Outcome of membership scheme

[Roger de Coverly]

but the number of Silver members is only half of predicted levels.

It's difficult to know whether the ECF Board's estimates were good or bad, since they never chose to publish a count of an individual's games between leagues and Congresses or record how many Congresses an individual would play. Those who believed that £ 3 on a Congress entry fee was a disincentive to entries will presumably also believe that a £ 6 excess isn't and expect the Silver count to increase as people eventually play their only Congress of a season.

As far as the Junior Silver count is concerned, I don't think the ECF or individual directors within the ECF properly understood the structure of many Junior events and misleadingly classified them alongside adult Congresses. The result was an immense increase in the cost demanded for participation of these events in the grading system. The successful challenge at the 2012 Finance meeting reduced the demanded increase to merely large. It remains to be seen how many junior events have removed themselves from the grading system.

[Sean Hewitt]

As far as the Junior Silver count is concerned, I don't think the ECF or individual directors within the ECF properly understood the structure of many Junior events and misleadingly classified them alongside adult Congresses. The result was an immense increase in the cost demanded for participation of these events in the grading system. The successful challenge at the 2012 Finance meeting reduced the demanded increase to merely large. It remains to be seen how many junior events have removed themselves from the grading system.

Don't forget; the off the hoof proposal from the floor which resulted in the discounted junior only game fee regime will have had a significant detrimental effect on junior membership take up. This is despite arguments (which I never understood) from proponents of the change to the contrary. No doubt Finance Council 2013 will examine the effects of this change, and decide an appropriate course of action going forward.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is despite arguments (which I never understood) from proponents of the change to the contrary.

If you want to understand the argument, just write down some figures on the back of an envelope.

Firstly write down the cost payable to the ECF of an individual playing in a five round Junior rapidplay under the Game Fee regulations of 2011-12. Then write down the cost required under the membership proposals prior to the Finance meeting. Multiply that by 100 to scale up to event size and ask yourself whether junior organisers would accept such an increase or feel able to demand it from their target market, or whether they would say that participation in the grading system and their consequent rights to be an ECF voting members was more than they felt able to pay. The consequence of their non participation would be a reduction of the ECF's income from "not so much" to nil.

You have to remove from your mind any hand waving about membership encouraging participation in more events as one of the concerns was the cost of participation in the first and perhaps only event.

[Sean Hewitt]

This is despite arguments (which I never understood) from proponents of the change to the contrary.

If you want to understand the argument, just write down some figures on the back of an envelope.

Firstly write down the cost payable to the ECF of an individual playing in a five round Junior rapidplay under the Game Fee regulations of 2011-12. Then write down the cost required under the membership proposals prior to the Finance meeting. Multiply that by 100 to scale up to event size and ask yourself whether junior organisers would accept such an increase or feel able to demand it from their target market, or whether they would say that participation in the grading system and their consequent rights to be an ECF voting members was more than they felt able to pay. The consequence of their non participation would be a reduction of the ECF's income from "not so much" to nil.

They claimed that more juniors would join if junior game fee at a reduced rate was introduced. It was, in my opinion, a nonsensical argument.

That notwithstanding, the membership scheme has been a success it seems to me.

[Roger de Coverly]

That notwithstanding, the membership scheme has been a success it seems to me.

Even if the number of graded games and graded players dropped by around 20%, that would be considered a success by its advocates. The ECF have avoided a wholesale walk out or shut down, but that's as far as it goes.

If you increase the cost to organisations of participating in the ECF from 58p per game to £ 2 per game and then tell them that individuals can partly avoid this increase by paying £ 12 per head, you are presumably going to get an eventual sign up of all those playing or expecting to play at least 6 games.

[Roger de Coverly]

They claimed that more juniors would join if junior game fee at a reduced rate was introduced. It was, in my opinion, a nonsensical argument.

I thought the very reasonable argument was that at the prices requested, or more specifically the increase in price requested, that junior organisations would walk away from the ECF. So the choice was between some members and no members because if next to no junior activity took place under ECF oversight, there would be no incentive to offer ECF membership.

ECF Directors deny this as a policy objective, but if the ECF had rules which made it both compulsory to be an ECF member to take part in authorised competitions and a code of conduct that banned players if they took part in unauthorised events, then it would have a much bigger stick with which to threaten players and organisers. Whether there would be much left of the country's chess culture is another matter.

[Angus French]

Some figures beneath. The first is the Board's predicted figure, the second the actual figure.
.
.
Juniors
.
.
Bronze 500 396 (79%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall 8870 8005 (90%)

If the predictions are from the original 2012/13 budget (see 'Improved take-up' section) then shouldn't the bronze junior projection be 700 (and the overall projection 9070)?
There was also a revised 2012/13 budget apparently with lower projections (see 'Income projections' sheet, scenario 2) though it's arguable the figures weren't particularly credible.

Re the membership take-up by Juniors, an early funding paper stated: "Using the experience of the existing MOs and NMS, it is assumed that 1 in 7 members would be Juniors". When I looked at the stats yesterday, junior memberships totalled 1234 of 8842 - 14% - which is pretty close to 1 in 7.

Details stats are in the attached Excel workbook:

MembershipListStats130122.xls

[David Gilbert]

If the predictions are from the original 2012/13 budget (see 'Improved take-up' section) then shouldn't the bronze junior projection be 700 (and the overall projection 9070)?

Yes agreed.

[Martyn Harris]

In financial terms the success of the membership scheme cannot be judged until the amount of residual game fee to be levied is known, together with the proportion collected and the costs of chasing these monies. Although non-MO areas should have submitted guestimates of residual game fee together with payment I suspect no-one has any real idea how accurate these will prove to be. Further there may be players who do play only one or two congresses a year and do not participate in local chess. These may have decided to stay outside the membership system and simply pay the congress excess fees.

In terms of numbers joining, the jury should probably stay out until year 2 when players will be making decisions on whether or not to join based on experience of whether they can get away with playing without paying, and when those who have refrained from joining on principal will perhaps start deciding that resistance is futile. This applies to both individual players and coldspots such as Cumbria and Yorkshire. Some Associations may also change their membership requirements in the light of any difficulties they have in collecting residual game fees.

I've heard no stories of leagues collapsing in the face of membership demands (which is not the same as saying none have), and whilst there are rumours of some congresses having disappointingly small fields there seems no reason to attribute this to the membership scheme rather than the operation of other factors that can affect numbers such as poor/late publicity, anticipated poor weather, clashes with other events, or low numbers one year leading to self-fulfilling expectations of small numbers the following one.
Of course one cannot claim the scheme is a success merely on the basis it has not destroyed chess as we knew it, but it does show that the worst case scenario has been avoided. The extent to which more chess may be played will vary according to the enthusiasms of the various potential organisers around the country and the extent to which their local players want more chess.

Judging the success with respect to juniors will possibly be the most difficult job. Comparison with projected/anticipated numbers is easy, but as far as I am aware these numbers were never given as a benchmark for success. Indeed it could be argued that if some previously graded junior events have since decided to go ungraded this will be good. There will be fewer highly unreliable grades from juniors cluttering up the grading system, and whilst these no longer affect their opponents in future calculations, small values and the random walk that some of them take hardly act as an incentive for the juniors concerned. It may be less good if a two-tier junior system develops, with graded juniors turning their noses up at any opportunities to play ungraded events, but junior organisers will be better placed to comment on both the desirability of this and the extent, if any, to which it is happening.

Lastly the extent to which the switch frees up time for the office and/or board to spend on more fruitful tasks than chasing money, and the extent to which they take advantage of this is I believe unreported.

[Roger de Coverly]

Although non-MO areas should have submitted guestimates of residual game fee together with payment I suspect no-one has any real idea how accurate these will prove to be.

By the very nature of the process, they will be incorrect as membership backdates to 1st September 2012. The Game Fee regulations require an estimate, zero or a token payment would seem reasonable. Games played by non members is a statistic and may or may not have any bearing on the liability in September 2013.

Lastly the extent to which the switch frees up time for the office and/or board to spend on more fruitful tasks than chasing money, and the extent to which they take advantage of this is I believe unreported.

Surely during the last four or five months, a major task of the office has been processing memberships? No time would have been saved by not collecting Game Fee from leagues as it only becomes due in the December/January period. As far as non FIDE rated Congresses are concerned, the process is essentially unchanged.

It's probably more cock-up than conspiracy, but ECF directors so lost confidence in their model of raising money for the ECF that they neglected to take any steps to refine the process by integrating the collection process with the grading data. The advantage of that was that they could then make political points about Game Fee not working. The 2011 accounts being a case in point, where it's believed the Finance Director put a provision against Congress Game Fee receipts in order to give the impression that Congresses were underpaying.

[Sean Hewitt]

The advantage of that was that they could then make political points about Game Fee not working. The 2011 accounts being a case in point, where it's believed the Finance Director put a provision against Congress Game Fee receipts in order to give the impression that Congresses were underpaying.

Oh come on. Are you really suggesting that the Finance Director, an accounting professional, deliberately falsified accounts in order to make a political point?

[Roger de Coverly]

Oh come on. Are you really suggesting that the Finance Director, an accounting professional, deliberately falsified accounts in order to make a political point?

I'm not suggesting he falsified the accounts. What is suggested by the team working on the 2012 accounts is that he introduced a change in accounting practice whilst not explaining to his lay audience the effect it would have on the comparative figures between the 2010 year end and the 2011 year end. Also that he did nothing to counter the view that Congresses were guilty in some way in not paying Game Fee. After all, it should be a standard practice that a set of accounts capable of being audited can show a list of at least its major income producers and be able to compare them from one year to the next.

(edit) The change in accounting practice was eventually disclosed in the April 2012 Finance meeting. From the minutes thereof :-

The delay in producing the final version of accounts was noted. One question raised on lower game fees received from congresses than in previous years (AF). GC replied that he had decided not to recognise game fees until received which is a change from previous years’ principle.

Even that is a slight economy, since it appears that what they did was accrue Game Fee for events taking place near the end of the financial year as normal and then put a provision against it which had the effect of making it look as if it hadn't been received.

If the ECF are expecting to include residual Game Fee as Income in the financial period ending 31st August 2013 then it will have to accrue it as it won't actually come in until September or later. There's a far better case for treating these as a potential bad debt than there was for maligning the good names of Congresses in general and end season ones in particular by treating them as bad debts. (/edit)

[Sean Hewitt]

Even if the number of graded games and graded players dropped by around 20%, that would be considered a success by its advocates. The ECF have avoided a wholesale walk out or shut down, but that's as far as it goes.

If both the number of active players and the numbers of games played increased, I suspect you'd still consider the membership scheme to be a failure.

[Roger de Coverly]

If both the number of active players and the numbers of games played increased, I suspect you'd still consider the membership scheme to be a failure.

It's simple enough, if you erect barriers to participation, you get fewer participants. That's usually the intention of licensing schemes, to exploit a monopoly or impose standards. Those present in the 1970s ask why it was that the Fischer boom was bigger in the UK than elsewhere in the world. At least in part I believe it was down to a relative lack of membership requirements, particularly for Congresses.

[Sean Hewitt]

If both the number of active players and the numbers of games played increased, I suspect you'd still consider the membership scheme to be a failure.

It's simple enough, if you erect barriers to participation, you get fewer participants. That's usually the intention of licensing schemes, to exploit a monopoly or impose standards. Those present in the 1970s ask why it was that the Fischer boom was bigger in the UK than elsewhere in the world. At least in part I believe it was down to a relative lack of membership requirements, particularly for Congresses.

I understand that you believe that membership is a barrier to participation but that wasn't my point. If both the number of active players and the numbers of games played increased, would you still consider the membership scheme to be a failure?