Finance Council Meeting

[Alex McFarlane]

At the meeting it was indicated that the membership system would be cost effective as the money would be saved in office admin.

It was not stated what effect this saving would have on office staffing levels. I assume it to mean a reduction to 2 or 2.5 people.

[Roger de Coverly]

At the meeting it was indicated that the membership system would be cost effective as the money would be saved in office admin.

That's the claim and to an extent it's a political promise, having been used as a selling point for the whole idea of individual compulsory/universal membership. It doesn't mean it can be delivered as it's against general reasoning that you can save money by increasing your transaction count. They cannot even claim to have abolished Game Fee as it was retained as part of a political manoeuvre to avoid the need for a 75% vote.

[Andrew Farthing]

If the member pays online in a timely fashion (first two months of the membership year) there is a £1 discount.

Mike is mistaken about this. The £1 discount for joining online is available at any time, not just for the first two months of the membership year.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Why should you care about another organisation's grade?

Roger de C replied

I would have thought it immensely obvious. You have one or more of their players in one of your competitions. Where do they rank against your own players?"

You do exactly as you do with a player who has arrived from another country or an inactive player who has resumed play - you guess (Surrey method), or accept an estimate from the club pending more information.

The more I play the less I think a grade matters.

[Sean Hewitt]

...you guess (Surrey method), or accept an estimate from the club pending more information.

Recent experience suggests the Surrey method also involves giving them someone elses grading or rating code

[Mark Howitt]

Since I do get a bit of traffic from this forum, and I thought about it a while ago, I have a quick comment to make.

I reckon the amount of people who'd be satisfied with their grade being local or county wide (talking about EVERYONE who comes into contact with a chess club, you know the ones who play a couple of games a season, or come for a bit then stop going) would be around 30-40% at least. The whole ECF scheme at the moment seems to support the idea that EVERYONE should be passionate about chess, and even people playing at chess clubs aren't, (some of them!) Seems pretty silly when you think about it, you could have someone who plays hundreds of games as a member and someone who plays one... yet they pay the same.

Just some quick thoughts, because I know when I was a chessplayer I know how much I cared about my grade and I might not see how other people wouldn't (even though to be honest my Yorkshire grade was MUCH more important than my ECF one!)

[Roger de Coverly]

Seems pretty silly when you think about it, you could have someone who plays hundreds of games as a member and someone who plays one... yet they pay the same.

That's the fundamental premise behind the ECF's changes. They don't seem to think it silly and will have to live with the consequences.

Even if you think that ECF expenses should be shared per head, you could argue that you should only pay for the ECF's expenses during months in which you play chess. So someone playing every month is a member every month, whilst someone only playing one game is only a member for that month.

[Roger de Coverly]

The benefits of being a member are roughly the same regardless of the amount of chess played.

In what way? TV Licences are a bad example, try season tickets instead. If you had to make the same journey by public transport, you would buy a ticket for a month, not a year.

If you were only expecting to play chess one year out of three, you wouldn't be expected to buy a three year membership.

If it isn't the ECF's new policy to drive away marginal players, why is it setting a framework where organisers are encouraged to put up signs saying, in effect, non-members unwelcome? In other thread, a popular series of rapid-plays has run 100 events without requiring membership. For the 101st, it has decided to adopt a policy of excluding non-members from its top sections. Admittedly it might get a higher turnout from players already members.

[Alex Holowczak]

TV Licences are a bad example, try season tickets instead.

Whoa, back up a minute. Why are TV licences a bad example?

[Roger de Coverly]

Whoa, back up a minute. Why are TV licences a bad example?

You cannot buy a TV Licence for a period of less than a year even if you don't use your television. This contrasts with transport where you can buy unlimited usage rights for a shorter period.

[Ian Kingston]

Why are we still having this argument? It's been decided - now it's all about the implementation. There are plenty of issues to discuss regarding that, rather than re-hashing a debate on which everything's been said a dozen times already.

[Roger de Coverly]

Why are we still having this argument? It's been decided - now it's all about the implementation..

I think you may find that knowledge of what the ECF is doing is limited. This wasn't helped by the discouraging of debate and voting on the issue at last year's local AGMs. The likely polarisation between playing members and non-playing non-members has the potential to crash the ECF or local clubs and organisations. MO areas have probably already been through this polarisation, the rest of the country hasn't. Almost from the very day that Game Fee was introduced, membership advocates were trying to undermine it. Junior organisations have already turned their back on the universal membership notion with per head charging as unsuitable for the type of events they run.

[Sean Hewitt]

TV Licences are a bad example, try season tickets instead.

Whoa, back up a minute. Why are TV licences a bad example?

As Captain Mainwaring might say, "You stupid boy!"

They are a bad example because they don't support Roger's argument.

[Alex Holowczak]

TV Licences are a bad example, try season tickets instead.

Whoa, back up a minute. Why are TV licences a bad example?

As Captain Mainwaring might say, "You stupid boy!"

They are a bad example because they don't support Roger's argument.

Judging by his answer, I think that you're right!

[Roger de Coverly]

Judging by his answer, I think that you're right!

The argument is the ptremise that you should spread expenses by activity. In the same way that over a three year period, you don't expect a player not playing for two of the three years to pay membership for all three, why do you expect a player only playing in one of twelve months to pay membership for all twelve?

Put is this way, the membership advocates have bet the ECF on the premise that you can collect the same amounts from players playing six games as sixty, not me. The Junior Organisers have already won a concession on that.