is massively to their advantage. It is only if many leagues disaffiliate, and it becomes impossible for the cooperating leagues to subsidise the uncooperative ones, that the uncooperative leagues suffer. Difficult to solve, there are similar arguments about mass vaccination.

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..."

Is interesting. I am not sure what "so far away" means. The British was in Sheffield this year!

I suppose it might be a reference to International teams, which the county do not want to fund. I like to feel the England team represents me, but other counties, such as Kent have reported this is controversial. Or it might be a reference to the location of the ECF office in Battle, which is hard to understand, since the location of the office does not seems to confer any particular advantage to the region it is in.

[LozCooper]

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..."

Is interesting. I am not sure what "so far away" means. The British was in Sheffield this year!

I suppose it might be a reference to International teams, which the county do not want to fund. I like to feel the England team represents me, but other counties, such as Kent have reported this is controversial. Or it might be a reference to the location of the ECF office in Battle, which is hard to understand, since the location of the office does not seems to confer any particular advantage to the region it is in.

I think that by far away he was refering to the introduction of compulsory membership in the future

[Sean Hewitt]

It's hard to get revved up by this announcement as it's hardly headline news. After all, it's not rocket science that a county that does not pay it's share of game fee would oppose the membership scheme or, presumably, any funding scheme that sees it paying it's share of the national federation's costs. Jon's post does at least confirm one thing though - namely that Yorskhire are not using best endeavours to ensure that all of their players join the ECF via their MO! This situation makes me wonder if, assuming the membership scheme is approved, that the county championship rules will subsequently be changed so that only ECF memebers may play in it?

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.

Assuming these congresses are 5 round events, this suggests that each event on average only has about 33 non-members playing which is surprisingly few, it seems to me, for non-FIDE rated congresses in a county with eight of nine leagues not paying game fee. Perhaps Yorkshire congress players have a higher tendency to join the ECF which is encouraging for them going forward into a membership era.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think that by far away he was refering to the introduction of compulsory membership in the future

I don't know that I follow that remark. There are relatively few ways that counties and leagues can avoid the level of the increases outlined by Jon. One of them is to restrict the number of games played by non-members. This is, after all, the point of the £ 2 game fee, namely to coerce clubs, counties and leagues into signing up players. Cleveland tell us it's compulsory to be an ECF member to play in their league and Leicester are following suit. Internationally rated players have been confronted by compulsory membership for years. Indeed even if you live abroad and take no part in English chess, the ECF still wants its £ 27.

[Alex Holowczak]

This situation makes me wonder if, assuming the membership scheme is approved, that the county championship rules will subsequently be changed so that only ECF memebers may play in it?

The County Championship rules are being rewritten at the moment. Nothing controversial is necessarily changing; it's just an attempt to clarify these things. It'll go before Council in April. For example, there was previously discussion on here about whether the first time control could not be before move 40 in a national Championship game. This has been amended to make it explicitly clear. The time control for the National Final has been changed. The potential for telephone matches remains, though.

Nothing about membership has been written in to the rules yet, because the result of Saturday's vote is being awaited. There are a few potential rules - I'm not sure which is best:
(1) A county fielding a non-member is disqualified from the event.
(2) A county fielding a non-member must pay a fine equivalent to the rate of membership required to play County chess for each non-member in their team.
(3) A county fielding a non-member will be deemed to have lost the game he plays; his opponent is deemed to have won it, and the county incurs a penalty point.

Thoughts?

[Roger de Coverly]

There are a few potential rules - I'm not sure which is best:
(1) A county fielding a non-member is disqualified from the event.
(2) A county fielding a non-member must pay a fine equivalent to the rate of membership required to play County chess for each non-member in their team.
(3) A county fielding a non-member will be deemed to have lost the game he plays; his opponent is deemed to have won it, and the county incurs a penalty point.

Thoughts?

The first effect is that counties increase the number of defaults. The second effect is that counties don't enter teams because no match captains can be found who are prepared to work under these rules. Get used to it. The nearer you go to compulsory membership, the more difficult it becomes to run team chess, especially large team chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

I'm not familiar with Chess in Yorkshire, but isnt there an element of double counting in John's figures.
I suspect that within Yorkshire players will play in multiple leagues, and a lot of these players will also play in the independant congresses.
These players only have to join the ECF once.

I rather think Jon's point is that players won't join the ECF at all from choice, no matter how many leagues they play in. If he worked out his numbers on aggregate Yorkshire wide data, he will already have allowed for players in multiple Yorkshire events. His calculation method was £ 2 per game, capped at £ 12 per player. So he's already allowing for players being made members.

[Mick Norris]

The Yorkshire CA supports the ECF

Really? That's not the way it looks form this side of the Pennines

Distance from Battle is equally far from the North West, you have just had the British in your county, you have the British Rapidplay in your county, you compete in the English County Championships, you clearly get benefit from the ECF, you even have ex-county players in the England team

You don't seem to support the NMS, although most of the other northern counties do

What makes Yorkshire chess so special?

[LozCooper]

I think that by far away he was refering to the introduction of compulsory membership in the future

I don't know that I follow that remark. There are relatively few ways that counties and leagues can avoid the level of the increases outlined by Jon. One of them is to restrict the number of games played by non-members. This is, after all, the point of the £ 2 game fee, namely to coerce clubs, counties and leagues into signing up players. Cleveland tell us it's compulsory to be an ECF member to play in their league and Leicester are following suit. Internationally rated players have been confronted by compulsory membership for years. Indeed even if you live abroad and take no part in English chess, the ECF still wants its £ 27.

far away = in the future

[Roger de Coverly]

Assuming these congresses are 5 round events, this suggests that each event on average only has about 33 non-members playing which is surprisingly few, it seems to me, for non-FIDE rated congresses in a county with eight of nine leagues not paying game fee. Perhaps Yorkshire congress players have a higher tendency to join the ECF which is encouraging for them going forward into a membership era.

If you cap the league players at £ 12 a head, you would cap the Congress players at £ 6 per head if they play in the leagues. So his model assumes a degree of membership take up by virtue of the county paying for it.

[Sean Hewitt]

Assuming these congresses are 5 round events, this suggests that each event on average only has about 33 non-members playing which is surprisingly few, it seems to me, for non-FIDE rated congresses in a county with eight of nine leagues not paying game fee. Perhaps Yorkshire congress players have a higher tendency to join the ECF which is encouraging for them going forward into a membership era.

If you cap the league players at £ 12 a head, you would cap the Congress players at £ 6 per head if they play in the leagues. So his model assumes a degree of membership take up by virtue of the county paying for it.

I think you've misread my post Roger. Jon said

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.

so he was clearly referring to what happens today in game fee world - not what might happen in his model of a membership world. It was in that context that I was surprised because a total game fee payment of £1000 accross 11 graded congresses indicates that they have a higher ratio of members playing in Yorkshire congresses today than one might have expected.

[Roger de Coverly]

It was in that context that I was surprised because a total game fee payment of £1000 accross 11 graded congresses indicates that they have a higher ratio of members playing in Yorkshire congresses today than one might have expected.

I see your point that it averages at around 30 per tournament.

If the events attract out of county people, they are in NCCU MO territory who can claim exemptions.

With the presumed exceptions of Scarborough and York (Fulprint) , none of the events are particularly large.

From the chessnuts site, the story so far for this season is
Bradford 26+38+45
"Coastal" 8
Harrogate 13+10+29
Whitby 8+7+16
Yorvick 18+16

[harrylamb]

Hi
It is 1.30 in the morning. In 6 hours I leave home and fly out of the country. I have just seen this thread and note that some research I did a few years ago has been the subject of discussion. I will try to find the original document but I cannot do that until I get back. However the factual part was a table showing

a) The total amount collected in game fee each year
b) The game fee in pence per half game charged that year

The table covered about 8 years. The table was very clear.

The total amount of game fee collected by the ECF in game fee was stationary each year
The game fee charged each year in pence per half game rose steadily.

As my sources were the ECF accounts I do not believe that anyone can sensibly dispute the numbers.

You can dispute the conclusions. Mine was simply that increasing the game fee did not increase the ECF's income.
Following on from this I believe I also concluded that increasing fees reduced the amount of chess played

[Roger de Coverly]

.
Following on from this I believe I also concluded that increasing fees reduced the amount of chess played

The disputed points are these:-

(1) a reduction in the amount of chess played reduces the income from Game Fee. So which came first?
(2) an increase in the number of Game Fee exemptions also reduces the income from Game Fee.

We have the grading statistics, which show, or otherwise the growth or decline in the number of games played and the headcount of those playing them. The pint of beer test suggests that reasons for players giving up graded chess isn't greatly related to the incremental cost of additional games, let alone the change in the incremental cost.

The problem is, of course, in the alternative universe where the BCF elected a membership scheme in 1993, it would have faced exactly the same issues,these being that if its expenditure continued to rise and the number of chess players fell, that the cost per chess player would inevitably rise.

[David Pardoe]

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!

Interesting comments Alex...the usual mix of throw away remarks and opinion.. But, fair dooes...you`ve thrown in your two pence worth.
You said there was no other options for Membership Funding......? Really?
You mean non you care to bother considering...because `we only want to look at very simple options`?, ...and not potentially very good ones. Unless your systems only cope with `Simple` options.
So, what about Yorkshire...the biggest county in the land...and they claim your scheme will bankrupt them?
And Yorkshire is probably big enough to stand alone if it wanted...and is apparently not keen on shipping shed loads of its members money down south, when, presumably they feel they can spend it better.
And yes, Yorks has supported the ECF, although maybe not in the `membership` arguement. Just look at the great support they gave to the `British` at Sheffield...helping to ensure a successful tournament. And criticised for not being in the NMS...?? Yet, at the same time, these MO`s are branded as `rubbish`..by the same people/person? Are they..or is it the case that we are simply not doing enough to attract new membership, at all levels. Could they be made to work better..?

I note comments about Game Fee increases leading directly to lower numbers?
Lower numbers over the years are perhaps more attributable to the waning `Fischer factor`. ie, in the seventies chess boomed under the Fischer magic...but gradually this wore off and numbers declined. We need initiatives to attract `joe public` back to our clubs....and maybe go for brighter premises/playing conditions.
Bridge players can do it, so why not chess...

Maybe we need multiple Membership schemes & options. Some think MO`s are rubbish apparently, whilst others seem to work with them OK. The NMS seems to be doing its job, although it serves mainly Lancs players I believe, and not much support from other NCCU areas, some of whom have there own schemes. From some discussions it seems that some of these schemes could be made to work better. Territory might be an issue..ie, precisely what areas should bne covered by each scheme.?
And maybe for counties like Yorks (which might better split into two or three county groups), it might be better to offer a levy option, whereby a `block` charge was agreed and it is left to the county to collect the agreed sum. And holding the occasional ECF AGM in Yorks/Sheffield/the north, might be no bad idea. This might help to get greater northern buy-in, instead of always having to travel `south`......

But why listen to the silent majority when you can just plump for a `preferred` Membership option which panders to a `majority`.group of league players who simply and understandably want it `cheap as chips`.
And if the ECF are satisfied to take second rate solutions (no disrespect to Andrew, who has put considerable effort into trying to wrestle with a tricky situation)., they will remain a second rate (detatched) organisation in the eyes of many players.

Yes, you certainly can charge by Category...just use `this years latest Category value` against all graded players. I agree a retrospective claw back would not be practical..but nor would it be necessary.
And even now, they use forms of `year end` adjustments and billing to recoup uncollected sums..ie, Leagues/Clubs underpayments.

And you spent two hours debating whether the West Midlands was going to bite the `sugar coated` Membership bullet at there AGM..
That almost suggests that some had different views and concerns.....
And only two options to contemplate (yes, or No..apparently)..and you couldnt even get that right after two hours. ie, any `third option` was ruled out?
It might be interesting to see the minutes from that meeting.....
#
And you didnt just pluck figures out of the air...?
No, you didnt...but it looks like you`ve bought off the majority who play league chess, at a rock bottom price, (by crafting the numbers..), and charged others more because it was deemed `they could afford to pay more`...??
And for those playing shed loads of league, club, and county chess...why not pay the tax at a fair rate. £16 doesnt seem an unreasonable price to pay...probably equates to a game fee of 50p...not bad, and should raise some useful additional revenue. But you dont reckon they would pay £16 for all that chess, so instead we have to use those who play practically no chess...and just lump them together at £12 give-away.

Many arguements have raged over Congress entry fees...and these have been cited in the past as a deterant to entry and a reason why entries have declined and some Congresses closed down. So Congress players are quite sensitive to pricing, and dont want to pay a penny more than they have to, it seems. And yes, they certainly do vote with there feet if they dont like whats on offer. And quite a few congress players only play the odd local Congress event. I`d probably lump them, together with county players, in at the £16 mark, and reduce the FIDE group to no more than £24.

So, FIDE players are (....over paying)....and some FIDE events have perhaps struggled because of this, and other costs. However, in the more affluent southern quarter they may not be quite as penny pinching. Your arguement seems to be that these groups play more chess, so should pay more. Thats precisely my arguement for charging league players who play shed loads of chess to pay the £16 higher rate.
And that might presumably please Adam, who thinks the scheme should be trying to raise more money.

And look at Game Fee...every time they raise it by a couple of pence the players grown there disapproval. Is it a dogs breakfast, and if so, could it be improved. More specifically/importantly, could the MO`s do much better and put more effort into recruiting additional new members.
And just because the ECF votes it through in the usual rubber stamp manner, doesnt mean its going to prove successful, or popular with the `silent majority`, who have no real vote.
Just `pay up & shut up`..business as usual in the banana republic.?

Prestigeous means prestigeous Alex.
My definition in chess terms would be restricted to events with FIDE 2100 (min rated players). I accept that several events do rate as `good`, but certainly no more prestigeous than some top Congresses and County matches. There is even the occasional top grade league match. Maybe `A` division players should pay `Congress rate - Silver standard`...hellfire and brimstone, we can`t have league players actually paying a `premium`.....?

And Bridge has 40,000 players, whereas chess only musters 10,000 That in itself begs a few questions..and I havent played Bridge for a while.
Mind, we`re not counting the 80,000 junior Mega Final players, nor the 350,000 online players...could some be recruited into the ECF ranks..?
Perhaps online chess is pulling in all the pundits...free of any tax. No travel costs... I

Add in OMOV and the ingredients are starting to add up to a more interesting package.