Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:24 am

Angus French wrote: Would all clubs - be they large or small in membership - get the same allowance? Can we be sure that a player's club would be accurately reported in grading submissions?
The grading submission shows the club that the player was representing in the relevant match. The whole point is that it is a grading submission of a club game - whether the player is a member of that club or a different club or no club is quite irrelevant as the player is not being charged. The club is being charged (normally, one hopes, zero) for including non-ECF members in league matches.

I think there is a case for allowing clubs that play more league games to have a bigger allowance. Fairly straightforward (eg 5 games + 5% of league games played, rounded downwards: could conceivably include internal club games. Figures made up on the spot: not to be taken as a thought out suggestion).

I'd be happier with your suggestion, Angus, if bronze were abolished and replaced with your Copper*. I've never really understood why someone playing 20 league games a year should pay less than someone playing no league games but entering four 5-round congresses. [Oh dear - signs of battle lines being drawn up between the member reps :-( :-)]

*Also copper is surely worth more than bronze!

User avatar
Ihor Lewyk
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:50 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Ihor Lewyk » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:05 pm

It is fine to highlight problems with the membership scheme but would Roger have anything constructive to contribute? What would you rather see being done Roger?

Angus French
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Angus French » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:07 pm

Michael Farthing wrote:The grading submission shows the club that the player was representing in the relevant match. The whole point is that it is a grading submission of a club game - whether the player is a member of that club or a different club or no club is quite irrelevant as the player is not being charged. The club is being charged (normally, one hopes, zero) for including non-ECF members in league matches.
The grading files I submit for the Croydon league record: a) a list of players and their clubs (one club for each player); and b) individual results grouped by match with a text description of the match of the format '<home team name> v <away team name>'. I don't think this is sufficient for attributing a result to a club - for example, a player can play for more than one club in a league. Also, isn't it possible for a player's 'club' to be not a club but the submitting league/county or an old club for which they played (perhaps the first club to which they're attributed in the grading list)?... There are other acceptable formats for results submissions and I don't know how they attribute a club to a player.
Michael Farthing wrote:I'd be happier with your suggestion, Angus, if bronze were abolished and replaced with your Copper*. I've never really understood why someone playing 20 league games a year should pay less than someone playing no league games but entering four 5-round congresses. [Oh dear - signs of battle lines being drawn up between the member reps :-( :-)]
Yes, I agree but aren't we then back to discussing the merits of the old game-fee-based system vs. the new membership scheme?
Michael Farthing wrote:*Also copper is surely worth more than bronze!
Er, yes: I'm sure you're right.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:12 pm

Ihor Lewyk wrote:What would you rather see being done Roger?
Abolish membership requirements for leagues and charge on a block basis based on the number of games played. That way if you are filling a team, the cost to the club is the same regardless of whether they use no more players than the number of boards, or whether they use twice or thrice that number. That is after all the revenue model for the 4NCL rather than individual 4NCL membership.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:46 pm

Angus French wrote: The grading files I submit for the Croydon league record: a) a list of players and their clubs (one club for each player); and b) individual results grouped by match with a text description of the match of the format '<home team name> v <away team name>'. I don't think this is sufficient for attributing a result to a club - for example, a player can play for more than one club in a league. Also, isn't it possible for a player's 'club' to be not a club but the submitting league/county or an old club for which they played (perhaps the first club to which they're attributed in the grading list)?... There are other acceptable formats for results submissions and I don't know how they attribute a club to a player.
Angus, read! It does not matter what club a player belongs to or is stated as or whether the player plays for more than one club. The system is based round individual games played by a club using a non-ECF member. Whether that non-member is Fred borrowed from NextDoor Club or Joe who joined last week is irrelevant. That can be ignored. I do accept that the text description of the match might be both inaccurate and incapable of automated extraction to enable straightforward billing and therefore determining that a club has used a non-ECF player would be problematic. However, it would be feasible (and probably simpler) to base the same system round the leagues, and leave it to the leagues to police their clubs if a club overstepped the mark. Internal club games could still be handled on a club basis. [The assignment of a game to a particular league, or (in the case of internal club games) a particular club is already verified and determinable from the database by automation - otherwise games could not be neatly arranged by this classification].

Angus French
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Angus French » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:17 pm

Mike Truran wrote:1. Three games per league, not player. The issue of players playing three games or fewer across more than one league is not particularly significant financially.

2. Players who play more than three games in a league can sign up for Bronze membership at any time before the end of the season. The £25 is only levied if they are still non-members at the end of the season.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not keen on the £25 penalty charge (as already said) or the £3.75 a game charge for 4 games (£3 a game for 5 games etc.). But I think three free games per player per league is generous and would encourage new and (currently) infrequent players - and make it easier for teams to field substitute players at short notice.
Last edited by Angus French on Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Brian Towers » Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:37 pm

Mick Norris wrote:EDIT any chance of changing Pevention to Prevention in the title of this thread?
Let's give it a go.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Ian Wallis
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 6:32 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Ian Wallis » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:25 am

Michael Farthing wrote:*Also copper is surely worth more than bronze!
Er, yes: I'm sure you're right.[/quote]

Doubtful, Copper is a base metal, Bronze is a composite metal made up of predominately copper with a percentage of tin.
Tin is approximately four times the price of copper, ergo Bronze will be worth more than Copper!

Nick Grey
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:54 am

I do not like the £25 penalty charge per league for a player. 4 leagues is £100.
Many clubs happy to pick up the cost of playing a new player to encourage them to play.
Leagues pass fees onto clubs. Is there anyway that ECF can cut out the extra bureaucracy?

There also seems to be a number of players that just want to go to a club and play a few games each night. But the bulk of the current membership of the club will only play an organised match.

Mike Truran
Posts: 2391
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Mike Truran » Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:18 am

The idea is to allow players to try out league chess free of charge for up to three games. If they like it they should then sign up as Bronze members, at which point the £25 becomes irrelevant. As is the case now, they will have the whole season to sign up.

One of the main aims of the proposal is to address the criticism that players/clubs have to start paying the moment a new player tries out league chess.

Nick Grey
Posts: 1156
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Nick Grey » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:26 pm

Under the current system players/clubs do not have to start paying immediately to play league chess. ECF bills leagues or associations a whole year later.

I'm very positive about the free system but any reason why not make it free up to the point where the actual number of graded games equates to Bronze membership.

It really comes to the point where the away team turn up to play a match and the home team are a few players short but have plenty of unregistered players that could play a game.

I was fortunate enough yesterday when faced with a defaulting opponent the arbiter had identified that in the next graded section there was one player with same issue. So got to play a rated game than not. Taking a week off work to play a tournament.

The proposal looks marginal in terms of finance and maybe if that is the rationale why not go for a +£1 membership fee increase.

It is not as if an unregistered player causes an issue compared to football association rules.

Angus French
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Contact:

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Angus French » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:47 pm

Mike Truran wrote:The idea is to allow players to try out league chess free of charge for up to three games. If they like it they should then sign up as Bronze members, at which point the £25 becomes irrelevant. As is the case now, they will have the whole season to sign up.
But what is the point of a penalty fee of £25 as opposed to a charge equal to the cost of Bronze membership (currently £15)? If it's to encourage early sign-up, why does that matter (surely, in the context of the ECF having significant reserves at hand, it's not to address a cash flow problem)? Shouldn't the benefits of membership in any case be sufficient attraction to encourage early sign-up? Adoption of the membership scheme placed an administrative burden on clubs and leagues and they don't need more of that.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18155
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:50 pm

Mike Truran wrote: One of the main aims of the proposal is to address the criticism that players/clubs have to start paying the moment a new player tries out league chess.
That is the fundamental problem with per head per year charging and why it isn't satisfactory for league based chess. £ zero or £ 2.50 per game are just sticking tape to cover up this core problem.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2452
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by MartinCarpenter » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:56 pm

Its quite good sticky tape though - doesn't it basically eliminate the core problem?

The fee will be purposefully set higher than bronze for precisely the same reason the residual game fee was set to escalate higher than bronze quite quickly - to make it so that it is sensible for people to join up as members. I imagine that if the ECF could auto enrol people they would, but they can't.
(There are a few who are genuinely opposed to joining as a matter of principle.).

Michael Flatt
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:36 am
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Chess Prevention tax £ 8.33 a game

Post by Michael Flatt » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:00 pm

I don't think it is intended that leagues will pay the £25 penalty charge for allowing unregistered players to play more than three games. It simply puts the onus on the league organisers to limit unregistered players to their three games before becoming registered.

Organisers and players depend on the ECF grades to be able to run events of evenly matched players. The grading system is essential ingredient for leagues and other competitions to run in this fashion.

Organisers have the option of running Open competitions and not grading events. It would benefit the strongest players and us lesser mortals would probably gain less enjoyment from our games and drop out.

The benefits of three games exempt from grading fees and the simplification of ECF administration by eliminating the work in creating Invoices and chasing payments seem to be overlooked.

Nobody appreciates anything that is free and only value something if it costs them money. My free chess sessions in a local library attracted very few takers, yet my after school chess clubs are over subscribed.

The argument about whether players are being forced to become signed up members of the ECF is rather weak. Players are being required to register to be included in the ECF grading database and whether they wish to exercise the other benefits of ECF membership remains their choice.

Post Reply