The status quo in relation to MOs is a non starter, I assume even you can agree that is wrongRoger de Coverly wrote: A reason why the Game Fee income dropped a few years ago was when the BCF started making all Internationally rated players into members and again when they launched the NCCU membership scheme and allowed unrestricted access to Game Fee exemptions in Congresses throughout the rest of the country.
General discussions about grading.
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk
In case it isn't obvious, they are hoping to extract a lot more money from clubs and club players who don't play that often. So typically if a club pays around Â£ 35 to Â£ 40 at the moment to enter a six board team in a local league, that's going to increase to around Â£ 100 assuming the league collects ECF's membership fees from the club and they have a squad of 8 players. Congress discounts will actually widen to Â£ 6 per Congress. So Congresses are likely to cost about Â£ 3 less for members (consolidating existing discounts) and Â£ 3 more for non-members. If the membership scheme is rejected, Congress entry fees would likely go up about 50p but the discount would widen to around Â£ 3.50. League fees would be likely to rise to around Â£ 40 to Â£ 45.Simon Dixon wrote: The only way I can see the ECF making more money out of a compulsory scheme is to scrap discounts for members.
Assuming a comparison Game Fee amount of 70p, any Congress player not already an ECF member will be forced by universal membership to save money if they play 27 games or more.
There is a point at which my patience runs out with some of the more recent childish banter - anyone care to find out where this point is by continuing this silly discussion?Simon Dixon wrote:Woo scary man, you don't like opinions that disagree with your blinkered views.Sean Hewitt wrote:Perhaps along with your forum account?
Of course. The penny dropped when someone reminded us that the CCF in Surrey was a Corporate Vice-President and therefore got unlimited games without Game Fee for those of its events deemed internal. Apply this same principle to counties and leagues. Members of say the Leics MO could get unlimited games for no extra cost but only in events run by the LRCA. Seems a reasonable offer if locally they prefer per head costing to per game costing. Those of us who prefer per game costing because it doesn't create a barrier to new and returning players can then keep it for our local events.Mick Norris wrote: The status quo in relation to MOs is a non starter, I assume even you can agree that is wrong
What I like about this thread is that is was intentionally split off from the Summary of Funding Proposals thread because grading and rating were off-topic for that thread, but it's now gone back to that topic and is therefore off-topic again.
You can close my account if you like, it saves having to moan at me for being off topic.Carl Hibbard wrote:There is a point at which my patience runs out with some of the more recent childish banter - anyone care to find out where this point is by continuing this silly discussion?Simon Dixon wrote:Woo scary man, you don't like opinions that disagree with your blinkered views.Sean Hewitt wrote:Perhaps along with your forum account?
Really, dare I point out that you are posting off topic, and by replying I am making the same mistake, I better say my good byes now then.Paul McKeown wrote:Well, you dared him, ...
[cue the funeral march, or the streets of laredo]