Compulsory Membership?

[Mike Truran]

But you weren't saying that. What you said was:

With the Yorkshire League and now any league, the larger your squad for the same number of matches, the more the club or collectively your players pay. But I think Yorks worked like that anyway, even under Game Fee. In the 4NCL it's effectively £ 27 a head, rather than £ 6.

Anyway, trying to get you to accept that you are ever anything other than infallible is a hopeless task, as has been demonstrated on many an occasion in this (interminable) debate.

[Roger de Coverly]

They may well exist, but using what is a tiny minority of 4NCL players in support of a contention that the overall cost to all 4NCL players is £27 is disingenuous in the extreme.

I'm not sure I meant that but do you accept the following as factually correct?

(a) if as a club player, you didn't play any other FIDE rated chess, the cost of participating in the 4NCL was £ 27 in 2011-12 and this reduces to £ 15 in 2012-13 provided you have separately paid for Bronze membership.
(b) if you are not a club player and don't play any other FIDE rated chess, the cost remains £ 27 for 2012-13 provided you process your membership on line.

From time to time I muse on the issues of asking clubs or counties to form and pay for 4NCL teams. What I've written above would have to form part of any report on the potential costs.

[Sean Hewitt]

The clause which Sean quotes from the MO agreement needs to be set in context. It still exists in the new agreement, to operate from 1 Sept 2012, but it should be seen in the context of the preceding clauses:

10. MO shall register any graded events which it proposes to organise in accordance with the Game Fee Bye Laws

11. MO shall be entitled to submit for grading the results of ECF Members in non registered events.

12. MO shall submit the results of any registered graded events and non registered events in an electronic format and by deadlines both as stipulated from time to time by the Director responsible for Grading.

What this means is that the MO itself can choose to register the events which take place under its auspices (the key word is "organise"). If they do, the Game Fee Bye Laws apply and the results of non-members are graded and Game Fee is liable on those results. If they don't, the event is processed in the grading system (as has been described earlier in the thread) but only the results of ECF members are counted.

Sorry Andrew, but that's not right. You say that an MO can choose to register an event that takes place under it's auspices, but it can't. If an MO organises an event, that event must be registered for game fee. There is no opt out available (note the word shall in para 10). David Anderton gave pretty clear advice on this point back in 2006.

However, if a non game fee event, not organised by the MO, takes place then the MO is entitled to submit those results so that they are graded for ECF members, without any grading nor game fee liability for non-members. These are the so called 'RM' events listed here http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/events1112.htm.

[Roger de Coverly]

If they don't, the event is processed in the grading system (as has been described earlier in the thread) but only the results of ECF members are counted.

Could you please clarify this? It was general understanding that any game without exception between a non-member and a member would incur a £ 2 charge because of the non-member and that a game between two non-members would incur a £ 4 charge.

If there are exceptions to this, you (the ECF) will need to budget exceptionally carefully. I know the ECF is again pushing for framework agreements but a facility that enables them to run events without charging non-members is over the top if true. So to clarify

Is it the case that a county can sign a framework agreement and then for its league of 100 players, provided 85 become members, games against the remaining 15 are included in grading at no extra cost?

[Roger de Coverly]

However, if a non game fee event, not organised by the MO, takes place then the MO is entitled to submit those results so that they are graded for ECF members, without any grading nor game fee liability for non-members. These are the so called 'RM' events listed here http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/events1112.htm.

So is there an unexpected arbitrage available? You have county A and county B, both of which run leagues, but there's a third league C which straddles the border. This type of overlap is common in the SCCU area. Counties A and B sign framework agreements. Does this mean that league C can operate without requiring ECF membership and without residual Game Fee, but remain graded for all players who have joined through county A or county B or directly with the ECF. If I were county D, which didn't elect to sign a framework agreement and didn't have this cross border arbitrage, anger would be justified that league C was getting a sweetheart deal not available elsewhere.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, if a non game fee event, not organised by the MO, takes place then the MO is entitled to submit those results so that they are graded for ECF members, without any grading nor game fee liability for non-members. These are the so called 'RM' events listed here http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/events1112.htm.

So is there an unexpected arbitrage available? You have county A and county B, both of which run leagues, but there's a third league C which straddles the border. This type of overlap is common in the SCCU area. Counties A and B sign framework agreements. Does this mean that league C can operate without requiring ECF membership and without residual Game Fee, but remain graded for all players who have joined through county A or county B or directly with the ECF. If I were county D, which didn't elect to sign a framework agreement and didn't have this cross border arbitrage, anger would be justified that league C was getting a sweetheart deal not available elsewhere.

Under MOs - Yes. This is what the Sheffield League et al do.

Under Framework Agreements - I had thought not. I don't recall anything in the Council debates that would allow such a position to arise. Andrew seems to be saying that it can, but that just does not seem right to me. Not only do I not think that such a position was agreed by council but it would, in my opinion, make the whole membership scheme unworkable.

[David Sedgwick]

If they don't, the event is processed in the grading system (as has been described earlier in the thread) but only the results of ECF members are counted.

Could you please clarify this? It was general understanding that any game without exception between a non-member and a member would incur a £ 2 charge because of the non-member and that a game between two non-members would incur a £ 4 charge.

If there are exceptions to this, you (the ECF) will need to budget exceptionally carefully. I know the ECF is again pushing for framework agreements but a facility that enables them to run events without charging non-members is over the top if true.

My previous understanding was the same as Roger's and for once I find myself in agreement with him.

I thought one of the objectives of the Universal Membership Scheme was to do away with all the concessions, exceptions and anomalies which (in my view) made Game Fee unsustainable.

Now the ECF seems to be making the same old mistakes.

The principle should be simple. If a game in an adult league is submitted for grading, there is a charge of £2 each if either or both of the players is not a member (or does not become one by the cut-off date).

[Mike Truran]

I'm not sure I meant that but do you accept the following as factually correct?

(a) if as a club player, you didn't play any other FIDE rated chess, the cost of participating in the 4NCL was £ 27 in 2011-12 and this reduces to £ 15 in 2012-13 provided you have separately paid for Bronze membership.
(b) if you are not a club player and don't play any other FIDE rated chess, the cost remains £ 27 for 2012-13 provided you process your membership on line.

Can't argue with that. Whether it passes the "so what?" test is another matter. I remain of the view that the population under (b) is tiny. As regards the "perhaps eight to ten times as many players who know or knew how to play chess at a reasonable level, than currently play" that you allege is a potential untapped market, they weren't exactly storming the barricades to play in the 4NCL under the old regime, so I doubt they would be that interested whatever the future regime.

[Andrew Farthing]

Re the MO agreement and the significance of the registered/non-registered events: I am seeking confirmation from the author of the new agreement of exactly what it means in this regard. If the wording needs to change to achieve the intended effect, this will be done.

To avoid any further risk of inadvertently misleading anyone, I won't comment again on this point until I have had the requested confirmation.

On the principle of 'no exceptions and anomalies', I tend to agree with David Sedgwick that these should be avoided wherever possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

If the wording needs to change to achieve the intended effect, this will be done.

But what is the desired effect? Taking the local Yorkshire leagues as an example, the current position is that ECF members get all their games graded for no extra cost regardless of who they are played against. That's in the context of a scheme where £ 13 per head is treated as an alternative to 58p per half game. Even that is denying the ECF the 58p for the other half.

Given that local AGMs are agonising over how to handle the £ 2 issue now it's been imposed on them by the ECF, it would be wrong to allow the Yorkshire concession to continue. So should it be withdrawn completely, taking local Yorkshire games by non affiliated leagues outside of ECF grading as if they had been played in Scotland, Ireland or Wales? As a compromise the ECF could offer to grade member v member but not member v non-member unless someone agreed to pay the £ 2 charge hitting the rest of the country.

[Alex Holowczak]

Another question - the YCA treasurer gave me some membership forms as I was leaving. They referred to a £1 charge if the company is wound up. I thought this requirement had been removed but maybe that was a proposal that never got off the ground. Could somebody please clarify.

I don't see that anyone answered this question.

It has been removed. The forms you've got your hands on are about 8 months out of date.

[Sean Hewitt]

If they don't, the event is processed in the grading system (as has been described earlier in the thread) but only the results of ECF members are counted.

Could you please clarify this? It was general understanding that any game without exception between a non-member and a member would incur a £ 2 charge because of the non-member and that a game between two non-members would incur a £ 4 charge.

If there are exceptions to this, you (the ECF) will need to budget exceptionally carefully. I know the ECF is again pushing for framework agreements but a facility that enables them to run events without charging non-members is over the top if true.

Was about to say I agree with Roger, but suddenly felt the need to lie down.

[Mark Howitt]

I actually always wondered about the £6 registration fee... do clubs have to pay that per player per season? Because a lot of clubs would have wasted a lot of money having roped in players who weren't that keen to play, played one of two matches, then never did again.

And that brings me back to the key point- the YCA shouldn't do this if it wants to attract new players. Everyone acts in their own self interests of course- and the people at the YCA meeting probably are keen chessplayers. I still think they'll be grumbles or non payment from existing Yorkshire league players- attracting new players will be even harder that it is for them already. So they should just stick with the Yorkshire grades.

[Andrew Farthing]

If they don't, the event is processed in the grading system (as has been described earlier in the thread) but only the results of ECF members are counted.

Could you please clarify this? It was general understanding that any game without exception between a non-member and a member would incur a £ 2 charge because of the non-member and that a game between two non-members would incur a £ 4 charge.

If there are exceptions to this, you (the ECF) will need to budget exceptionally carefully. I know the ECF is again pushing for framework agreements but a facility that enables them to run events without charging non-members is over the top if true.

Precisely - it wouldn't make any sense to operate on this basis. The intention is that all games submitted for grading are counted for grading and that the results of non-members are liable for Game Fee. I think this is what the framework agreement for MOs says, but Sean thinks not, so I am seeking confirmation. If it does not say this, it will be amended as necessary.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I actually always wondered about the £6 registration fee... do clubs have to pay that per player per season? Because a lot of clubs would have wasted a lot of money having roped in players who weren't that keen to play, played one of two matches, then never did again.

And that brings me back to the key point- the YCA shouldn't do this if it wants to attract new players. Everyone acts in their own self interests of course- and the people at the YCA meeting probably are keen chessplayers. I still think they'll be grumbles or non payment from existing Yorkshire league players- attracting new players will be even harder that it is for them already. So they should just stick with the Yorkshire grades.

In theory that is correct, every player in the Yorkshire league is subject to a £6 registration fee although the YCA treasurer has been known not to bother charging for players who have only played the odd match. Under the new scheme a player who was roped in as a reluctant reserve would only be subject to a £2 game fee which is, by strict application of the rules, cheaper than at present (in that any player who plays in the Yorkshire league is subject to a £6 fee).

I fail to see how the new membership scheme is going to deter people from joining local leagues as (capitals for emphasis) THESE ARE UNAFFECTED.