ENG FIDE Ratings must be ECF Members

[IM Jack Rudd]

Of course, if the existence of an event depends on the seed capital, then it will only ever last for a year or two. It has to be seen as a starter, nothing more.

...unless you can somehow get enough seed capital that the event can subsist on the interest on it.

[Sean Hewitt]

Of course, if the existence of an event depends on the seed capital, then it will only ever last for a year or two. It has to be seen as a starter, nothing more.

...unless you can somehow get enough seed capital that the event can subsist on the interest on it.

If you can get hold of that amount of capital, I'm not sure 'seed' would be the right word to describe it.

[Roger de Coverly]

I can confirm that, as previously advised, [Edit: ACTIVE] players with an ENG country code will be de-registered on 1st July if they have not paid their ECF membership.

Any sightings of de-registered players?

[Adam Raoof]

I can confirm that, as previously advised, [Edit: ACTIVE] players with an ENG country code will be de-registered on 1st July if they have not paid their ECF membership.

Any sightings of de-registered players?

The list is being compiled as I type!

We will look at the most active players, and the players who have not been members for a year or more, and prioritise those. There will be a last-minute check to ensure they haven't joined recently.

[Simon Brown]

I was "active", haven't paid my membership fee and now appear to be not "active". Can I claim to be the first victim?

[Adam Raoof]

I was "active", haven't paid my membership fee and now appear to be not "active". Can I claim to be the first victim?

Nothing to do with the ECF! Edit: Yet

[Simon Brown]

Does that mean that what you said on 15 June wasn't right? I thought it took ages to become inactive on the FIDE list.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was "active", haven't paid my membership fee and now appear to be not "active". Can I claim to be the first victim?

At a guess, you were automatic. I think FIDE defines inactive as a whole 12 months (6 rating lists) without a game. Your last game was in the July 2010 list.

[Simon Brown]

What a disappointment. Might be worth joining and playing another game to see if they de-register me next year!

[Adam Raoof]

What a disappointment. Might be worth joining and playing another game to see if they de-register me next year!

$%$^*^$$(*$^!

[Ben Purton]

The only bit I dislike about the whole new proposal is the fact is some of the most affected people are in the 4NCL which the BCF(ECF) tried to rival/oppose many years ago. If someone now wants to play in this event only , they have to be a gold member. I've never agreed with the fact on top of entry fee and other costs they should pay a 2.40ish/game tax to just play 4NCL.

I struggle to get players already, if I want some guy for the odd 2 weekends , the "Oh By the way on top of your travel, hotel and any contribution to entry fee, do you mind paying 25 quid to the ECF" , Often it can edge the cost from 2 to 3 figures for the weekend and can be a major problem for captains.

I got called a 'moron' and "25 pounds is little to pay to do a hobbie" it is if this was the only cost etc but it is not.

I don't even get a free multi coloured scabby wallet now when I join. I get a card in the post , which costs 5p to produce.

When I join things I either expect one of the folllowing; i) a goodie bag ii) vouchers iii) a free bet.

Ben

[Simon Brown]

Adam, I wasn't entirely joking.

On another thread there is talk about tiered membership, with a top tier which is effectively voluntary support for the ECF for no additional benefits. If I believed in/understood what the ECF was trying to achieve, I would happily pay the top tier rate, even if I never played another game of chess in my life - I have had enough enjoyment from the game that I would be quite happy to donate. But I would feel less comfortable in donating to an organisation which appears to force people to pay to it for spurious reasons.

Simon

[Adam Raoof]

Adam, I wasn't entirely joking.

On another thread there is talk about tiered membership, with a top tier which is effectively voluntary support for the ECF for no additional benefits. If I believed in/understood what the ECF was trying to achieve, I would happily pay the top tier rate, even if I never played another game of chess in my life - I have had enough enjoyment from the game that I would be quite happy to donate. But I would feel less comfortable in donating to an organisation which appears to force people to pay to it for spurious reasons.

Simon

Simon, I really do appreciate your point of view. In some ways I have inherited an imperfect situation, where people have created systems (based on rules which I generally agree with) and have then done nothing to make sure those systems actually work. So, there is no point in voting for game fee if you are not prepared to pay it (that actually happens). There is no point in us having a rule about membership if we are not prepared to, at some point, enforce it.

If someone wants to change the rules, then I am open-minded about alternatives. I am aware that some people think the ECF is a waste of time, and that it wastes the money it raises. I hope that in future that won't be the case.

However as we have rules, then I do feel obliged to enforce them, fairly but evenly.

[Paul Cooksey]

But I would feel less comfortable in donating to an organisation which appears to force people to pay to it for spurious reasons.

I would be interested to hear your view of what the ECF is currently doing and should not. Disaffected/ inactive players are an important group whose opinions are hard to capture.

(Ideally in another thread, but it only seems to me who cares about that. )

[Simon Brown]

Unfortunately I only hear about what the ECF is doing from this forum, so I probably only hear about the negatives - no support for players or events, no coherent junior policy, for example - and the problems generated by the entirely foreseeable withdrawal of the grant. I hear people criticising, but no praise. I hear what they aren't doing, not what they are. I know what they do badly, but not what they do well. I know there are officers who are not favourably regarded, but I don't (often) hear commendation from those who are doing a good job.

Why doesn't someone ask the ECF what it would do if it could generate an additional say £100k of income every year, with no additional associated cost? I'd be interested to know, because then I would be able to decide whether it may be worth supporting.