English Chess Forum

Michael Flatt wrote:

Mike Truran wrote:

you've still got to answer the question Mike Truran asked - which league(s) pay it if the player has played in more than one leaguel?

Thanks Ian! I think that's the fourth time the question has been asked by three different people.

You could read my response to Richard Bates several posts ago.

I didn't completely understand the answer. In the hypothetical case of an individual playing five games across five leagues, was your solution to invoice each league for the cost of five games? ie. invoicing for 25 games when only 5 have been played?

Michael Flatt wrote:

Mike Truran wrote:

you've still got to answer the question Mike Truran asked - which league(s) pay it if the player has played in more than one leaguel?

Thanks Ian! I think that's the fourth time the question has been asked by three different people.

You could read my response to Richard Bates several posts ago.

It wasn't there when I wrote my post.

If I've understood you correctly, what you're saying is that if a player has played 3 games each in 2 leagues, then you charge both leagues for 5 games. I can't see that going down very well with either league.

Richard Bates wrote:

Michael Flatt wrote:

Mike Truran wrote: Thanks Ian! I think that's the fourth time the question has been asked by three different people.

You could read my response to Richard Bates several posts ago.

I didn't completely understand the answer. In the hypothetical case of an individual playing five games across five leagues, was your solution to invoice each league for the cost of five games? ie. invoicing for 25 games when only 5 have been played?

Yes, that's one possibility. I didn't say it was the best solution! I don't claim to have all the answers, just floating an idea.

Why also should a league pay for another leagues games? I think your thinking is entirely around a player perspective.

I didn't say it was the best solution!

A solution which in Richard's example overcharges x 5 and increases the invoicing admin x 5.

I can see why you're now not claiming that it's "the best solution".

Nick Grey wrote:Why also should a league pay for another leagues games? I think your thinking is entirely around a player perspective.

To be fair the proposal does seem to be put forward on the basis of removing the administrative burden on leagues (as well as the argued issue of the present arrangements discouraging temporary "fillers" - although given that i'm sure many have been bribed with a couple of pints in the past, the relative cost suggests this shouldn't be a real issue), given that Michael didn't disagree that it could potentially actually increase the administrative complexity for the ECF.

Sean Hewitt wrote: As written on the ECF website, it would apply to foreign players too.

There's an inconsistency between what the original proposal says, which would have applied only to ENG players and what the Minutes say, which draws a parallel with the treatment of non FIDE rated tournaments where a fee is levied on the organiser for every "foreign" player by virtue of their non-membership.

Those at the meeting should be able to recall whether the proposal was passed as proposed without amendment in which case the Minutes and website are both incorrect.

MJMcCready wrote:The next time I ask myself why chess in England is in such decline I must remember to return to this thread.

Me too.

Michael Flatt wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:

Michael Flatt wrote: So how does this address the question of individuals playing games across several different leagues, but not amassing a total of 5 games in any of them?

If that is considered a significant problem, a solution could be found:
one possibility - Invoice each of the leagues for the cost of five games. As I said the minimum accounting quantity is five games.
Other solutions are possible.

Other solutions including not overcharging, for example?

Invoicing the MCF for 5 games for a player who has played, say, 2 in the Manchester League is not a good option - trying to invoice a Lancashire League for the same player would likely involve civil war

Mick Norris wrote:

Michael Flatt wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:

If that is considered a significant problem, a solution could be found:
one possibility - Invoice each of the leagues for the cost of five games. As I said the minimum accounting quantity is five games.
Other solutions are possible.

Other solutions including not overcharging, for example?

Invoicing the MCF for 5 games for a player who has played, say, 2 in the Manchester League is not a good option - trying to invoice a Lancashire League for the same player would likely involve civil war

INDEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I must admit that my original reply was perhaps too provocative.

Indeed, to be consistent with a minimum accounting quantity of five games, none of the leagues would be invoiced.

As with any rules there will always be a few who will make a point of taking things to extremes to avoid incurring any cost; however, the likelihood of anyone playing in five different leagues does seem sufficiently remote to ignore.

Michael Flatt wrote:I must admit that my original reply was perhaps too provocative.

Indeed, to be consistent with a minimum accounting quantity of five games, none of the leagues would be invoiced.

As with any rules there will always be a few who will make a point of taking things to extremes to avoid incurring any cost; however, the likelihood of anyone playing in five different leagues does seem sufficiently remote to ignore.

Michael

It would be relatively easy to play in 5 of :
the South East Lancs Summer League, and in the winter the Manchester League, the Stockport League, the Bury & Rochdale League, the Bolton League, the East Lancs League and the Central Lancs League (possibly, all with the same club, but certainly by being a member of 2, as a few players round here are)

Mick Norris wrote:

Michael Flatt wrote:I must admit that my original reply was perhaps too provocative.

Indeed, to be consistent with a minimum accounting quantity of five games, none of the leagues would be invoiced.

As with any rules there will always be a few who will make a point of taking things to extremes to avoid incurring any cost; however, the likelihood of anyone playing in five different leagues does seem sufficiently remote to ignore.

Michael

It would be relatively easy to play in 5 of :
the South East Lancs Summer League, and in the winter the Manchester League, the Stockport League, the Bury & Rochdale League, the Bolton League, the East Lancs League and the Central Lancs League (possibly, all with the same club, but certainly by being a member of 2, as a few players round here are)

I would very easily be able to play in the Birmingham League, Dudley League, Wolverhampton League and Birmingham Summer League by just being a member of my current club. I'm sure I've done it in the past few seasons. I could additionally play in the MCCU County Championship for Worcestershire, where I'd never clock up five games, because none of the sections have six teams in them. So that's five leagues.

Incidentally, I could even play in lots of different divisions within each League, and we can submit the grading files for each division separately. (We already do for at least two of the leagues named above.) So I could just play less than 5 games in one division of the league. Or would you expect someone at the ECF to manually add up all the games played by non-members in the different divisions (and knockout cups, and league internal individual games?) that belong to a given league?

In fact, the Unions would benefit massively from your proposal, because I think it is only likely to be the SCCU would incur any Game Fee liability whatsoever, because the leagues aren't big enough in the other Unions. The SCCU only has one section with six teams in it, so that's the only possibility you'd have of incurring any liability.

I'm sure that most scenarios are theoretically possible. I suspect, however, that they are also so vanishingly unlikely for more than a handful of chess players that they can be ignored for statistical purposes.

Maybe an easier/ alternative administrative system is to insist on at least Bronze membership but with rebates. If non-members play. in a representative team the body represented is liable A player might be able to claim a rebate at year end from ECF if less than 6 (say) rated games are played.

Possible variants include the £15 playable in two six monthly installments.