I don't intend to determine whether the area of my League is particularly poor or wealthy, like most places it is probably a mixutre, but I certainly do not represent constituents of millionaires in the Coventry and District League (for the record!!)John Reyes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:51 pmI can understand what you are saying, but look at the number, there is over 5 thousand bronze members!!
I would love them just to pay £15, as there are places in the uk who live in poor areas and the end of the day chess should be cheap to all, like darts is
If I may put this into context, I don't think a £4 increase will put people off chess, in fact, the nature of the changes would in fact facilitate more chess being played!
I know I speak from the conditions of my League, but in the Local area, there is the Leamington Rapidplay, and from 2018 February, the Warwick University Rapidplay, the organisers for Leamington shared with me that many people would ve liked to play but thought it was not worth paying the extra as a one-off cost to play in either! (Fyi, the Warwick Rapidplay was £5 entry, and 100% of entries went to prize money, so we really did try!)
Next year 2019 is the Centenary Year for the Coventry and District League, and we are planning a Coventry Rapidplay for the occasion that we hope will be an annual thing. Therefore, from such a perspective and considering that League chess in our area is not as vibrant is it was 40 years ago, we wish to get people playing more, regardless of whether it is League or weekend tournaments, we feel that the merging of Bronze and Silver will be a great step towards encouraging an increase in the overall amount of chess being played in our area.
-----
If you believe that Gold membership is disproportionately more expensive that Silver for the additional FIDE charge, I think you should take it up with Council, but that should be a separate issue to encouraging more local chess (be it League or tournaments) by merging Silver and Bronze.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:01 pmAnyone would think that FIDE charge an arm and a leg for international rating. In the context of a rated Swiss, you would scarcely notice if Congress organisers had to finance the costs through a levy on entry fees. It would be around 50p to £ 1 a player in the context of entry fees of around £ 30.Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:01 pm(2) a Gold Membership for who people who want to play ECF-rated Chess AND FIDE-rated Chess (where FIDE charge for rating) - which is what this proposal is making?
No, it's just the ECF refusing to admit the consequences of a flat rate membership scheme, which is that it would charge the player of 5 games a year the same as the one who plays 105.
Regarding you point about 5 games and 105 games, the notion that 'you should pay more if you play more' isn't the case now and damages the overall amount of chess being played by creating unnecessary barriers between League and congress chess.
Since the current system does not follow this idea, why not have a better system that tries to actively encourage more people to play more chess by removing such an odd artificial barrier to local chess?Hok Yin Stephen Chiu wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:01 pmCorrect me, if I am wrong: I believe the opposition to the proposals stems from the mantra of "you should pay more if you want to play more". This seems fair on face value. But in practice, the current system doesn't adhere to this!
The mantra is only true for someone who only plays League chess (buys Bronze) and then upgrades to Silver to play [more chess] in Congresses/Tournaments.
But, it is fundamentally inconsistent, for someone who only plays in Congresses, but not League chess - who will have to get Silver without a choice!
Surely, it makes more sense just to have (1) a Standard membership for everyone who wants to play ECF-rated Chess, and then (2) a Gold Membership for who people who want to play ECF-rated Chess AND FIDE-rated Chess (where FIDE charge for rating) - which is what this proposal is making?
-----
I personally think there is more merit is combining Silver and Bronze, the two primarily ECF-rated systems first, which affects local chess more -Michael Farthing wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:29 pmRoger is right about this. Indeed, in a climate where the Home Director is quite keen on expanding the use of FIDE rating there is actually more sense in uniting silver and gold then uniting bronze and silver.
The silver responses we have received often come from club officials, many of whom express concern at the barrier to entry to bronze level as it is. It should be remembered that clubs differ: for example, some submit a large number of their internal games for grading; others keep club nights as more informal games - maybe without clocks or at shorter duration. The former will find it much easier to get a new member to join; the latter might only attempt it when trying to get a new player to enter an inter-club match - and the bronze fee is a lot for one game! [Caveat: the recent changes allowing three free games helps here of course, and some silver responses have mentionede that with approval].
before considerations about increasing the use of FIDE rating.
On that note, at present, it is actually no extra cost to get rapidplay FIDE-rated for no extra cost at Silver membership, so encouraging the use of FIDE-ratings can start from there. The Inaugural Warwick University Rapidplay (which had 53 entrants) and the Leamington Rapidplay (98 entrants) were both FIDE and ECF rated, hence required Silver, and both Rapidplay got responses that more people would have play if there wasn't the need to upgrade to Silver.
So, the proposal is amounts to only a £4 price increase (instead of a £7.50 increase), takes away the upgrading hassle, and removes the psychological barrier of deciding whether it is more economical to upgrade or pay a the one-off congress fee.
Indeed I agree the three free games have helped hugely and that the ECF should be applauded, this year the ECF charges on non-member payments have decreased by 2 thirds as a result of this and really helps facilitate University chess - certainly at Warwick, the largest University chess society...
-----
Indeed, you might not see me if I don't get all my coursework finished!John Reyes wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:31 pmcan't wait for tomorrow then!!!
I do wonder who will be the kingpin (proxy votes as ben edgell have a big amount at the meeting?
-----
The University of Warwick before the three free games system had to pay £300+ of fees to the ECF, so, the new system of three free games has certainly helped, and when someone's played three games, its easier to make them pay up or stop them play anymore games if they don't (or resign to the fact we pay lots of money to the ECF if they pay more than 3 games).Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:40 pm
There are arguments for and against. I agree with Michael Farthing's point (via his respondents) that the hardest part of the membership structure to sell is telling infrequent league members that they've got to stump up £17. An extra £7 on top of that should they wish to enter their first congress isn't quite as problematic and actually offers an incentive to do a second (and a third, and a ..) to get their money's worth.
I'll throw something else into the mix. The ECF ultimately aren't responsible for the `product`. Is your club/ league welcoming and forward looking or does it just tick along amateurishly in a dingy pub function room? Give players a better incentive to come along and they'll be more willing to meet the required fees.
Regarding the extra £7, I addressed that issue a few lines earlier - but would reiterate, it is not 'problematic' per se, but I certainly think the proposals will encourage more chess being played overall by removed these artificial barriers between congress and league chess.
"Is your club welcoming" I think I've answered that simply by being from the University of Warwick - to entertain your progressive taste buds the new Committee is 40% female, so I'd say fairly welcoming!
"Is your League welcoming" I can't give a yes/no answer; in the League Committee, we run the League, a Summer Cup, Knock Out, a Divisional Cup, (though Coventry and Warwick Universities only partake in the first) and if our Centenary Year Rapidplay takes off, then there will be 3 Rapidplays in the local area (not including the Birmingham ones), we are by no means the leading League in the country, but I think the Standard Membership merger will facilitate and encourage more players in our area to play more chess as a whole