ENG FIDE Ratings must be ECF Members

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >If Max only plays in Norway and Greece, that doesn't trigger any work for the English IRO.<

That may, or may not be true - provided everything goes fine. But what about if some error gets made in Max's rating or anybody else's? I have helped sort out players' ratings from all over the world - and I have never been even an IRO.

Stewart Reuben

[Simon Brown]

... probably less than the cost of the bottle of wine I have consumed (with my wife, I should add) this evening.

You ate your wife with some fava beans and a nice chianti???

Yes, fair point. Actually I didn't want anyone to assume I had drunk a whole bottle by myself - my wife and I are partaking of a similar bottle this evening.

[Simon Brown]

Seriously though...

The thread participants (myself excepted) are mainly people who are familiar with the ECF "charging system", for want of a better phrase, yet few if any seem to understand it entirely. That suggests it is too complex to work properly.

Stewart will probably remember that I thought Game fee was a bad idea when I was on the BCF board in the early 90s. I still do.

[Stewart Reuben]

Simon Brown >Stewart will probably remember that I thought Game fee was a bad idea when I was on the BCF board in the early 90s.<

You have more faith in my memory than I have. Presumably you also think there should be a road tax on cars, but no tax on petrol used.
The worry that people should legitimately have: is that too high a proportion of the money collected is spent on collecting that money. If memory serves me correct (see just above) it used to be about 35%.
The other concern is that money is collected in taxation and then it is redistributed to the benefit of the tax payers. Of course there will be some wastage in this. Governments are very prone to this.
This is what Andrew Farhing is looking ito, amonst other matters. We have had nobody with comparable skills while I have been involved with British chess.
From the viewpoint of the BCF, the levy was extremely efficient. The money was collected from 40 counties or so. Sadly it broken down after 10 years because of the inherent lack of logic. Membership plus game fee has at least lasted about 25 years so far.

Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

No, it doesn't.

The Stockport League pays for any games played by people who aren't Basic members of the ECF.

This means the Stockport League has exactly the same status as every other league in England. It's just that the area around Stockport has far more Basic members than, say, Kent.

Well I looked up Basic members and I still dont understand how it works, but I think your telling me that if I was a northern counties member I could tell the Stockport league not to pay any game fee for me.
However as I am a direct member they still have tio pay.

Bob, let me explain:

Basic members: Pay £12 membership. No event they play in pays any Game Fee for those player's games. Not in any circumstance, ever.

All the other memberships: Pay whatever the price is, but more than £12. Any Congresses games they play are Game Fee exempt. Any Leagues they play are not.

This is why there was a fuss about the 4NCL. The 4NCL is a League, and thus there was no Game Fee exemption automatically bestowed upon them that Congresses would have. This was compounded by the problem that "everyone" had to be a member to play in it, because it was a FIDE-rated event.

Why does £12 seemingly make you better off than the other memberships? Because almost everyone has to be a basic member in a region in order to be allowed to run this system. This is the hub of the argument with Game Fee v Membership.

This highlights another problem of the current system, people have no idea exactly how much they are paying the ECF.

Correct.

[Mick Norris]

Bob, let me explain:

Basic members: Pay £12 membership. No event they play in pays any Game Fee for those player's games. Not in any circumstance, ever.

All the other memberships: Pay whatever the price is, but more than £12. Any Congresses games they play are Game Fee exempt. Any Leagues they play are not.

Why does £12 seemingly make you better off than the other memberships? Because almost everyone has to be a basic member in a region in order to be allowed to run this system. This is the hub of the argument with Game Fee v Membership.

This highlights another problem of the current system, people have no idea exactly how much they are paying the ECF.

Correct.

This is the MCF problem (or mine anyway) that it can't be right that any games played by ECF members in the Manchester League are subject to game fee, but those played by NMS members are not

It cannot go on as the ECF cannot justify this - will the MCF be allowed to form an MO? If not, and the MCCU was turned down I remember, can the NMS be allowed to continue? There is no way this would stand up in court IMO

[Sean Hewitt]

This is the MCF problem (or mine anyway) that it can't be right that any games played by ECF members in the Manchester League are subject to game fee, but those played by NMS members are not

It cannot go on as the ECF cannot justify this - will the MCF be allowed to form an MO? If not, and the MCCU was turned down I remember, can the NMS be allowed to continue? There is no way this would stand up in court IMO

One of the real faux pas of the MO system is that leagues like the Manchester league got any MO benefit at all. It is not in a county nor a union that runs an MO.

Of course, MCF should have been allowed to run an MO themselves provided that they made best endeavours to ensure all their players became members. I'm sure they'd have made a better fist of that than Yorkshire.

[Mick Norris]

One of the real faux pas of the MO system is that leagues like the Manchester league got any MO benefit at all. It is not in a county nor a union that runs an MO.

Of course, MCF should have been allowed to run an MO themselves provided that they made best endeavours to ensure all their players became members. I'm sure they'd have made a better fist of that than Yorkshire.

I did think about an MO, but given we have clubs that have 100% of members in another MO, I didn't think it practical

Then the MCCU were going to have an MO, and I thought that solved the problem of those who didn't want to join the NMS and be labelled as Cheshire/Lancs/Merseyside as applicable

If game fee persists, I think we'll have to go for an MO although some will want us to leave the ECF

[Alex Holowczak]

If game fee persists, I think we'll have to go for an MO although some will want us to leave the ECF

I don't know why the MCCU MO failed. (Not to say it should have succeeded, I don't know the details of the MCCU MO at all.)

In practice, I don't see why a Greater Manchester MO wouldn't be accepted. You've got an awful lot of Basic members anyway, so it'd be much easier for you than, say, Kent.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't know why the MCCU MO failed. (Not to say it should have succeeded, I don't know the details of the MCCU MO at all.)

It was turned down by the ECF, so it never started. There's a summary of what it might have said, or perhaps what Notts thought it should have said at http://nottschess.org/2006_07/pdf/MCCU_FAQ.doc

[Mick Norris]

amongst which is:

Q. I don’t play many games in a year, so is it really worth me becoming a member?
A. Some present the membership scheme purely in terms of whether or not the amount of game fee you contribute through the events you play in is likely to be more than £10 a year. Membership of the national body for chess shouldn’t just be about that. It shouldn’t just be about “what does the ECF do for me?” but also “what can I do for the ECF?”

[Roger de Coverly]

Membership of the national body for chess shouldn’t just be about that. It shouldn’t just be about “what does the ECF do for me?” but also “what can I do for the ECF?”

I spotted that as well. In my opinion an argument which many would dismiss as somewhat soft.

Did you also notice?

Q. What if some of the events I play in don’t give me any credit against game fee?
A. You will be able to claim refunds based on your grading print out, this can be done though the MCCU if you joined through the MCCU. The beauty of the MCCU scheme is that it allows counties & leagues to continue operating as they did last year, whilst still giving players the opportunity to become ECF members & benefit from game fee refunds, albeit at the end of the season

So if you played enough games, the ECF would pay you more than you had paid it by MO membership. So what you (as a really active player) could do for the ECF by becoming a member was to give yourself benefit from game fee refunds.

There is mileage in using the grading history as a way of giving rebates or other benefits to the most active players. I think a sensible scheme would cap the rebate though.

[Mick Norris]

Yes, but more interesting to me was this:

Q. Why change from game fee to membership?
A. Most organisations charge a mandatory membership fee, most chess clubs do. The National chess body is unusual in not doing so. If an Organisation is seeking sponsorship or other commercial opportunities, the first question it is likely to be asked is – how many members do you have? No one outside chess is going to be interested in a lengthy explanation about how we have X thousand players on the grading list, but only a few of them are members.

Q. What about this form that I need to sign, why does it include this business of paying £1 if the ECF is wound up?
A. I know it seems odd, it’s all tied up with the fact that the ECF is a Limited Company & with the way the organisations that formed the old BCF wanted the company set up. All it means is that in theory if the ECF went bust, a member would be limited to paying £1 towards any debts.

[Roger de Coverly]

If an Organisation is seeking sponsorship or other commercial opportunities, the first question it is likely to be asked is – how many members do you have? No one outside chess is going to be interested in a lengthy explanation about how we have X thousand players on the grading list, but only a few of them are members.

There was little or nothing to prevent the ECF defining a member (in terms of presenting its size) as a person playing in a Game Fee event.

Q. What about this form that I need to sign, why does it include this business of paying £1 if the ECF is wound up?
A. I know it seems odd, it’s all tied up with the fact that the ECF is a Limited Company & with the way the organisations that formed the old BCF wanted the company set up. All it means is that in theory if the ECF went bust, a member would be limited to paying £1 towards any debts.

I thought everyone knew that.

It transpires though that other organisations with a similar Council based CLG structure to the ECF limit their guarantors to one per constituent, so in the ECF's case, every organisation with a vote on the ECF Council would nominate a person on their behalf to be guarantor. So you would end up with two or three hundred white forms instead of several thousand. As far as the supposed FIDE requirement is concerned, many Chess Federations don't have any form of individual Direct membership whatsoever and their national structure, whatever it may be, is accepted by FIDE provided they hand over the money for rating fees and national membership of FIDE.

In some countries, it not so much that you have to be a member of a national federation to get a rating, but that there has to be a national federation approved by FIDE in the first place. Individuals don't become members of FIDE.

So all that stuff about you must sign the white form to play in FIDE rated events is just made up by the ECF, even if it's been a consistent message by several generations of BCF and ECF directors.

[Mick Norris]

It does show the level of stupidity when people are arguing about signing a form which might make them liable to pay £1

The ECF has members, and as someone who actually tries to get sponsors (and occasionally succeeds) it would be easier for me if I could say the ECF has x members where x is a large number, comparing that to the number of members of whatever organisation the potential sponsor might be interested in (RFU, National Trust etc)

However, dealing with some chess players (guess who?) makes me want to give up