ECF increased membership costs

[J T Melsom]

However much it may seek to deny it, the ECF imposes a tax on "serious" chess activity. It currently believes that a per head per year levy on individuals is the right and only way to collect such taxation.

That's not true though is it. The ECF Board with the support of Council believes a per head per year levy to be the preferred way. That's a conclusion reached after discussion of other options for which there was some support, but not sufficient for them to be adopted ot retained. You may have misgivings about the democracy at work at national level, but at the last substantive debate at county level a similar conclusion was reached with near unanimity, so you really should try to present your concerns in proper context or move on.

[Adam Raoof]

Organisers, and to a great extent clubs, are promoting the ECF membership scheme and in most cases are just collecting revenue for the ECF and passing it on. The ECF does not send any literature about their membership scheme to me to display at events. One organiser I know deals with this by charging a lot more for non-members, pays the ECF pay-to-play fee, and pockets the difference.

For those talking entry fees (or club memberships) to the new or occasional player, this extra cost is quite difficult to explain. I don't want to dissuade players from playing their first event. I am not sure I could justify an increase in membership costs to players. The excellent grading list and database is the main selling point, but even that comes in for criticism because it is slow to respond to new players, for whom a first grade is the best source of feedback and encouragement to continue playing graded chess.

In Scotland the situation is different - or at least it was last time I checked. All games are graded. If you are a member your grade is published, if you are not - it isn't.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Adam, I don't think that's how the Scottish system works. All ratings are published but only members can look them up online.

[J T Melsom]

I wonder to what extent the points which Adam raises are an almost inevitable consequence of the limited funds available to the ECF. There has been an increase in membership benefits, but these are pretty common to many organisation (ie discount on Fred Olsen cruises) and the newsletter is better than nothing but isn't a magazine or anything. The grading list is the most tangible benefit, but the costs of maintaining a national body, encouraging and growing the support structures for chess through courses for arbiters and similar are less tangible and under publicised. Personally I want to play chess at a reasonable cost and I like the idea that I'm part of a national body, which supports all sorts of chess which although I'm not a direct beneficiary of, maintains the profile of the game I play. A lot of that is a difficult sell because its a bit big picture. A lot of the debate around membership and costs tends to look at similar organisation but not necessarily organisations similar in size.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

I wonder to what extent the points which Adam raises are an almost inevitable consequence of the limited funds available to the ECF. There has been an increase in membership benefits, but these are pretty common to many organisation (ie discount on Fred Olsen cruises) and the newsletter is better than nothing but isn't a magazine or anything. The grading list is the most tangible benefit, but the costs of maintaining a national body, encouraging and growing the support structures for chess through courses for arbiters and similar are less tangible and under publicised. Personally I want to play chess at a reasonable cost and I like the idea that I'm part of a national body, which supports all sorts of chess which although I'm not a direct beneficiary of, maintains the profile of the game I play. A lot of that is a difficult sell because its a bit big picture. A lot of the debate around membership and costs tends to look at similar organisation but not necessarily organisations similar in size.

I am distinctly sure Arbiters courses are often either cost neutral or profit making! If somehow the organisers knows students at universities up and down the country, where students can book rooms for free, it is not exactly difficult or expensive, so to speak. (On an unrelated not, the next arbiters course will be held at the University of Warwick!)

[Roger de Coverly]

All ratings are published but only members can look them up online.

It's less stringent than that. I was able to look up that Andrew Muir's published Scottish Elo is 2262 based on 9 games. There are two other Muirs, one with a 1649 rating and the other 1061.

What I think members can do is access a "live" calculation of their rating. In other words the effect of games played since the last published list.

I'm not sure how many active players there are in Scotland, but their membership count totalled 551 as of a report dated 17th August.

[J T Melsom]

Well if you want to further diminish the value of the ECF to members by claiming potential arbiters pay their way then ok But is the increased number of courses not an ECF initiative or is it an idea of somebody who happens to be a Director? As somebody said in another context with a relatively small number of volunteers ,they wear many hats and its not always clear which hat is in the lead.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Well if you want to further diminish the value of the ECF to members by claiming potential arbiters pay their way then ok But is the increased number of courses not an ECF initiative or is it an idea of somebody who happens to be a Director? As somebody said in another context with a relatively small number of volunteers ,they wear many hats and its not always clear which hat is in the lead.

I'm confused? Potential arbiters always have had to pay, its £30 to take the Level 1 course?

[J T Melsom]

Sorry for any confusion. I was just hoping that in some way the ECF made a tangible contribution to the running of such courses, that could be used as part of the hard sell of what the ECF does for people and why a national body was important. I've no idea about the charges that are applied or whether they reflect true costs. I've not had many of the 'what does the ECF do for me' type discussions in recent years, but clearly for some like potential new members of Adam Raoof's club it is still an issue.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Sorry for any confusion. I was just hoping that in some way the ECF made a tangible contribution to the running of such courses, that could be used as part of the hard sell of what the ECF does for people and why a national body was important. I've no idea about the charges that are applied or whether they reflect true costs. I've not had many of the 'what does the ECF do for me' type discussions in recent years, but clearly for some like potential new members of Adam Raoof's club it is still an issue.

Fair enough - but to not beat around the bush, the primary value to the majority of members is that the ECF provides is the 1) grading of games, and secondary factors including: 2) training arbiters for events, 3) running the British, the Counties Championships, and various tournaments of sorts.. But much beyond that, the other priorities are largely pursuits that don't necessary benefit the majority of members in a direct way, which I believe was the debate, and why this new set of funding proposals have had this reaction (plus that the fact I'm not convinced some of the stuff will break even).

[Roger de Coverly]

But much beyond that, the other priorities are largely pursuits that don't necessary benefit the majority of members in a direct way

The major items of expenditure are and have been for years, the international teams and the office. In times past, both had financial support, international teams from a long term sponsor and both teams and the office from the UK government.

The value or otherwise of international success relative to costs can be debated. Being successful should raise the profile of English chess at the very least.

What hasn't happened is a breakdown of office costs into what they are for. What would you get if you notionally recharged all costs back to an individual director or area of responsibility? As an example if increased office costs arise because of international junior activity, shouldn't this be raised from families of those taking part or the wider community of junior chess activity? At least part of the membership cost must being going on using the office staff to handle membership and membership queries.

[J T Melsom]

Roger

It might be possible to break down staff costs, and have them account for blocks of time, but would it really be desirable or proportionate? I may be naïve but I don't get the impression that the staff are slacking at work or just doing the minimum. I would imagine they work longer than usual. These are good reasons for ensuring they get a decent salary or at least that it is reviewed regularly. There may be a pay freeze in the public sector as a consequence of government policy, but that doesn't mean the ECF shouldn't seek to be a responsible employer.

And in the same way as international activity is a good thing, so too is international junior activity - the costs of those events are already quite high for the families concerned. I know your club has relatively few junior members, mostly borrowed from elsewhere, but presumably you have a discounted membership rate for them, which is presumably is for the same reasons the ECF has lower membership rates for juniors - to encourage them. I myself wondered whether the benefits of club membership were such that the rate should be set at two thirds adult not half, but I note that another large and growing club charges one third or less of the adult fee. Junior participation has challenges but is generally seen as a good thing.

[JustinHorton]

As an example if increased office costs arise because of international junior activity, shouldn't this be raised from families of those taking part or the wider community of junior chess activity?

Not especially, no. We could think of it as a good thing that as a chess community we would like to support, encourage, make easier, see more of.

[NickFaulks]

I've not had many of the 'what does the ECF do for me' type discussions in recent years

I expect that's because everyone knows the answer. They give you a permit to play organised chess.

[Roger de Coverly]

Not especially, no. We could think of it as a good thing that as a chess community we would like to support, encourage, make easier, see more of.

It remains to be seen to what extent the relatively small community of active chess players are prepared to act as a money tree for anything the ECF Directors think is a good idea to spend money on. There's a lot of people making a living out of junior teaching and coaching. Why cannot the ECF have a contribution?