Outcome of membership scheme

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger,

that's not answering the question. What do you WANT the outcome of the membership scheme to be?

Scrap any form of compulsion for league play. What that means is charging leagues in bulk, which is what the Scots do. Also remove the compulsion for membership in FIDE rated events, particularly the 4NCL, but also remove the 4NCL's concession that you can play one weekend without the ECF receiving any income. I would also want some form of Congress levy, as it's ridiculous that well funded international events such as Gibraltar should make no direct contribution to ECF funds.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thats still not answering the question.
What do you want the outcome of the membership scheme to be?

Not how would you reform the scheme

Isn't the answer obvious? In the longer term it has the potential to destroy league chess or the ECF itself if it doesn't raise enough. Therefore it will need to be reformed. The budget relies heavily on being able to collect £ 2 per head per game from non-members. If this proves unenforceable, you hit an immediate crisis.

[E Michael White]

Roger,
that's not answering the question. What do you WANT the outcome of the membership scheme to be?

Scrap any form of compulsion for league play. What that means is charging leagues in bulk, which is what the Scots do.

We need to consider the next moves here; something chess players should be familiar with.

When the ECF becomes a charity charging leagues in bulk would probably miss out on gift aid on members subscriptions, for that league's members or prevent it for all ECF members. That is unless the league or county itself becomes a charity and makes charitable transfers to the ECF. However keeping the subscriptions of league only players to the minimum would be a good charitable objective and be in line with the identified health benefits to older players. I don’t think it will be long before chess clubs open in the afternoon for pensioners who drift away when the relative juniors start their A team matches.

SH you know who, and Richard Bates need not reply.

[Roger de Coverly]

When the ECF becomes a charity charging leagues in bulk would probably miss out on gift aid on members subscriptions, for that league's members or prevent it for all ECF members.

That's something which is as clear as mud. If individuals are required to pay a body, the ECF, in order to be allowed to participate in an activity, playing competitive chess, in what way is that in any sense a gift? Most of the published guidance seems to go as far as possible to avoid answering the simple question as to whether tax relief is available on a periodic membership cost and if not, whether there are clear conditions to be satisfied.

[Phil Neatherway]

Roger,

you still haven't given a straight answer to my question.

I will now re-phrase it as a closed question.

Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?

[Alan Walton]

Roger,

you still haven't given a straight answer to my question.

I will now re-phrase it as a closed question.

Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?

Can I answer for him again?

[Roger de Coverly]

Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?

Please define success or failure.

We can I think agree that it fails if it doesn't raise enough money for the ECF.

Is it also a failure if the ECF has to propose considerable increases for 2013-14?

Is it a failure if the numbers of individuals playing graded games is down on 2011-12?

Is it a failure if the number of graded games played is down on 2011-12?

Is it a failure if player turnover is greater than normally seen, both in terms of players apparently retiring and new players not replacing them?

Is it a failure if the number of chess tourists, Scots, Welsh and others taking part in English Congresses is reduced?

[Alan Walton]

Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?

Please define success or failure.

We can I think agree that it fails if it doesn't raise enough money for the ECF.

Is it also a failure if the ECF has to propose considerable increases for 2013-14?

Is it a failure if the numbers of individuals playing graded games is down on 2011-12?

Is it a failure if the number of graded games played is down on 2011-12?

Is it a failure if player turnover is greater than normally seen, both in terms of players apparently retiring and new players not replacing them?

Is it a failure if the number of chess tourists, Scots, Welsh and others taking part in English Congresses is reduced?

Roger, I believe you are intelligent enough to know the definitions of success and failure

We want to know what if you want it to be a success or failure, so a one word answer should do

[Phil Neatherway]

Roger,

you are dissembling. A straight answer please.

[Angus French]

Roger,

you still haven't given a straight answer to my question.

I will now re-phrase it as a closed question.

Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?

Phil,

Is your question pertinent?

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger,you are dissembling. A straight answer please.

It's likely to be counted as a success even if it reduces the number of players playing at least one graded game below 10,000 provided most of them can be counted as "members". I would regard that as a failure.

So do I want it to fail? Basically yes, so it can be replaced with something less hostile to new and returning players, but that's not going to happen as only running out of money will be seen as a failure.

[Phil Neatherway]

I'm asking the originator of this thread what his motive is in starting it. I think that is pertinent.

[Angus French]

I'm asking the originator of this thread what his motive is in starting it. I think that is pertinent.

The thread topic is valid and of interest in itself, isn't it?

[Phil Neatherway]

Indeed it is. And thanks to Roger for answering!

[Simon Brown]

Actually, I think we can. It is either going to be a success or a failure. If it doesn't raise enough money to keep the ECF afloat, it certainly isn't a success. It's a bit harsh to judge success or failure against something you didn't actually do.