ECF Finance meeting 2018

[Michael Farthing]

Well when I first became a rep R de C was quite scathing about my chances of achieving anything, but today a motion I had pioneered was passed nem con. So there! [OK it was only an administrative regularisation, but still!]

[Andrew Zigmond]

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.

You've been eating marketing textbooks again you can't design a club that appeals to everyone, it's impossible. Some players will only feel welcomed in a beery, blokey, Geordie-speaking environment. A couple clubs deliberately cultivate that. As a geeky teetotal choir boy with red trousers who spoke only English, I felt pretty out of place visiting those clubs. I started my own, in the end.

Well marketing textbooks might make a good snack when I'm running home from the pub to catch up on a load of chess admin before heading back for the rest of the night (I kid you not, that's what I'm doing right now) but I prefer a Mars bar myself!

Seriously, I'm not speaking from any textbook but simply from my experience of trying to grow the player base locally. Which I've not been as successful at as I'd like but I do have nine 12-14 year olds learning chess with me on a Thursday. That would have been good going in the 1990s. My point, which I stand by, is that the ECF may set the charging framework but they can't organise our leagues and club nights. Blaming ECF fees for a declining player base is an easy option. If a chess night is worth going out for, £20 a year is no big deal (even if it was that much, which it isn't).

You're right that some players enjoy a pub atmosphere while others don't. Some will happily go to both. I'm not being holier than thou about my local chess scene but I'll get that in order first before going after the ECF. Not vice versa.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Summary Report to the Coventry and District League (some votes were different for my BUCA proxy); included here for the interest of those of you who weren't able to make it.

-----

Item 1-5: (1) Appointment of Chair (2) Minute’s silence (3) Notices (4) Approval of last meetings’ minutes (5) Matters related to last meeting’s minutes; all of which I missed due to train issues.

-----

Item 6: ECF Budget


Summary: Membership fees unchanged, apart from an increase for Junior memberships to £5, so the jump then from Junior to Adult membership is less steep. There were some trivial side issues, and an astonishing amount of debate surrounding the removal of the £1 discount for buying membership online, which some people argued amount to a price increase.


Outcome: Council voted in favour (including me)

-----

Item 7(a): Governance – Special Resolution


Summary: Changes to voting register regulations – largely unimportant to CDCL.


Outcome: Council voted in favour (including me)

-----

Item 7(b): Governance – Change to Board


Summary: The Board originally planned to remove the Directorship of Womens’ Chess after no one ran to succeed the last Director.


The Board decided to withdraw the changes; it transpires there is now at least two individuals planning to run for the Directorate vacancy.


Outcome: One of the Reps were glad that the Directorate was kept in place; as was I. I made a brief comment, words to the effect of “If the Directorate of Home or International Chess was vacant, the Board would do its absolute most to fill the vacancy, over proposing to divide up the responsibilities among the remaining Directors. In light of the gender imbalance in chess and that this aspect of chess is an ECF priority, the removal of the Director for Womens’ Chess would send the wrong messages and be a step backwards.”

-----

Item 8: County Championships


Summary: There was some controversy surrounding the initial consultations; for the Council meeting, a number of proposals were made with regards to the outcomes of the consultation.


8.1 Reduction in number of players per team for certain sections.


I believe the rationale was to ensure that counties with insufficient players could field teams. But there was some who pointed out that at the grassroots, the Unions already decide different rules at the Union stage.


Outcome: Council rejected the proposals; I abstained – it was difficult to exercise my opinion on something that I did not partake in, and the CDCL does not itself partake in.


8.2 Although different to the explicit wording of the proposal, the debate turned to the implication that the Minor Counties Championships will be removed.


Outcome: Council rejected the proposals; I abstained, similar reason to 8.1.


8.3 FIDE-rating a few more sections.


Council rejected the proposals; I voted for, because I think it is a good thing overall.

-----

Item 9: Merging Silver and Bronze to a Standard Membership at £20


This proved contentious, despite a jovial remark that the effective increase for current bronze members was £4 – roughly a pint of beer – I was reminded by a member of the Board that if the £1 price increase in Item 6 caused anguish, then this would be 4 times the anguish…


Effectively, the argument against was that Bronze members may be unhappy with the price increase, but I took the opinion that it would be better for English Chess as a whole - by encouraging people to play more chess. This was based on my earlier consultation with clubs in the CDCL, where I received 16 responses, one cautiously against, and all the remaining either in favour, or in favour personally but nuanced by recognised that some Bronze members may be unhappy.

The point I made could be summarised as follows, “The standard membership proposals will get rid of the artificial barrier before League and Congress chess, which are both ECF-rated chess. Fundamentally, as Leagues organise more Rapidplays, etc, the distinction between League chess and congresses/tournaments is getting more blurred, and rightly so - we should have a simple membership system where it is no additional hassle for people wanting to play League chess, or in Congresses, or a bit of both.” This was to no avail.


Outcome: For – 63; Against – 233; Abstain – 10;

-----

Item 10: Casual Chess


Summary: Casual Chess is an independent chess club based in London with a focus on getting more women and other underrepresented groups into chess, funding was sought to expand its work in London and hopefully grow across the country. The main issue was that there was no breakdown in the initial proposal for the £6,000.

The proposer confirmed the request was a one-off, not an annual grant.

I asked what resources/inventory Casual Chess current has, the answer was 40 clocks, sets and boards.

I made a query with regards to the reference that it attracted 500 women to its Beginners course over the past year, as the wording of the proposal used the word "reached 500 women", so clarify was needed. [POI: the University of Warwick, the largest university chess society in the country, would struggle to hit that]. With some additional points made from the proposer, the number was effectively confirmed by the proposer.

I did not wish to question this issue further, but I heard another delegate comment that 500 women x £10 would raise much of the £6,000 needed. I appreciated that the proposer was averse to asking individuals who would normally be unlikely to play chess to fundraise in such a way, however, if Casuals Chess was attracting 500 individuals for its Beginners course alone over a period 12 months, it is doing something right, in which case an alternative model could be devised that would be able to raise much of the funds needed as a one-off, whilst being inexpensive to its members.

Overall, the work of Casual Chess was commended, many people advised the proposer to work with the new Director of Womens Chess, and an assortment of chess organisation that would be able to assist.

Afterwards, I personally gave the proposer advice that some of her work does not necessarily need £6,000, as she could get in touch with local Universities for volunteers [if the University of Warwick sends volunteers to a local school and an academy, then being close to UCL, Kings, Imperial, etc, there is no shortage of strong chess clubs that would take kindly to requests to help coach at Casual Chess].


Summary: Council voted against giving funding.

[Paul Cooksey]

Thanks, always useful to see these reports.

Can anyone give a more detailed report on the budget? Was the position on international spending raised?

[Angus French]

...Fundamentally, as Leagues organise more Rapidplays, etc, the distinction between League chess and congresses/tournaments is getting more blurred, and rightly so - we should have a simple membership system where it is no additional hassle for people wanting to play League chess, or in Congresses, or a bit of both.

A league-organised tournament, so long as it's restricted to players in the league, counts as a closed event and only requires Bronze membership. See here.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

Thanks, always useful to see these reports.

Can anyone give a more detailed report on the budget? Was the position on international spending raised?

Apologies - I was late and missed the bit on International Spending, I was also asked by Warwick University to ask about details of ECF Academy spending (some of the Warwick Uni committee were curious whether necessarily all the spending was value for money), but my lateness meant I didn't get to. [I should've on hindsight asked the relevant Director at the break]

All I can deduce is that when one of the Board Members said afterwards that the £1 issue caused anguish, so I expect the International Budget to have been fully scrutinised; and there may have been a card vote on something contentious before I arrived (card votse usually suggest that the issue was contentious - I think)...

...Fundamentally, as Leagues organise more Rapidplays, etc, the distinction between League chess and congresses/tournaments is getting more blurred, and rightly so - we should have a simple membership system where it is no additional hassle for people wanting to play League chess, or in Congresses, or a bit of both.

A league-organised tournament, so long as it's restricted to players in the league, counts as a closed event and only requires Bronze membership. See here.

I appreciate this and will look into it; however, my understanding is that with the Warwick Uni, Leamington, the proposed-Coventry (and the Birmingham Rapidplay) close by and organised by different but overlapping Leagues, we want players to play in as many of them as possible (due to their proximity) and really facilitate the growth of local chess in our "Warwickshire-ish" area.

[Roger de Coverly]

really facilitate the growth of local chess in our "Warwickshire-ish" area.

If you run a closed shop event for ECF members only, you might be increasing the amount of chess played by established players, but what you aren't doing is increasing the number of players. Which one is the priority?

[Roger de Coverly]

the removal of the £1 discount for buying membership online, which some people argued amount to a price increase.

For those who always renew online, it is a price increase.

Although the then CEO argued that it would be cheaper to collect from 10,000 individuals rather than 300 organisations, in practice collecting memberships must be a considerable load and thus expense on the Office. The intent of the £1 discount was that it was cheaper for the ECF to have people renew or join online rather than by phone or post, because less back office work was needed.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"and an astonishing amount of debate surrounding the removal of the £1 discount for buying membership online, which some people argued amount to a price increase."

Probably because it does, but not a large one.

"Effectively, the argument against was that Bronze members may be unhappy with the price increase, but I took the opinion that it would be better for English Chess as a whole - by encouraging people to play more chess."

I'm not sure how it encourages people to play more chess. What it would do is simplify things. Simple is good. Tournament organizers have to do the work when a bronze member actually enters one of their events, and anyone who has actually run a chess event will know that you have enough to do without collecting money for somebody else! And I'm sure the different membership levels must be a pain for anyone collecting the money, especially if they have to keep explaining why.

Anyway, it was a very useful report, and thanks for that.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

really facilitate the growth of local chess in our "Warwickshire-ish" area.

If you run a closed shop event for ECF members only, you might be increasing the amount of chess played by established players, but what you aren't doing is increasing the number of players. Which one is the priority?

This is my gut feeling from my experience with my University members, but I think it would have been easier for me to persuade non-ECF members at the University to buy a Standard membership - as they would get both League chess and Congress chess in a package, instead of psychologically treating the current Silver as a more expensive membership.

In summary, from increasing the amount of chess played by established players, the Standard membership would make it more simple for new players to join as members, instead of having to first decide whether they want to play League chess and/or Congress chess, the Standard membership would give new members flexibility.

the removal of the £1 discount for buying membership online, which some people argued amount to a price increase.

For those who always renew online, it is a price increase.

Although the then CEO argued that it would be cheaper to collect from 10,000 individuals rather than 300 organisations, in practice collecting memberships must be a considerable load and thus expense on the Office. The intent of the £1 discount was that it was cheaper for the ECF to have people renew or join online rather than by phone or post, because less back office work was needed.

I didn't and don't contest that it is a £1 price rise, I was merely reminded by a Board member that a £4 increase would be 4 times the anguish!! @Roger @Kevin I don't disagree with you, I was simply summarising the debate for my CDCL audience, to give them perspective why the Standard Membership subsequently did not pass

I'm not sure how it encourages people to play more chess. What it would do is simplify things. Simple is good. Tournament organizers have to do the work when a bronze member actually enters one of their events, and anyone who has actually run a chess event will know that you have enough to do without collecting money for somebody else! And I'm sure the different membership levels must be a pain for anyone collecting the money, especially if they have to keep explaining why.

Anyway, it was a very useful report, and thanks for that.

Effectively, I think it does encourage people to play more chess. Here's an example of a Warwick University context:

The Society charges member £3 for a year. But because the Society is an "Warwick SU" society, Warwick SU charge a £19 Societies Federation fee before students can join the Society (it's a scam - the SU may claim to be left leaning, but it certainly knows how to make money off poor students - however I digress). Anyway, as the ECF fine/charge the Society (through our League) if non-ECF members play for us, as President it was far more important to not get charged at the end of the year, then collect £3 membership fees (and making our members cough £19 to the black hole - that is the SU).

This is the usual conversation, I have:

Chess player at Warwick (like a 80 - 110 level player, i.e. played at School, but University distractions could easily attract them to do other things that is not Chess): "What membership should I get?"

Me/Society: "If you want to represent the University in any of our 5 League Teams, or at the End of year Universities Championships, you need ECF Bronze; if you want to join members like myself to play in events like the Classic or the British, or local congress, you will need Silver".

Chess player: "okies, I shall get Bronze then as it is cheapest"

Then, times comes to a local Congress/Rapidplay/London Classic, " who wants to join for a trip to *said event*?"

Many players at that level often don't feel like they want to upgrade to Silver, as well as figuring out transport, etc, etc, and simple don't play in these events.

Therefore, my opinion is that, if everyone is on a Standard membership, these players would be more likely to be peer pressured to join their mates to go along to more Congresses/Tournaments.

But if I look at the big picture, where our players want to run for Committee positions, then the £19 SU fee must be paid. So we are talking separate payments, our members are paying £19 + £3 + Bronze + Costs to represent Warwick Uni at the Universities Championships, so then they are far less inclined to go through the hassle of upgrading to Silver, and then have make an active effort to find more Congresses to play in - to make it value for money. Instead, with a Standard membership, it gives our players more flexibility to play in more events, without adding the decision making process of whether the upgrade is value for money at the time.

[NickFaulks]

an astonishing amount of debate surrounding the removal of the £1 discount for buying membership online, which some people argued amount to a price increase

I don't remember anyone arguing that it doesn't. The Board admitted the fact quite freely, and furthermore that the extra money came in very handy because otherwise the similarly sized hole which had appeared in the Budget would have had to be filled in some other way.

I couldn't help suggesting that this might look to some like a cunning plan, but believe the assurance of the CEO that it was just a lucky bounce.

[Roger de Coverly]

In summary, from increasing the amount of chess played by established players, the Standard membership would make it more simple for new players to join as members, instead of having to first decide whether they want to play League chess and/or Congress chess, the Standard membership would give new members flexibility.

My point is that if you want new players, you don't impose individual membership requirements at all. That's an avenue the ECF blocked off with the consequence that it's just ticking over at replacement level, if that.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

In summary, from increasing the amount of chess played by established players, the Standard membership would make it more simple for new players to join as members, instead of having to first decide whether they want to play League chess and/or Congress chess, the Standard membership would give new members flexibility.

My point is that if you want new players, you don't impose individual membership requirements at all. That's an avenue the ECF blocked off with the consequence that it's just ticking over at replacement level, if that.

I think we both agreed on the policy of the first 3 games being free - and I would tentatively agree that not imposing individual membership requirements is best for new players, our Fresher Rapidplay (not rated and free) drew 50+ University players, whilst at the rated-Uni Rapidplay, we got about 20 Warwick University players & 30+ outsiders.

If I infer correctly, presumably you are in favour of Game-fee, whereas I was not off that generation to experience Game Fee, so simply compare changes/proposals to membership with reference to the current system. In that regard, I suspect you are not in favour of either the current membership system or the proposed Standard Membership, and that is your right!

[benedgell]

There was a lot of discussion on the International budget. A motion was passed along the lines of "Council requests the International Director provides a more thorough breakdown of the costs for the International teams at the Olympiad (appearance fees, travel etc)" Obviously it would be unfair to publish it seperately for each individual, so the intention is for the ID to show the total costs of each of these.

[Roger de Coverly]

If I infer correctly, presumably you are in favour of Game-fee, whereas I was not off that generation to experience Game Fee, so simply compare changes/proposals to membership with reference to the current system.

Game Fee was just a method, but one that linked to a readily available record of activity. Basically you confine individual membership to the Platinum category and the ECF raises money from everybody else in proportion to the amount of chess they organise.

If you want to give discounts to the most active players, you use a loyalty points method. That's basically how the English Bridge Union run membership.

Congresses, Counties and Leagues are voting members of the ECF and show no signs of wanting to give up these powers. They should pay for their membership.