ECF Finance meeting 2018

[Carl Hibbard]

The brutal truth is that Malcolm Pein and Mike Truran were the two most influential men in English chess prior to their being on the board and if they resigned today they would still be.

Malcolm is treating the ECF Council with a certain amount of contempt in electing not to attend. It is after all an increase in funding for the International budget that is being sought. For that matter it's apparently not an issue for him to seek endorsement from his home federation of standing on a ticket for the ECU Board, or to take the opportunity to update the meeting on the latest fights within FIDE and gain endorsement for whatever line the ECF proposes to take in the next FIDE elections.

Do we actually think regardless that plans will not fall in line with Malcom's preference?

[JustinHorton]

Malcolm is treating the ECF Council with a certain amount of contempt in electing not to attend.

I understand Klunk has his proxy and a couple of others besides

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Not everyone is a fan of the new membership structure

Would I be correct to say that this upcoming Council is an opportunity for us to vote for an alternative membership structure with a Standard Membership, instead of separate Bronze and Silver?

[Andrew Zigmond]

Not everyone is a fan of the new membership structure

Would I be correct to say that this upcoming Council is an opportunity for us to vote for an alternative membership structure with a Standard Membership, instead of separate Bronze and Silver?

The NCCU have put forward a proposal to that effect, yes. Given that the NCCU is distrusted by many within the North of England, never mind outside of it, I suspect the proposal has little chance of succeeding. My comment needs to be seen in its original context which concerned a side debate about how much progress the ECF has made in 10 years and was an attempt to acknowledge (but not agree with) the view held by a prolific forum contributor.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Not everyone is a fan of the new membership structure

Would I be correct to say that this upcoming Council is an opportunity for us to vote for an alternative membership structure with a Standard Membership, instead of separate Bronze and Silver?

The NCCU have put forward a proposal to that effect, yes. Given that the NCCU is distrusted by many within the North of England, never mind outside of it, I suspect the proposal has little chance of succeeding. My comment needs to be seen in its original context which concerned a side debate about how much progress the ECF has made in 10 years and was an attempt to acknowledge (but not agree with) the view held by a prolific forum contributor.

I know your point was on the progress over the last 10 years - I was just checking that if people are unhappy with the new membership structure, then there's a perfect opportunity to vote for a better alternative at the upcoming meeting...

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

The NCCU have put forward a proposal to that effect, yes. Given that the NCCU is distrusted by many within the North of England, never mind outside of it, I suspect the proposal has little chance of succeeding.

I have indeed heard interesting things on the matter/NCCU.

However, on this particular membership proposal, I've heard an overwhelming amount of positive views on the proposals from clubs inside my own League.

[John Reyes]

The NCCU have put forward a proposal to that effect, yes. Given that the NCCU is distrusted by many within the North of England, never mind outside of it, I suspect the proposal has little chance of succeeding.

I have indeed heard interesting things on the matter/NCCU.

However, on this particular proposal, I've heard an overwhelming amount of positive views on the proposals from clubs inside my own League.

on my side, the opposite!!!

[Mike Truran]

The proposal is to only consolidate Bronze and Silver (at a higher cost for Bronze members and a lower cost for Silver members). Gold and Platinum would remain at different levels, so there is no proposal for a single membership rate across the whole membership body.

As regards your last sentence - as I Gold member myself, I should probably leave it to Bronze members and/or their Council reps to comment as they see fit on a proposal which seeks to charge Bronze members more for a benefit that most of them presumably don't want, and Silver members less for a benefit that they are already prepared to pay for.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

on my side, the opposite!

Fair enough - from my experience, I sent out an email to the clubs and asked for it to the circulated to all club members, and got about 15+ responses from various individuals in my League. Apart from one response, all the others responses varied between (1) being fully in favour, or (2) saying 'I'm personally not against it but perhaps our bronze members might'. What was interesting about those who gave the 2nd response, was that no bronze member from their club informed me of such!

What I gleaned from this, was that perhaps an increase of £4-ish (a rough a pint of beer) isn't really that horrifying to players in my area - considering the additional benefits that the changes will bring to chess as a whole.

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?

The proposal is to only consolidate Bronze and Silver (at a higher cost for Bronze members and a lower cost for Silver members). Gold and Platinum would remain at different levels, so there is no proposal for a single membership rate across the whole membership body.

As regards your last sentence - as I Gold member myself, I should probably leave it to Bronze members and/or their Council reps to comment as they see fit on a proposal which seeks to charge Bronze members more for a benefit that most of them presumably don't want, and Silver members less for a benefit that they are already prepared to pay for.

Quite the contrary! I am a great believer that my informed opinion is as valid as anybody else's informed opinion, so as bronze member myself, I would appreciate your comments, especially since we all get to vote regardless of our membership!

Otherwise, we could be in danger of encouraging a situation where only women should comment on women's chess, or even... only Juniors should comment on Junior Chess!! (I jest, though I do stand by the point haha!)

[John Reyes]

on my side, the opposite!

Fair enough - from my experience, I sent out an email to the clubs and asked for it to the circulated to all club members, and got about 15+ responses from various individuals in my League. Apart from one response, all the others responses varied between (1) being fully in favour, or (2) saying 'I'm personally not against it but perhaps our bronze members might'. What was interesting about those who gave the 2nd response, was that no bronze member from their club informed me of such!

What I gleaned from this, was that perhaps an increase of £4-ish (a rough a pint of beer) isn't really that horrifying to players in my area - considering the additional benefits that the changes will bring to chess as a whole.

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?

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

[Roger de Coverly]

(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.

[Michael Farthing]

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].

[John Reyes]

(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.

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?

[benedgell]

As far as I'm aware I'm representing Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Bristol, Gloucs & North Gloucs, Wiltshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth, a few congresses from the various counties, and one half of the Gold Members' Reps.

Hopefully haven't forgotten anyone.

Haven't checked the voting register lately, so that might not be 100% accurate.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The NCCU have put forward a proposal to that effect, yes. Given that the NCCU is distrusted by many within the North of England, never mind outside of it, I suspect the proposal has little chance of succeeding.

I have indeed heard interesting things on the matter/NCCU.

However, on this particular membership proposal, I've heard an overwhelming amount of positive views on the proposals from clubs inside my own League.

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.