ECF increased membership costs

[JustinHorton]

CJ still owes fees to my club.

And not just your club

[Kevin Thurlow]

" CJ still owes fees to my club."

Don't pounce on him near the Thames to ask for it...

[John Reyes]

it will be interested to see how the Silver Members think about this.

also it will be interested to see how the ecf can recommend it?

[Roger de Coverly]

also it will be interested to see how the ecf can recommend it?

It has directors demanding that more money be spent, a treasurer who insists on maintaining a level of reserve funds and a policy that players rather than sponsorship finances the running costs (not that it has sponsorship).

[JustinHorton]

Sensible treasurer, sensible policy

[Nick Grey]

If Roger plays 10 times more than me he ought to be charged 10 times more. That is good policy.

[JustinHorton]

Well not really, because we do actually want people to play more chess. There's a reasonable argument that those who play more should pay more, but a tapering effect is surely desirable no?

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

This thread started by Roger is actually worth a lot of attention, for a number of reasons.

Intentionally ambiguous or not, the ECF appears to have published a breakdown of costs that don't appear to add up properly in their requests for more funding, and seem to lack sufficient clarity that it would be expected in academia or industry:

• (https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... he-ECF.pdf)

The paper C29.12 asks for £26,500 of additional spending. However, the ECF Silver Reps have detailed that the ECF wishes to have £49,500 of additional spending - conversations with insiders indicate that the Silver Reps are closer to the real figures.. It took me a long while, and a lot of consulting to get to the bottom of this:

• 2018-19: Bronze-£16; Silver-£23.50; Gold-£34; Platinum-£70; J Bronze/Silver £5; J Gold £17;

• 2019-20: Bronze-£18; Silver-£27; Gold-£39; Platinum-£75; J Bronze/Silver £6; J Gold £19.5;

• 2020-21: Bronze-£20; Silver-£30; Gold-£41; Platinum-£80; J Bronze/Silver £6; J Gold £20.5;

(Current rates https://www.englishchess.org.uk/members ... hip-rates/)
(Proposed rates https://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-cont ... -rates.pdf)

Percentage Increase over 2 years from 2018-2020: Bronze 25%; Silver 28%; Gold 20%;

At the last Financial Council meeting, delegates expressed a concern that the proposed merger of Silver/Bronze would not give value for money to Bronze members (whilst, those in favour believe it would give people more chess opportunities by reducing barriers for Bronze members to play in Congresses).

Bronze members will now be expected to pay 25% more than at present for no extra benefit (significantly more than 2.7% annual inflation), Silver members will be expected to play 28% more, and Gold, 20%. I think delegates and leagues need to ask whether members are indeed getting 25% or even 28% more value from the ECF over two year? Or perhaps, the ECF can enlighten on the following:

• £17,500 extra on International Chess (on top of last years's £63,000 seems a bit excessive)

• £10,000 extra on a Development Officer seems a bit misplaced, many of the Directors already address much of what the role seems to entail.

When ECF fees start to increase above Student Union fees, then there are serious questions to be asked. (At Warwick University, members have to pay £19 to be allowed to join a student society, and then pay £3 to join the Chess Society, somehow these addition fee charges give me the same vibe as my SU, and that does not fill me with confidence)

The ECF should be making it easier for players to play in Leagues and in Congresses, not start by raising the financial barriers.

I think every League or Congress organiser needs to pay due attention to these proposals, and work out whether it is viable for the long term future of their members and clubs.

It is worth noting that Directors come and go, and their different priorities come and go, however what doesn't change is the desire to increase membership fees; once we set setting the precedence of 20%+ increases, you may find future Boards embarking on similar white elephant ideas.

I am sure a lot of chess players/members of the ECF come from industry, engineering, or a lean thinking background; there is probably a lot of untapped talent that can help the ECF achieve its objectives without setting a precedence of dubiously justified fee increases.

If the University of Warwick Chess Society can get sponsorship, I am quite sure the more experienced, and well-known ECF can secure more sponsorship as an income source.

[Andrew Zigmond]

When ECF fees start to increase above Student Union fees, then there are serious questions to be asked. (At Warwick University, members have to pay £19 to be allowed to join a student society, and then pay £3 to join the Chess Society, somehow these addition fee charges give me the same vibe as my SU, and that does not fill me with confidence)

The ECF should be making it easier for players to play in Leagues and in Congresses, not start by raising the financial barriers.

A glance at my most recent bank statement tells me that I currently pay £5.30 a month for membership of a political party, £7.99 for Netflix and £10.49 for membership of a Union. If my 2021 ECF Gold membership was split across the calendar year it would work out as £3.41 a month which is peanuts really. If I was really that fussed I'd just have to drink one less pint of beer each month and it's problem sorted.

The ECF board (none of whom were the architects of the original membership scheme) have made things easier for players to play in leagues by doing away with the old £2.50 per player per game except if an ECF member and replacing it with a flat rate charge but with the first three games free. This allows teams to blood new players and use very occasional reserves without incurring any costs.

As for congresses, and as I've said many times before, anybody entering a congress with no idea of chess politics would just see ECF membership as a means of gaining a discount. Play in four congresses a year and it pays for itself

Picking up on the `many of the Directors already address much of what the (development officer) role seems to entail` point; I understand what you're saying but ECF directors are unpaid volunteers whose role is often primarily strategic. The payment for a development officer should allow the appointed individual to get out in the `field` and make things happen.

I like to think I do a reasonable amount of chess development work (nowhere near as much as I'd like to be able to do) and I don't see ECF membership fees as a disincentive at all. The reason is that it doesn't make any odds until the player wants to play regular competitive chess, at which point I would need to have that conversation.

[Roger de Coverly]

As for congresses, and as I've said many times before, anybody entering a congress with no idea of chess politics would just see ECF membership as a means of gaining a discount. Play in four congresses a year and it pays for itself

If you look carefully at the development and strategy proposals, you might notice that there's a objective to eliminate "pay to play" completely. What is this other than going the full USCF and demanding membership as a condition of participation?

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

A glance at my most recent bank statement tells me that I currently pay £5.30 a month for membership of a political party, £7.99 for Netflix and £10.49 for membership of a Union. If my 2021 ECF Gold membership was split across the calendar year it would work out as £3.41 a month which is peanuts really. If I was really that fussed I'd just have to drink one less pint of beer each month and it's problem sorted.

I don't think dividing up things into months is such a common way of doing things, but if we look at it in months, I pay £0.50 a month for membership of two political organisations, £0 by not having netflix, and £0 by avoiding the University and College Union, and I save many pints... Ideally, I would be keen to apply that principle across the range of my spending, and on that basis, neither the additional International or Development spending seem particularly value for money.

Right now, I am involved in running a Centenary Rapidplay, and various projects to boost participation across my League, I'm not convinced this fee increase will necessarily deliver more members for our clubs; I believe the fee increase of 25% does not deliver 25% of extra value to ECF members.

The ECF board (none of whom were the architects of the original membership scheme) have made things easier for players to play in leagues by doing away with the old £2.50 per player per game except if an ECF member and replacing it with a flat rate charge but with the first three games free. This allows teams to blood new players and use very occasional reserves without incurring any costs.

As for congresses, and as I've said many times before, anybody entering a congress with no idea of chess politics would just see ECF membership as a means of gaining a discount. Play in four congresses a year and it pays for itself

Picking up on the `many of the Directors already address much of what the (development officer) role seems to entail` point; I understand what you're saying but ECF directors are unpaid volunteers whose role is often primarily strategic. The payment for a development officer should allow the appointed individual to get out in the `field` and make things happen.

I wonder how many more members we would need to break even with the extra spending on a development officer?

I like to think I do a reasonable amount of chess development work (nowhere near as much as I'd like to be able to do) and I don't see ECF membership fees as a disincentive at all. The reason is that it doesn't make any odds until the player wants to play regular competitive chess, at which point I would need to have that conversation.

I would find it very odd, if the same Council that refuse to merge Bronze and Silver (which I thought actually removed barriers to participation), decided to embark on a 25% fee increase jolly...

[Roger de Coverly]

Right now, I am involved in running a Centenary Rapidplay, and various projects to boost participation across my League, I'm not convinced this fee increase will necessarily deliver more members for our clubs; I believe the fee increase of 25% does not deliver 25% of extra value to ECF members.

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

There may be a row building up on this issue. I've had an email from a Congress organiser inviting recipients to contact their representatives to protest, not least about the apparent suddenness of the proposal. It's a popular Congress, so a number of people may have received it.

[NickFaulks]

If my 2021 ECF Gold membership was split across the calendar year it would work out as £3.41 a month which is peanuts really. If I was really that fussed I'd just have to drink one less pint of beer each month and it's problem sorted.

I do get tired of this argument, which can be used about any demand for money. When I pay £3.41 for a pint of beer I know exactly what I'm getting - a pint of beer. When I pay £3.41 per month for ECF membership I'm getting... well, the grading system really. That is valuable but the cost should be closer to £3.41 per annum.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

If my 2021 ECF Gold membership was split across the calendar year it would work out as £3.41 a month which is peanuts really. If I was really that fussed I'd just have to drink one less pint of beer each month and it's problem sorted.

I do get tired of this argument, which can be used about any demand for money. When I pay £3.41 for a pint of beer I know exactly what I'm getting - a pint of beer. When I pay £3.41 per month for ECF membership I'm getting... well, the grading system really. That is valuable but the cost should be closer to £3.41 per annum.

I'm distinctly sure the value-adding part of the ECF, the grader administrator(s?) do not get paid anywhere near £3.41 * 12 months * 10,000 members...

There may be a row building up on this issue. I've had an email from a Congress organiser inviting recipients to contact their representatives to protest, not least about the apparent suddenness of the proposal. It's a popular Congress, so a number of people may have received it.

We come different standpoints often; but when we are in agreement, the ECF has certainly gone a bit wrong haha!