ECF Finance meeting 2018

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:52 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Hok Yin Stephen Chiu » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:34 pm

John Reyes wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:51 pm
I can understand what you are saying, but look at the number, there is over 5 thousand bronze members!!
I would love them just to pay £15, as there are places in the uk who live in poor areas and the end of the day chess should be cheap to all, like darts is
I don't intend to determine whether the area of my League is particularly poor or wealthy, like most places it is probably a mixutre, but I certainly do not represent constituents of millionaires in the Coventry and District League (for the record!!)

If I may put this into context, I don't think a £4 increase will put people off chess, in fact, the nature of the changes would in fact facilitate more chess being played!

I know I speak from the conditions of my League, but in the Local area, there is the Leamington Rapidplay, and from 2018 February, the Warwick University Rapidplay, the organisers for Leamington shared with me that many people would ve liked to play but thought it was not worth paying the extra as a one-off cost to play in either! (Fyi, the Warwick Rapidplay was £5 entry, and 100% of entries went to prize money, so we really did try!)

Next year 2019 is the Centenary Year for the Coventry and District League, and we are planning a Coventry Rapidplay for the occasion that we hope will be an annual thing. Therefore, from such a perspective and considering that League chess in our area is not as vibrant is it was 40 years ago, we wish to get people playing more, regardless of whether it is League or weekend tournaments, we feel that the merging of Bronze and Silver will be a great step towards encouraging an increase in the overall amount of chess being played in our area.

-----
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:01 pm
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:01 pm
(2) a Gold Membership for who people who want to play ECF-rated Chess AND FIDE-rated Chess (where FIDE charge for rating) - which is what this proposal is making?
Anyone would think that FIDE charge an arm and a leg for international rating. In the context of a rated Swiss, you would scarcely notice if Congress organisers had to finance the costs through a levy on entry fees. It would be around 50p to £ 1 a player in the context of entry fees of around £ 30.

No, it's just the ECF refusing to admit the consequences of a flat rate membership scheme, which is that it would charge the player of 5 games a year the same as the one who plays 105.
If you believe that Gold membership is disproportionately more expensive that Silver for the additional FIDE charge, I think you should take it up with Council, but that should be a separate issue to encouraging more local chess (be it League or tournaments) by merging Silver and Bronze.

Regarding you point about 5 games and 105 games, the notion that 'you should pay more if you play more' isn't the case now and damages the overall amount of chess being played by creating unnecessary barriers between League and congress chess.
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:01 pm
Correct me, if I am wrong: I believe the opposition to the proposals stems from the mantra of "you should pay more if you want to play more". This seems fair on face value. But in practice, the current system doesn't adhere to this!

The mantra is only true for someone who only plays League chess (buys Bronze) and then upgrades to Silver to play [more chess] in Congresses/Tournaments.

But, it is fundamentally inconsistent, for someone who only plays in Congresses, but not League chess - who will have to get Silver without a choice!

Surely, it makes more sense just to have (1) a Standard membership for everyone who wants to play ECF-rated Chess, and then (2) a Gold Membership for who people who want to play ECF-rated Chess AND FIDE-rated Chess (where FIDE charge for rating) - which is what this proposal is making?
Since the current system does not follow this idea, why not have a better system that tries to actively encourage more people to play more chess by removing such an odd artificial barrier to local chess?

-----
Michael Farthing wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:29 pm
Roger is right about this. Indeed, in a climate where the Home Director is quite keen on expanding the use of FIDE rating there is actually more sense in uniting silver and gold then uniting bronze and silver.

The silver responses we have received often come from club officials, many of whom express concern at the barrier to entry to bronze level as it is. It should be remembered that clubs differ: for example, some submit a large number of their internal games for grading; others keep club nights as more informal games - maybe without clocks or at shorter duration. The former will find it much easier to get a new member to join; the latter might only attempt it when trying to get a new player to enter an inter-club match - and the bronze fee is a lot for one game! [Caveat: the recent changes allowing three free games helps here of course, and some silver responses have mentionede that with approval].
I personally think there is more merit is combining Silver and Bronze, the two primarily ECF-rated systems first, which affects local chess more -
before considerations about increasing the use of FIDE rating.

On that note, at present, it is actually no extra cost to get rapidplay FIDE-rated for no extra cost at Silver membership, so encouraging the use of FIDE-ratings can start from there. The Inaugural Warwick University Rapidplay (which had 53 entrants) and the Leamington Rapidplay (98 entrants) were both FIDE and ECF rated, hence required Silver, and both Rapidplay got responses that more people would have play if there wasn't the need to upgrade to Silver.

So, the proposal is amounts to only a £4 price increase (instead of a £7.50 increase), takes away the upgrading hassle, and removes the psychological barrier of deciding whether it is more economical to upgrade or pay a the one-off congress fee.

Indeed I agree the three free games have helped hugely and that the ECF should be applauded, this year the ECF charges on non-member payments have decreased by 2 thirds as a result of this and really helps facilitate University chess - certainly at Warwick, the largest University chess society...

-----
John Reyes wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:31 pm
can't wait for tomorrow then!!!
I do wonder who will be the kingpin (proxy votes as ben edgell have a big amount at the meeting?
Indeed, you might not see me if I don't get all my coursework finished!

-----
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:40 pm

There are arguments for and against. I agree with Michael Farthing's point (via his respondents) that the hardest part of the membership structure to sell is telling infrequent league members that they've got to stump up £17. An extra £7 on top of that should they wish to enter their first congress isn't quite as problematic and actually offers an incentive to do a second (and a third, and a ..) to get their money's worth.

I'll throw something else into the mix. The ECF ultimately aren't responsible for the `product`. Is your club/ league welcoming and forward looking or does it just tick along amateurishly in a dingy pub function room? Give players a better incentive to come along and they'll be more willing to meet the required fees.
The University of Warwick before the three free games system had to pay £300+ of fees to the ECF, so, the new system of three free games has certainly helped, and when someone's played three games, its easier to make them pay up or stop them play anymore games if they don't (or resign to the fact we pay lots of money to the ECF if they pay more than 3 games).

Regarding the extra £7, I addressed that issue a few lines earlier - but would reiterate, it is not 'problematic' per se, but I certainly think the proposals will encourage more chess being played overall by removed these artificial barriers between congress and league chess.

"Is your club welcoming" I think I've answered that simply by being from the University of Warwick - to entertain your progressive taste buds the new Committee is 40% female, so I'd say fairly welcoming!

"Is your League welcoming" I can't give a yes/no answer; in the League Committee, we run the League, a Summer Cup, Knock Out, a Divisional Cup, (though Coventry and Warwick Universities only partake in the first) and if our Centenary Year Rapidplay takes off, then there will be 3 Rapidplays in the local area (not including the Birmingham ones), we are by no means the leading League in the country, but I think the Standard Membership merger will facilitate and encourage more players in our area to play more chess as a whole
G. Secretary, https://WarwickChessAlumni.blogspot.com/
Delegate - Leamington
FIDE Arbiter

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:44 pm

I should perhaps just clarify that the `Is your league welcoming,` question was directed at the wider `audience` and not at you specifically. I appreciate that the embedded quote made it look otherwise and I apologise. Blaming ECF fees for declining participation is an easy get out (and I'm not saying it isn't a factor) but the truth is that in many areas the chess offer is not good.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:52 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Hok Yin Stephen Chiu » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:50 pm

Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:44 pm
I should perhaps just clarify that the `Is your league welcoming,` question was directed at the wider `audience` and not at you specifically. I appreciate that the embedded quote made it look otherwise and I apologise. Blaming ECF fees for declining participation is an easy get out (and I'm not saying it isn't a factor) but the truth is that in many areas the chess offer is not good.
Fair enough! One of the reasons Coventry and District think this will be good, is because we want people to play more chess AND offer different opportunities from tournaments (which suit Juniors more) in addition to League chess etc; we believe offering a Standard membership will reduce barriers and encourage people who prefer tournaments/congresses to play more League chess, as well as people who prefer League chess to play in more congresses/tournaments.
G. Secretary, https://WarwickChessAlumni.blogspot.com/
Delegate - Leamington
FIDE Arbiter

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:21 pm

I appreciate the debate. As for Gold membership Ben and Roger have explained their intentions and is absolutely fine by me.

As for the other fee increase debate, I think it is important that over 10 years moving away from the bureaucracy of the tax on chess being passed on to unions, leagues, congresses and on to clubs rather than direct is good but not really encouraging.

Not quite right to suggest 10 or 5% increases without explaining benefits or what it will go to fund but I cannot really see that in the proposals.

It is bad enough to have significant year on year transport charges from various franchises with services getting worse or not at all (leading generally to far more chess defaults than before). Hopefully transport is fine for those going tomorrow but do suggest you check the underground services too.

As for NCCU proposal it sounds to me that it is coming from someone I do not trust over the chess board, let alone some 'financial' and membership analysis which is different from London and elsewhere. But I'm biased by a chess incident.

Enjoy the meeting, try to help each other. There are volunteers doing a lot. Please appreciate what they are all doing. It seems to me to be a whole lot better than the past 30-20 and 10 years.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:40 pm

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:34 pm
If you believe that Gold membership is disproportionately more expensive that Silver for the additional FIDE charge, I think you should take it up with Council, but that should be a separate issue to encouraging more local chess (be it League or tournaments) by merging Silver and Bronze.

My expectation is that those attending Council meetings are properly briefed and don't listen to old wives tales promulgated by ECF Directors.

I'm pleased to hear that the ECF giving away 3 free games is to the benefit of university clubs. It was the university clubs that suffered when the ECF moved from charging a fee based on activity to charging based on head count. On the old system a club using 6 players for a league team would be asked to pay the same as a club using 18.

In the context of Gold membership, are you not aware that increasing numbers of Congresses are FIDE rated these days?

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:52 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Hok Yin Stephen Chiu » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:48 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:40 pm
Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:34 pm
If you believe that Gold membership is disproportionately more expensive that Silver for the additional FIDE charge, I think you should take it up with Council, but that should be a separate issue to encouraging more local chess (be it League or tournaments) by merging Silver and Bronze.

My expectation is that those attending Council meetings are properly briefed and don't listen to old wives tales promulgated by ECF Directors.

I'm pleased to hear that the ECF giving away 3 free games is to the benefit of university clubs. It was the university clubs that suffered when the ECF moved from charging a fee based on activity to charging based on head count. On the old system a club using 6 players for a league team would be asked to pay the same as a club using 18.

In the context of Gold membership, are you not aware that increasing numbers of Congresses are FIDE rated these days?
With regards to Gold membership, I am personally not against the suggestion and merits of merging Gold and Silver, however since the proposals are to merge Silver and Bronze for tomorrow's meeting, I believe that is a good step in the right direction for local chess in my area, where the separation between Congress and League chess is unhelpful (if the intention is to get people playing more chess in general).
G. Secretary, https://WarwickChessAlumni.blogspot.com/
Delegate - Leamington
FIDE Arbiter

Reg Clucas
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Reg Clucas » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm

Adult Silver members are currently paying a total of over £16000 more than they would if they were Bronze members. I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses. Though I acknowledge that this is not the only criterion by which the NCCU proposal should be judged.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 3551
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Ian Thompson » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:45 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm
I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses.
No. Rates for different classes of membership are not set based on cost; they are set based on perceived willingness to pay (i.e. value based pricing).

Andrew Zigmond
Posts: 2073
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Harrogate

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Andrew Zigmond » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:57 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm
Adult Silver members are currently paying a total of over £16000 more than they would if they were Bronze members. I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses. Though I acknowledge that this is not the only criterion by which the NCCU proposal should be judged.
Working on the assumption that people play competitive chess because they enjoy it the £7 discount a silver member enjoys on a congress entry ultimately pays for itself after four congresses. As I've said many times, to a new player with no idea of chess administration or politics it would just look like a way of obtaining a discount.

The membership scheme is based around the principle that you pay up and then it's down to you to get your money's worth. That is how most membership organisations work and many (chess and non chess) have different tiers and concessions. I have no objection to an amalgamated bronze and silver membership but the NCCU's proposed £20 sets the cost too high. To set it lower would leave the ECF financially vulnerable.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:37 pm

Reg Clucas wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm
I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses.
Of course it doesn't. The distinction between Bronze and Silver membership was a political expedient to cover up the point that if you shift the burden of paying for the ECF from those who play the most chess towards those who play the least, then those who pay the least are going to be asked to fork out more.

It's not known how much office time is spent on grading, but aside from that most of the grading work uses resources and time volunteered by organisers and graders, so direct ECF costs are limited.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Angus French » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:50 am

For what it's worth the Bronze members' reps have had exactly 50 responses to their consultation email. Not all of those expressed a view on the proposal to merge Bronze and Silver membership categories and in a few cases the expressed preference wasn't exactly clear. However, the number of respondents for (or likely for) the proposal is 4 and the number against (or likely against) is 36. Two of the responses against were on behalf of Bronze members (numbering 12 and 14) at clubs and if those members were counted as voting against then the result would be even more one-sided. Most of the respondents thought a merger of membership categories, with a consequent fee above the current Bronze rate, would be unfair to them as they have no interest in playing or are unable to play in congresses.

Stats for the average number of games played by each member in a category in the 2016/17 season are, I calculate:
AverageGamesByMembershipCategory3.png

It just so happens that the average weighted total games played for each adult category align pretty well with the current adult membership rates (£16 Bronze; £23.50 Silver; £34 Gold).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:52 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Hok Yin Stephen Chiu » Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:27 am

I need to do about 4 hours work, before I decide whether I travel down to London, but I shall make a brief contribution now:
Andrew Zigmond wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:57 pm
Reg Clucas wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm
Adult Silver members are currently paying a total of over £16000 more than they would if they were Bronze members. I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses. Though I acknowledge that this is not the only criterion by which the NCCU proposal should be judged.
Working on the assumption that people play competitive chess because they enjoy it the £7 discount a silver member enjoys on a congress entry ultimately pays for itself after four congresses. As I've said many times, to a new player with no idea of chess administration or politics it would just look like a way of obtaining a discount.

The membership scheme is based around the principle that you pay up and then it's down to you to get your money's worth. That is how most membership organisations work and many (chess and non chess) have different tiers and concessions. I have no objection to an amalgamated bronze and silver membership but the NCCU's proposed £20 sets the cost too high. To set it lower would leave the ECF financially vulnerable.
If we look at it from the narrow perspective of a Bronze member (like myself), the merging of Bronze and Silver as proposed is a discount for current Bronze members to get all the benefits of Silver members. I think it is laudable many non-Bronze members are looking out for the interests of Bronze members, but I have yet to meet Bronze members who are vehemently against the proposals? If we put this in perspective, its an increase of about a pint for more chess at a substantially discounted rate.

It would be a shame to see the proposals fall due to disagreements over whether it should be £17, £18, £19 or £20, and the overall benefit is to encourage people play more chess.

I honestly find the distinction between League and Congress chess interesting/irrational, if its both ECF-rated and doesn't incur additional FIDE charges, why should one cost more than the other?
Roger de Coverly wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:37 pm
Reg Clucas wrote:
Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:27 pm
I would like to know whether this represents the true additional cost of grading congresses.
Of course it doesn't. The distinction between Bronze and Silver membership was a political expedient to cover up the point that if you shift the burden of paying for the ECF from those who play the most chess towards those who play the least, then those who pay the least are going to be asked to fork out more.

It's not known how much office time is spent on grading, but aside from that most of the grading work uses resources and time volunteered by organisers and graders, so direct ECF costs are limited.
Angus French wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:50 am
For what it's worth the Bronze members' reps have had exactly 50 responses to their consultation email. Not all of those expressed a view on the proposal to merge Bronze and Silver membership categories and in a few cases the expressed preference wasn't exactly clear. However, the number of respondents for (or likely for) the proposal is 4 and the number against (or likely against) is 36. Two of the responses against were on behalf of Bronze members (numbering 12 and 14) at clubs and if those members were counted as voting against then the result would be even more one-sided. Most of the respondents thought a merger of membership categories, with a consequent fee above the current Bronze rate, would be unfair to them as they have no interest in playing or are unable to play in congresses.

Stats for the average number of games played by each member in a category in the 2016/17 season are, I calculate:
AverageGamesByMembershipCategory3.png

It just so happens that the average weighted total games played for each adult category align pretty well with the current adult membership rates (£16 Bronze; £23.50 Silver; £34 Gold).
I know the rationale of previous ECF system of fees/charges to the present day membership system is based on some broad notion that the less you play the less you pay - but fundamentally the current system doesn't do that, and is bias against Congresses/Tournaments.

In danger of repeating the same point, if you only want to play in tournaments, but not League chess, you are forced to pay Silver, but those who prefer to play League chess is given a choice of Silver or Bronze. The current system is simply inconsistent, and I recognise it benefits Bronze members who have no intention of playing anything other than League chess, but just because the current proposals might short change me £4, does not mean that the overall changes will NOT be a positive - encouraging more chess to be played as a whole!

Hi Angus, I did not respond to your email by email - but let's count this as responding to your email and now you have 51 responses! (I am in favour of the Proposal for a £20 Standard Membership!)

I'm conscious that you are the elected individual for the interests of Bronze members, and in the face of the email responses that you say, it would be difficult for you to support the proposals even if you were in favour of them (though that would depend on whether you see yourself as a delegate or a representative acting in the spirit of Edmund Burke!)

If I may however persuade any other Delegates reading (especially, if my work stops me for making this afternoon), I disagree that it would be unfair to Bronze members as a Bronze member myself. I had no interest in congresses this year and got a Bronze membership, so I played for my University and spent my time arbiting in tournaments to get my ECF Arbiters norms. BUT, just because it has benefited me a few quid this year does not make the current system is a good system for chess as a whole! There was certainly at least one occasion where I thought if I was a silver member I would have chosen to play instead of arbit. This debate ultimately comes down to why there should be a distinction between League and Congress/Tournaments? Can you or anyone else answer my earlier question, why should there be such a separation, if it is both ECF-rated and does not incur additional FIDE charges, why should one cost more than the other?
G. Secretary, https://WarwickChessAlumni.blogspot.com/
Delegate - Leamington
FIDE Arbiter

Paul Cooksey
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:15 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Paul Cooksey » Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:49 am

As I recall, the membership scheme proposals started as flat rate. The tiers were intended as an approximation of how committed players were and therefore the amount they would be likely to accept as a fee. From my point of view simplification is better, if it does not risk pricing out some players. I would be looking for more than anecdotal evidence either way. We have a Membership Director. I hope he can advise Council.

Digressing, Roger has pointed out many times the tiers are very, very approximate, and can be considered unfair. I generally argue I can live with a little unfairness for the other benefits of membership, I feel let down that the ECF is treating membership just as a way to collect fees and little else. I suppose others are relieved.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Michael Farthing » Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:16 am

Paul Cooksey wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:49 am
As I recall, the membership scheme proposals started as flat rate. The tiers were intended as an approximation of how committed players were and therefore the amount they would be likely to accept as a fee. From my point of view simplification is better, if it does not risk pricing out some players. I would be looking for more than anecdotal evidence either way. We have a Membership Director. I hope he can advise Council.
The silver responses are on balance, also against the merger - most against giving either the likelihood of discouraing new players from joining or unfairness to the bronze membership. However, as might be expected at silver level, the gap between the two camps is fairly narrow.

However, in our letter we did say that we wished to hear from the Board and that might sway our decision. One aspect of the current motion that concerns me is that there does not seem to have been any discusion or contact with the Board in drawing it up and there may be problems of which we are unaware. If this is the case it should be rejected because the likelihood is that there will be future reviews possbly from the Board, and it is better to delay and pass the right motion than act precipitously. Another option for Council, of course, is to reject the motion but ask the Board to come back with proposals (or, I suppose, it could be vey dynamic and itself appoint a sub-committee to look into it).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF Finance meeting 2018

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:23 pm

Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote:
Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:27 am


In danger of repeating the same point, if you only want to play in tournaments, but not League chess, you are forced to pay Silver
That's factually incorrect. You are NOT required to pay an annual fee to play in Congresses. Instead you get a sort of temporary membership or the duration of the Congress, although it's termed as "pay to play" rather than temporary membership. Bronze members make that payment as well because their membership rights don't extend to Congresses.

You could go the other way and have a "League membership" and a "Congress membership" without overlap. Expensive yes for those wanting to take part in both and only marginally so in one, but that's the consequence of adopting flat rate per head per year schemes for raising money for the ECF.