ECF U18 / U13 County Championships 2013

[Roger de Coverly]

It would cost £2.50 - £3 per adult to do this.

You should have a debate about how much money you are expecting to raise from the junior sector. If you are including non-members in that cost, then on the basis of a round number of 10,000, you are looking for £ 25,000 to £ 30,000 from the junior sector. Compare that to the last full year of Game Fee and I think you find that because junior only events were charged one third the rate for adults, that a lot less was being raised. The former CEO persistently refused to look at his scheme from this viewpoint and the subsequent ambush in the April 2012 meeting did succeed in reducing the price increase somewhat. That was a defeat of sorts for the membership lobby and they are now trying to exact revenge.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I am sure that there are many cases for potential exemptions. However, for each exemption either the non-exempt have to pay more or the ECF has to do less. For example, we could exempt all juniors from membership if we wanted to. It would cost £2.50 - £3 per adult to do this. This in the context of Council heavily defeating one chap's motion that bronze membership should increase from £13 to £14.

I very much agree with this. However the various threads this debate have spanned have got side tracked by a) the principle and b) strategies for secondary school chess - both issues that provoke strong opinions. The main issue here are practical issues although I agree (in reference to Krishna's messages above that such issues need to be directed to the Junior Director and cannot be resolved on an unofficial forum).

I would say that exemptions do not have to be permanant. I think we all agree that much work needs to be done to restore the standing of English chess and there will have to be changes in the ECF and changes in how we structure junior chess and develop young players. This will not be an overnight process. Surely exemptions can be granted for a fixed term (say three years) with an understanding that by the time elapses the ECF will have delivered X and the organisers with the exemptions will have achieved Y, together with a workable plan of how this will be done.

Also, how much is income a factor for the ECF? Demanding too much too soon may simply drive events outside of the ECF; contrary to the conspiracy theories in some quarters the ECF cannot stop such events from happening, they cannot suppress private grading lists and they (a critical point) cannot stop well run events from attracting sponsorship and investment. In my opinion the ECF need a tactical plan to raise income, not a hard sell that will reduce it.

[Roger de Coverly]

the ECF cannot stop such events from happening,

The missing word is yet. Moving from Game Fee to compulsory membership and introducing Codes of Conduct are both steps in the direction of having the powers of some sports bodies in the UK and some chess bodies overseas, namely to enforce a monopoly by being able to ban players who take part in unauthorised events.

[Andrew Zigmond]

the ECF cannot stop such events from happening,

The missing word is yet. Moving from Game Fee to compulsory membership and introducing Codes of Conduct are both steps in the direction of having the powers of some sports bodies in the UK and some chess bodies overseas, namely to enforce a monopoly by being able to ban players who take part in unauthorised events.

I was tempted to post a link to Bob Dylan's `Talkin' John Birch Society Blues` but thought better of it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I very much agree with this. However the various threads this debate have spanned have got side tracked by a) the principle and b) strategies for secondary school chess - both issues that provoke strong opinions. The main issue here are practical issues although I agree (in reference to Krishna's messages above that such issues need to be directed to the Junior Director and cannot be resolved on an unofficial forum).

I alluded some time back that I was on with some alternatives that I hoped the junior chess community would embrace. I'm pleased to say that early feedback has been positive and, if all goes well, I may be able to announce something in the next few weeks.

Also, how much is income a factor for the ECF? Demanding too much too soon may simply drive events outside of the ECF; contrary to the conspiracy theories in some quarters the ECF cannot stop such events from happening, they cannot suppress private grading lists and they (a critical point) cannot stop well run events from attracting sponsorship and investment. In my opinion the ECF need a tactical plan to raise income, not a hard sell that will reduce it.

The ECF has to ensure that it has enough income to cover its fixed overheads, and pay for the discretionary items that it thinks are worthwhile. The ECF was run on less than a shoestring under game fee, with the result being that it hemorrhaged cash. That should not be the case going forward.

The ECF has embarked on a long term strategic journey of membership (rather than a short term tactical fix). It is pleasing that this strategy seems to have restored the ECF's P&L such that we can start thinking about how to invest for the future without the need for membership fee increases. Of course, we have some work still to do in terms of the balance sheet, but that should be doable too over the next 3 years or so.

Events can of course operate outside of the ECF if they wish. However, membership of the ECF is inexpensive and, outside of CCF and its junior sections, there does not seem to have been a mad rush for the exit. Indeed, we're already starting to see evidence of events which previously were ungraded becoming graded going forward. This is extremely positive development and I hope can be replicated elsewhere by the handful of ungraded leagues and congresses that exist.

[Roger de Coverly]

The ECF was run on less than a shoestring under game fee, with the result being that it hemorrhaged cash.

Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth that came particularly from the North at any attempt to increase Game Fee, is that a surprise? More to the point is surely the reduction in the size of the Battle office.

It is pleasing that this strategy seems to have restored the ECF's P&L such that we can start thinking about how to invest for the future without the need for membership fee increases.

The supporters of membership always seemed to claim that it was in some way cheaper than Game Fee. It would appear they were wrong and the ECF has improved its finances by targeting juniors and less active players.

The ECF has embarked on a long term strategic journey of membership

And this means what exactly? Is it the ECF's strategic intention to introduce compulsory membership, by which I mean that it would not be allowed to play a graded game of chess without having previously become a member? This is the rule that has been introduced for the National Schools and other junior events.

[Andrew Zigmond]

The ECF has embarked on a long term strategic journey of membership (rather than a short term tactical fix). It is pleasing that this strategy seems to have restored the ECF's P&L such that we can start thinking about how to invest for the future without the need for membership fee increases. Of course, we have some work still to do in terms of the balance sheet, but that should be doable too over the next 3 years or so.

Events can of course operate outside of the ECF if they wish. However, membership of the ECF is inexpensive and, outside of CCF and its junior sections, there does not seem to have been a mad rush for the exit. Indeed, we're already starting to see evidence of events which previously were ungraded becoming graded going forward. This is extremely positive development and I hope can be replicated elsewhere by the handful of ungraded leagues and congresses that exist.

However the AGM season will soon be upon us. I desperately want the ECF's strategical plan to succeed (if only because we can't afford more failure) and I think that at least some of the right people are in place. Choosing my words carefully I'm worried that a few organations may lack patience and/ or vision.

[Roger de Coverly]

Choosing my words carefully I'm worried that a few organations may lack patience and/ or vision.

The AGM season is indeed imminent and if we look back over past years, in 2011 it wasn't possible to endorse or oppose the ECF's membership scheme because it kept on changing. By 2012 it was a done deal, so it was a question of how to react to changed circumstances. The question now is whether the ECF is intending to press on and replace universal membership by compulsory membership with an implicit or explicit license to play. If leagues and County Associations are opposed to this, now might be a good time to express opposition particularly with the extension of compulsory membership to some schools events.

[Sean Hewitt]

The supporters of membership always seemed to claim that it was in some way cheaper than Game Fee.

You never compare like with like. Membership came in at the same as the ECF lost the £60k pa DCMS grant. A fact that you always [conveniently] ignore.

[Sean Hewitt]

However the AGM season will soon be upon us. I desperately want the ECF's strategical plan to succeed (if only because we can't afford more failure) and I think that at least some of the right people are in place. Choosing my words carefully I'm worried that a few organations may lack patience and/ or vision.

That may well be the case, but I'm confident that they will be in the minority. The ECF is on the right path but, as I've said before, progress is to be measured in years, not weeks or even months. Anyone looking at the facts objectively can see that progress is being made, but anyone expecting things to be fixed overnight is dreaming. There are some good people on the board, with track records of delivery in their respective fields. I'm hopeful for the future.

That said, I would like to see more people playing an active role within the ECF. There are a number of vacant positions listed on the ECF website - plus I'd like to hear from those interested in working with me on membership and anyone with MS access skills interested in some specific work I have planned.

[Roger de Coverly]

You never compare like with like.

It's the advocates of membership who were doing the comparing. The suggested Game Fee following the loss of the grant was in the 70p to 80p range. So players taking part in a ten game league would be paying something like £ 7 or £ 8 indirectly to the ECF as compared with £ 12 for membership. Supporters of membership denied the validity of this comparison whilst it's now quite obviously driving the ECF's apparent financial health.

It was the same with the original introduction of the NMS. The tagline for that was join the NMS and it will save your club money as well as giving you Congress discounts. What they didn't say was that the cost of joining the scheme exceeded the likely Game Fee savings with the net result that the BCF/ECF got more revenue than the previous year and so the NCCU started agitating to get some of it back as a discount.

To summarise, following the loss of the Grant, the ECF has
near halved the size of the Office
reduced costs for the most active players
increased costs for less active players
increased costs for Juniors or their parents

[YogeshJina]

Update 17MAY2013 -

Entrants to date:
County (Teams per section U18, U13 Open, U13 Minor)

Sussex (1,1,1)
Berkshire (1,0,1)
Kent (1,1,1)
Devon (1,0,0)
Hertfordshire (1,1,2)
Leicestershire (0,0,2)
Lincolnshire (1,0,1)
Essex (0,1,2)
Norfolk (1,0,3)

Totals (7,4,13)


Additionally the following have been indicated that they will be entering, I think they are just finalising their teams before sending in their entry forms:

Middlesex (1,1,0)
Buckinghamshire (1,0,1)
Cambridgeshire (0,1,0)
Oxfordshire (1,1,0)
Nottinghamshire (0,1,0)
Hampshire (0,1,0)

Possible Totals (10,8,14)

Please note that late fees apply after 31st May 2013

Regards, Yogesh

[YogeshJina]

Update 22MAY2013

County (Teams per section U18, U13 Open, U13 Minor)

Entrants to date:
Sussex (1,2,1)
Berkshire (1,0,1)
Kent (1,1,1)
Devon (1,0,0)
Hertfordshire (1,1,2)
Leicestershire (0,0,2)
Lincolnshire (1,0,1)
Essex (0,1,2)
Norfolk (1,0,3)
Hampshire (0,1,1)
Oxfordshire (1,1,0)

Totals (8,7,14)


Probable entries:

Middlesex (1,1,0)
Buckinghamshire (1,0,1)
Cambridgeshire (0,1,0)
Nottinghamshire (0,1,0)

Probable Totals (10,9,15)

Please note - closing date for final entries is 14th June 2013, late fees apply after 31st May 2013.

Regards, Yogesh

[Bobjones]

Suffolk will be entering an u18 team. Entry form on its way.

[Mick Norris]

Greater Manchester now confirmed as 1 each for the Open U18 and U13