ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sat May 13, 2017 1:22 pm

Thanks Ben - excellent report as always.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat May 13, 2017 1:24 pm

benedgell wrote:

The next vote was for which of the 3 options for voting reform to vote for. My votes were 2 for Option 1 (Somerset), 1 for Option 2 (Gold Members’ Rep), and 7 for Option 3 (Bournemouth, Southampton, Dorset). I also raised the point afterwards that if Options 1 or 2 were not there I would have cast Somerset and the Gold Members’ Reps votes for Option 3.
This is alarming that a regular attendee at Council was clearly unaware of the character of the vote. It was very explicit in the documentation sent out that options 1 to 3 were not to be seen as alternatives but as separate votes in their own right.

The intention of the votes were as follows:

Do you support option 1 in preference to the status quo
Do you support option 2 in preference to the status quo
Do you support option 3 in preference to the status quo.

With these questions it was perfectly proper, and indeed expected, that Council members could vote for ALL THREE options if they thought this appropriate.

There was no reason why the Somerset and Gold votes should not have been given to BOTH options 2 and 3.
The purpose of the votes was to establish which proposals, if later brought forward as constitutional amendments, would individually find favour.

The purpose was not to decide between the options by competition between them but rather to establish which option was most wanted, best achieved by everyone voting for ALL the options of which they approved.

This is precisely why there was no option for the status quo. If that's what someone wanted they needed to vote against all three options.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat May 13, 2017 2:03 pm

benedgell wrote:The revised schedule of rates, simplified as much as possible, is as follows:

FIDE Standard Play Rated Events: Gold ECF membership or higher: FREE or Others: Pay to Play fee of £10 per person (adult or junior)

Other Congresses: Silver ECF members or higher: FREE or Others: Pay to Play fee of £7 per adult (£5 per junior)
I don't suppose this has changed as a result of the Finance Council meeting, but what is the definition of the unit on which pay to play applies? Congresses with multiple sections, where someone can play in more than one (British Championships, Gibraltar, London Chess Classic, for example), charge pay to play fees per section played in. The ECF web site says "The ECF will charge the event a Pay to Play fee of £7 for each adult congress participant (£5 for juniors) who is not an ECF member or who is an ECF member at Bronze level only." That suggests one payment should cover all events a person plays in within one congress. What's the official definition that determines this?

Angus French
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Angus French » Sat May 13, 2017 2:44 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:
benedgell wrote:

The next vote was for which of the 3 options for voting reform to vote for. My votes were 2 for Option 1 (Somerset), 1 for Option 2 (Gold Members’ Rep), and 7 for Option 3 (Bournemouth, Southampton, Dorset). I also raised the point afterwards that if Options 1 or 2 were not there I would have cast Somerset and the Gold Members’ Reps votes for Option 3.
This is alarming that a regular attendee at Council was clearly unaware of the character of the vote. It was very explicit in the documentation sent out that options 1 to 3 were not to be seen as alternatives but as separate votes in their own right.

The intention of the votes were as follows:

Do you support option 1 in preference to the status quo
Do you support option 2 in preference to the status quo
Do you support option 3 in preference to the status quo.

With these questions it was perfectly proper, and indeed expected, that Council members could vote for ALL THREE options if they thought this appropriate.

There was no reason why the Somerset and Gold votes should not have been given to BOTH options 2 and 3.
The purpose of the votes was to establish which proposals, if later brought forward as constitutional amendments, would individually find favour.

The purpose was not to decide between the options by competition between them but rather to establish which option was most wanted, best achieved by everyone voting for ALL the options of which they approved.

This is precisely why there was no option for the status quo. If that's what someone wanted they needed to vote against all three options.
Well, quite.

And I wonder why Ben couldn't have said something later in the meeting, when watered-down alternatives to option 3 were discussed? If it was a choice of one of those or nothing, mightn't they have had some appeal?

I'm also surprised by what's written in the two paragraphs before the last in Ben's report.

benedgell
Posts: 1252
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by benedgell » Sat May 13, 2017 7:43 pm

Yes, not casting the Somerset/ Gold Members' reps votes for option 3 as well as 1/ 2 was a mistake. I incorrectly interpreted the item and to any Somerset/ Gold Members who are disappointed I can only apologise. Its worth noting that my mistake ultimately had no effect on the outcome of the vote. Whether or not I had used the 3 votes for item 3 it still would have been a long way short of the required 75%. Also, after the results were announced I stated (based on the incorrect presumption that I could only vote for one of the choices) that were options 1 & 2 not there I would have cast the 3 votes for option 3 (as is noted in my report).

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat May 13, 2017 9:26 pm

No, the difference was made by the use of 23 unmandated votes in the direction that they were used. This made the difference of suggesting that the achievement of voting reform was not possible rather than being quite likely. I've always admired the way that you have sought to honour your instructors' wishes: but here we see that where no opinion is expressed you do wield a disproportionate influence for a single individual.

Reg Clucas
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Reg Clucas » Sun May 14, 2017 1:32 pm

benedgell wrote:
More information on this can be found here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... inal-1.pdf

and here:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -No.-2.pdf
The above links don't work
benedgell wrote: If I’ve made any mistakes with the summary above let me know, but the long and the short is that unless leagues want big bills at the end of next season they need to be very vigilant with ensuring that non- ECF members don’t play more than 3 games, or if they do that they become ECF members. This comes in for next season.
Can you define 'next season' more precisely. Does it refer to games played in the next grading period (i.e. on or after July 1st 2017), or to games played in events which start on or after that date, or does it refer to games in the next Membership year, or something else?

benedgell
Posts: 1252
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by benedgell » Mon May 15, 2017 10:52 am

The links are all sorted now.

John Reyes
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by John Reyes » Fri May 26, 2017 3:16 pm

on the Rule about the 3 games next season, is it 3 games per person per league for free or just the 1st 3 games are free?

Also what happen if you play in a Rapidplay league?
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Mick Norris
Posts: 7406
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Mick Norris » Fri May 26, 2017 3:20 pm

3 games free; 4th incurs a cost equivalent to bronze membership

Are there any rapidplay leagues?
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri May 26, 2017 3:28 pm

Mick Norris wrote:3 games free; 4th incurs a cost equivalent to bronze membership

Are there any rapidplay leagues?
There are rapidplay club competitions.
You get 7 free games - there was a long angel-on-pinhead discussion about whether "under four games free" and "pay for over three games" meant the same thing. It was decided that they did not as 7 rapid games is 3 1/2 ordinary games and the judgement was that 7 rapid games were free.

Hey, John - were you asleep? [Though having said that I have to admit that I missed Malcolm's comments on English rapidplay championships completely].

John Reyes
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:51 pm
Location: Manchester

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by John Reyes » Fri May 26, 2017 4:17 pm

I wanted to make sure, as someone was saying to me that if a player, played in other leagues, then which does the 3 games count as?

because our ecf rep was saying that it was just the 3 games in that league, and I told him, it was not true, as if they play in a other league in the season then the 3 games will count towards it.
Any postings on here represent my personal views only

Angus French
Posts: 1588
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Angus French » Fri May 26, 2017 4:19 pm

Mick Norris wrote:Are there any rapidplay leagues?
Both the Croydon league and the Surrey league have one. For matches in both, two games are played on each board with alternating colours.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Michael Farthing » Fri May 26, 2017 5:34 pm

John Reyes wrote:I wanted to make sure, as someone was saying to me that if a player, played in other leagues, then which does the 3 games count as?

because our ecf rep was saying that it was just the 3 games in that league, and I told him, it was not true, as if they play in a other league in the season then the 3 games will count towards it.
Not my understanding. 'Canny Player' can have three free games in the Ruritanian League and a further three games in the Zenda League. The Board decided it wasn't worth bothering to police this so admitted it up front.

Gerry_Jepps
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: ECF Finance Council Meeting April 2017

Post by Gerry_Jepps » Sun May 28, 2017 7:02 pm

So to take an unlikely but not entirely impossible scenario: If a player for (say) Bath plays 4 games in his club tournament, 4 games in the Somerset League and 4 games in the Bristol League, all without taking out membership, his club will be billed 3 x £15 = £45 (one bill of £15 direct from the ECF and two bills via the leagues). Is that right?

Post Reply