The Yorkshire problem

[Andrew Zigmond]

Firstly can I stress that this post, and anything I subsequently say, is written in a personal capacity. There is only one person who has the authority to represent the YCA on this forum and it isn't me.

The YCA will be holding its AGM next month and there will be some debate about whether the YCA League should remain part of the membership and game fee structure. As discussed in previous threads a lot of Yorkshire players are unhappy that the ECF no longer grades games played in the non registered Yorkshire leagues; it was widely believed that Andrew Farthing promised that Yorkshire would receive a concession in this area although there has been some discussion about what he actually said and in what context.

The problem is that there are a lot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations in this debate. Firstly the history; the YCA had a major schism with the then BCF twenty years ago. The substance of this dispute is long forgotten (think Jarndyce vs Jarndyce) and both organisations have changed considerably in that time. However Yorkshire has largely gone its own way for many years and full reconciliation has not yet been achieved.

A lot of people don't realise that the YCA is not Yorkshire. The members of the YCA are the sixteen clubs who participate in the YCA League (actually called the Yorkshire league - I've changed its name here to avoiud confusion). The eight other leagues located within the Yorkshire county have no connection or affiliation to the YCA. It's often overlooked that the ECF is ultimately not a membership organisation, it is a federation and within Yorkshire only the YCA and the Leeds CA are members of the federation. This means that the YCA becomes piggy in the middle.

The purpose of this thread is to try and cut through a few of the issues prior to the meeting (I believe the ECF board will be invited to send a representative). One thing that's occurred to me is that a lot of the Yorkshire leagues don't realise that if they were to join the federation they would gain representation at Council, is the ECF going to build bridges here or simply filter communication through the YCA?

[Sean Hewitt]

...is the ECF going to build bridges here or simply filter communication through the YCA?

The ECF is more than happy to build bridges. What it won't do is grant exemptions to one county or competition. What do you suggest?

[Roger de Coverly]

One thing that's occurred to me is that a lot of the Yorkshire leagues don't realise that if they were to join the federation they would gain representation at Council

I suppose that's possible, but Council representation came in with the Game Fee reforms twenty years ago. At that time elsewhere in the country, local leagues and Congresses were prepared to accept that it wasn't right that only counties should be expected to pay for the BCF. Yorkshire, the county, had various disputes with the BCF and encouraged the independence of local leagues. If the leagues have no direct connection with the YCA, why does it provide a free grading service for them?

[Andrew Zigmond]

...is the ECF going to build bridges here or simply filter communication through the YCA?

The ECF is more than happy to build bridges. What it won't do is grant exemptions to one county or competition. What do you suggest?

I wish I had a suggestion. At present there is an absolute deadlock that seems impossible to break. I do not think the ECF's position is unreasonable.

`The ECF is not grading games played by THEIR MEMBERS`. That is what the ECF will be hearing from a lot of Yorkshire members. One point I've made a few times without ever being answered is who is actually losing out by the ECF not grading games from non affiliated leagues (which are not unique to Yorkshire although we do have a higher concentration of them)? It's a strange system that penalises those people who are giving money to the organisation rather than those who aren't.

[Andrew Zigmond]

One thing that's occurred to me is that a lot of the Yorkshire leagues don't realise that if they were to join the federation they would gain representation at Council

I suppose that's possible, but Council representation came in with the Game Fee reforms twenty years ago. At that time elsewhere in the country, local leagues and Congresses were prepared to accept that it wasn't right that only counties should be expected to pay for the BCF. Yorkshire, the county, had various disputes with the BCF and encouraged the independence of local leagues. If the leagues have no direct connection with the YCA, why does it provide a free grading service for them?

A difficult question to answer because I'm not aware of the exact background for the disputes. I suspect that the behaviour of the YCA was often less than admirable, that was however twenty years ago and I personally refuse to be held accountable for the actions of county officials when I was 12. The question is whether we keep refighting old battle or try and move forward.

A time may come when the YCA ceases its own grading list (it's often conveniently forgotten that the last time a grader retired we had one hell of a job finding a successor) however we haven't reached that stage. While the leagues have no `direct connection` to the YCA there is inevitably a lot of cross over and the dividing lines are blurred.

[Roger de Coverly]

`The ECF is not grading games played by THEIR MEMBERS`. That is what the ECF will be hearing from a lot of Yorkshire members.

It's actually a policy decision by the ECF and the BCF before it. In the voluntary membership scheme of the 1990s which was akin to Platinum membership, there were a number of benefits offered. One of them was the facility to have games graded wherever they are played. It's a facility that the Welsh and Scottish schemes offer to this day. The BCF withdrew the scheme from games played in England and restricted its use for events outside England around ten years ago or more. The reason was that it was suspected it could be used for grade manipulation.

Various membership schemes have been proposed over the years, some of which withdrew grading services from non-members. Basically there are those within the ECF who want to extend universal membership to compulsory membership so demanding £ 2 per game per non-member as a condition for events to be graded is a step in that direction.

In its way it's right for an event to be graded in full or not at all. That's why most chess federations, including FIDE, charge organisers for participation in grading or rating.

who is actually losing out by the ECF not grading games from non affiliated leagues

The finances of the ECF. It's using it as a stick to enforce conformance with its dictates. Try looking at some other sports or even the Indian Chess Federation and check whether playing in unauthorised events doesn't suspend your membership licence to play in authorised ones.

[Sean Hewitt]

`The ECF is not grading games played by THEIR MEMBERS`. That is what the ECF will be hearing from a lot of Yorkshire members.

They should raise this at their local league AGM. Assuming those leagues are democratic, it would be great if players could persuade those leagues to become graded. We already have evidence of that happening elsewhere in the country, and it would be brilliant if it could happen in Yorkshire.

One point I've made a few times without ever being answered is who is actually losing out by the ECF not grading games from non affiliated leagues (which are not unique to Yorkshire although we do have a higher concentration of them)? It's a strange system that penalises those people who are giving money to the organisation rather than those who aren't.

Clearly, it is players in Yorkshire who are losing out from the decision of their local leagues not to participate in the ECF grading system. Of course, that changes if players successfully lobby their leagues to become graded. This is exactly what happened in Cumbria for example who were going to be ungraded, but held an EGM and are now happily back in the grading fold again.

One player from Yorkshire did write suggesting that the ECF could grade the games of members only. Setting aside the damage that such a policy could cause to the integrity of the grading system, I calculated that bronze membership would have to increase by £3 per member in order to cover the financial consequence. I said that if Yorkshire want to make that proposal to the ECF council and council vote for it, the ECF would implement it. I haven't heard from the chap since though.

[Andrew Zigmond]

They should raise this at their local league AGM. Assuming those leagues are democratic, it would be great if players could persuade those leagues to become graded. We already have evidence of that happening elsewhere in the country, and it would be brilliant if it could happen in Yorkshire.

You know that and I know that. The problem (more that of the YCA than the ECF) is getting that message across. One question; if the Yorkshire leagues became ECF registered would they get delegate representation at Council? I assumed this would be a given but Roger appears to have quibbled this.

The ECF has something of an image problem in Yorkshire, not helped by its genuine failings in recent years. I try to correct ill informed perceptions locally when I can, however the ECF needs to promote their vision and the benefits for Yorkshire and the YCA better. I'm trying to play devil's advocate on this thread because, as a pro ECF Yorkshire player, I want any potential delegate from the ECF to know what he's up against rather than going in blind.

[Sean Hewitt]

One question; if the Yorkshire leagues became ECF registered would they get delegate representation at Council? I assumed this would be a given but Roger appears to have quibbled this.

Yes they would. In fact, each league would be entitled to a vote (or two) and a representative. One thing's for sure, it's easier to influence an organisation from the inside than from the outside.

[Roger de Coverly]

One question; if the Yorkshire leagues became ECF registered would they get delegate representation at Council? I assumed this would be a given but Roger appears to have quibbled this.

It's an option they could have had twenty years ago, when the voting franchise was extended beyond counties.

It would be possible for them not to have separate representation but for the YCA to have the additional votes as a consequence of the additional games. There would be some formal issues to get the votes, someone would have to sign the white form to enable them to have guarantor membership and the ECF Directors and Council have to pass a motion or note the new members.

[Andrew Zigmond]

twenty years ago

You keep saying this. Twenty years ago. Twenty years ago. This is not 20 years ago, this is now. Very few people in Yorkshire have a kind word to say about the YCA leadership of the time. Are you suggesting that the current generation (I've drawn attention to my relative youth but there are some key players within the county who are younger) have to atone for their sins? Against the odds Yorkshire have a thriving chess scene in 2013 - do some resent this?

Anyway Sean's answer is the one that matters. If the Yorkshire leagues are reconciled with the the ECF they will get the same rights and influence as everyone else. Which is how it should be?

[MartinCarpenter]

The problem with turning the Yorkshire local leagues ECF graded is the money/very low basic membership levels. No one is going to rush to vote in something which might risk destroying their (mostly pretty sucessful) local leagues. I'd very much support the principle would be really very cautious.

The Yorkshire league is probably going to be able to absorb the ~1k excess charges due at the end of this season but even that might conceivably cause some aggravation. (I have no idea.).

[Andrew Zigmond]

The problem with turning the Yorkshire local leagues ECF graded is the money/very low basic membership levels. No one is going to rush to vote in something which might risk destroying their (mostly pretty sucessful) local leagues. I'd very much support the principle would be really very cautious.

The Yorkshire league is probably going to be able to absorb the ~1k excess charges due at the end of this season but even that might conceivably cause some aggravation. (I have no idea.).

Generally speaking £12 isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things and those players who play regularly in YCA league or congresses will be members anyway.

This may be one for the YCA forum but there is no excess charge. The ECF will bill the YCA £2 per player per game for every Yorkshire League game except for those played by ECF members. The YCA treasurer will then work out which players are involved and bill the clubs for those players.

[MartinCarpenter]

Ok, better phrased that way It is still a collective cost of sorts to the league.

What worries me from looking at Jon's calculator - http://www.chessnuts.org.uk/ny5/ecfgamefees.php - are the multiple division 2 teams who aren't really very strong and have collectively had such low levels of membership that the game fee charge to them is over a hundred pounds. Are they really going to pay when asked? I can see the league having to at least help.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Again, maybe not one for this forum but it's not for the league to help. Previously the YCA league charged a £6 registration fee for each player, even last minute reserves. ECF bronze membership is £13, double the cost but only by the price of two pints of beer and with other benefits attached. Also - and too often overlooked - a one match filler now only costs £2 rather than £6.

For those clubs with large liabilities, their members can join the ECF at any point this season and their membership will backdate to 1st September which will reduce a lot of the liability.