It's instructive to apply these PIs to the 'Game Fee' model. For a start, Game Fee hardly ever raised enough money for ECF. That's why every Finance meeting involved a squabble over 42p v. 45p and similar. And Game Fee did nothing to staunch the long slow decline in participation in the game.Roger de Coverly wrote:Please define success or failure.Phil Neatherway wrote: Do you want the membership scheme to be a success?
We can I think agree that it fails if it doesn't raise enough money for the ECF.
Is it also a failure if the ECF has to propose considerable increases for 2013-14?
Is it a failure if the numbers of individuals playing graded games is down on 2011-12?
Is it a failure if the number of graded games played is down on 2011-12?
Is it a failure if player turnover is greater than normally seen, both in terms of players apparently retiring and new players not replacing them?
Is it a failure if the number of chess tourists, Scots, Welsh and others taking part in English Congresses is reduced?
What Roger de Coverly now demands is that a Membership scheme should reverse that decline, or be judged a failure. That's some brass neck he's got!