Thread withdrawn

[NickFaulks]

Bit rich coming from you Nick Faulks !

It appears that I am being stalked. Who are you?

[Roger de Coverly]

angus -Roger Emerson’s report to Gold members which is grossly misleading.

I disagree with you on this matter. it was joint up, well thought out asked for comments before on voting intentions. so what more could I want.

I saw that as a reference to the "post meeting" report. Angus says he was asking for a split of costs between the open team and women's team. I don't think that was provided, probably because the ECF or its International Director didn't want to disclose even indirectly what they were paying to the Open team.

I think it's valid that the ECF should endeavour to send its strongest possible team to World and European events, but there's a credibility problem in convincing those paying the funding, whether patrons, donors, sponsors or club and Congress players of the merits of the case.

[Nick Grey]

I have a problem on questioning patrons, donors, sponsors on validity when some want to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
I also believe that it is correct that ECF or its International Director to not disclose directly or indirectly what they were paying to the Open team.
see you on Saturday?

[JustinHorton]

why can't those people who storm into council meetings

people who only come out of the woodwork at meeting time

Both these phrases appear to mean "volunteers who have given up their time to be there" and also appear to be pretty poor characterisations of those volunteers.

[Mick Norris]

angus -Roger Emerson’s report to Gold members which is grossly misleading.

I disagree with you on this matter. it was joint up, well thought out asked for comments before on voting intentions. so what more could I want.

I saw that as a reference to the "post meeting" report. Angus says he was asking for a split of costs between the open team and women's team. I don't think that was provided, probably because the ECF or its International Director didn't want to disclose even indirectly what they were paying to the Open team.

I think it's valid that the ECF should endeavour to send its strongest possible team to World and European events, but there's a credibility problem in convincing those paying the funding, whether patrons, donors, sponsors or club and Congress players of the merits of the case.

Yes, we should endeavour to send our strongest team, but the reason why needs to be "sold" to those who pay for it, whether they are sponsors or ECF members

What's not ok is telling ECF members that sponsors will pay, then not finding sponsors and asking members to pay, and then not disclosing properly what we have paid for (Neither is finding unsuitable sponsors, of course)

As an aside, I really appreciate the time and efforts of the volunteers who are on the ECF Board, even those I disagree with; but I also really appreciate those who give up their time to attend ECF meetings, especially the member reps who consult beforehand, and report afterwards (again, even the ones that I disagree with)

[J T Melsom]

Bit rich coming from you Nick Faulks !

It appears that I am being stalked. Who are you?

I'm not stalking anybody but you might like to think twice before advising others on how to conduct civil discourse.

[Brian Valentine]

I'm not suggesting that the ECF starts paying volunteers. It's more a matter of determining what bronze members get in value.

So are you suggesting that if the ECF's membership scheme were abandoned tomorrow, the volunteers would all down tools? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just wondering what the basis of this discussion really is. I question whether the volunteers do what we do out of love for the ECF.

I'm not suggesting anything changes. My only point is that allocating cash expenditure amongst classes of members, in my opinion, does not serve a useful exercise. Adjustments have to be made where a lot of membership benefit activity is in payment in kind.

[Roger de Coverly]

My only point is that allocating cash expenditure amongst classes of members, in my opinion, does not serve a useful exercise.

Which is where this started, with the opinion expressed seemingly with the approval of the ECF directors that, to paraphrase, the representatives of Bronze and Silver members had no right to complain about International expenditure on the grounds they were not paying for it.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

- That the increases in the adult Bronze membership fee since inception of the membership scheme – from £13 in 2012/13 to £18 in 2019/20 with £20 indicated for 2020/21 – are and will likely be somewhat higher than the rate of inflation for the corresponding periods. What has or will the extra money be used to pay for?

In danger of flogging a dead horse; at the end of the day, it was our fault (us delegates) at last year's [2018 April] finance council for rejecting the silver and bronze merger at £20 (Edit: which I backed). Now, we find that by the end of 2020, Bronze will be up to £20, and Silver will be up to £30.

Our shortsightedness at backing that grassroots proposal, would have prevented the ECF Board from daring to fiddle with the fees for at least a few years. Any future merger will now be even more expensive to members, and more likely to be voted down, meanwhile, trends look like fees will continue with above inflation rises. (Do any of you know how difficult is it to get University students to pay ECF fees [or anything]!? Aren't we supposed trying to get more young people into chess?)

At this point, the idea of fiscal responsibility to keep ECF membership fees down and chess as accessible possible, is a lost cause; I might just give up and stick to arbiting and organizing.

[NickFaulks]

At this point, the idea of fiscal responsibility to keep ECF membership fees down and chess as accessible possible, is a lost cause; I might just give up and stick to arbiting and organizing.

I'm guessing that your events would not be graded, to avoid the need for ECF membership. If so that would be understandable, but in my view not a pleasing development.

[NickFaulks]

I'm not stalking anybody but you might like to think twice before advising others on how to conduct civil discourse.

This bloke obviously doesn't like me, but I assume he's harmless. Is there anything I ought to know?

[David Sedgwick]

This bloke obviously doesn't like me, but I assume he's harmless. Is there anything I ought to know?

I don't think that you need to worry.

[Paul Cooksey]

I'm not stalking anybody but you might like to think twice before advising others on how to conduct civil discourse.

This bloke obviously doesn't like me, but I assume he's harmless. Is there anything I ought to know?

I suggest you say something critical of me or Roger to win Jon over He is a well respected organiser in our area who I suppose has taken exception to criticism of people he respects.

Fiscal responsibility is a good term to describe the point I am arguing. More of that to come. But to Hok's direct point I think Solder membership is a reasonable idea. But as a long term veteran of this debate I am trying to focus more on how money is spent that raised, because we talked about how membership is raised for many years, and identified some bottomless pits of debate.

I would think differently if I thought a combined membership category would help keep membership fees down, but if the ECFs financial objective is to identify how much the members are willing to pay with very limited constraints, I think it might actually drift to silver rather than bronze or the median.

[Hok Yin Stephen Chiu]

At this point, the idea of fiscal responsibility to keep ECF membership fees down and chess as accessible possible, is a lost cause; I might just give up and stick to arbiting and organizing.

I'm guessing that your events would not be graded, to avoid the need for ECF membership. If so that would be understandable, but in my view not a pleasing development.

I meant more personally, I might take a break from over the board chess, and just arbit/organise. For the annual rapidplays at the University/local league that I'm involved in, we would still have to be forced to grade them.

A side point related to what you raised, we set up our online Lichess group 6 months ago, it has more members (60+/160) playing online chess (between each other/in tournaments), than we have members who are ECF members, about ~40/160.

Obviously there is overlap, but something we've found is that ECF membership puts off unsure members from competitive chess, in that we can not guarantee enough games to make it a worthwhile commitment, and when we suggest local congresses, they are unsure about being able to make. By the point a local congress approaches, it costs £x to enter plus silver membership, in a lump sum, as well as society membership, if we organize a minibus for them, which in turn puts a few off.

[J T Melsom]

Paul

For the record I took exception to an earlier post by Nick Faulks which misrepresented my views and for which neither correction nor apology was forthcoming. That is why his advice to Mike Truran about remaining 'civil' sucked. It would take far less effort for Nick Faulks to put his hand up to his original failing, than to try and persist with his current approach. It really is that simple. Thanks for the kind words about my organising.