Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
Post Reply
Andrew Farthing
Posts: 614
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:39 pm

Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Andrew Farthing » Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:12 am

A paper setting out the final funding proposals has been published on the ECF website - see announcement at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/.

The formal proposals, i.e. the text of the amended Articles and Byelaws, will be published as soon as they're finished. I've posted the summary paper now so that everyone has as much time as possible to discuss the proposals in their respective organisations.

As always, I am happy to answer any questions that Forum members may have, particularly if anything is unclear. Please bear in mind that these are the final proposals, so any amendments will need to be put forward at the AGM. I have to draw a line somewhere in order to draft the text of the Articles and Byelaw changes.

David Robertson
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by David Robertson » Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:46 am

One cheer, I'm sorry to say. The proposals, at a stroke, render pointless all recent discussions. I don't plan to re-open matters. That would be pointless too.

The proposals address ECF finances; but they do so separately from its political/policy structures. That is not sensible, and will lead to serious problems henceforth. The ECF becomes a body of individual members controlled by a Council & Board derived from game-fee arrangements - hence, increased taxation with no representation. And people wonder why ECF is so remote. It has just become expensively remote!

Sorting out the problems cannot have been an easy business. So I have sympathy for Andrew Farthing's position and for his efforts. His good faith is not in doubt. His good judgment is.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18989
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:48 am

Andrew Farthing wrote: I've posted the summary paper now so that everyone has as much time as possible to discuss the proposals in their respective organisations.
.
Notwithstanding the presence of a majority of the attendees being ECF members already, a recent county AGM expressed opposition to
(a) the premise of compulsory membership and
(b) the adoption of per head funding.
Anecdotal evidence is that this is quite a common attitude, in the south and west anyway.


What are you saying to counties and leagues who would at least consider having nothing more to do with the ECF if these proposals go through?

Even at 70p., I wouldn't regard Game Fee as a chess prevention tax. At £ 2 a head per game it becomes one. I don't even think non-members get any services for the £ 2. It looks like a straight fine on leagues, counties and Congresses for allowing non-members to participate. It answers one question though. You segregate your events into member and non-member and don't tell the ECF about non-members.

I also have to say that the final proposal is some distance from that voted on in April, or even those outlined in the June letter. Also where does the demerger of the ECF into "charity" and "professional" fit into all this?

Whilst the £ 6 per head per individual non-member has reappeared for Congresses, this seems a transitional arrangement only. So in the longer run, if a Congress wishes to attract players new to the ECF, it will have to do so against a background of having to charge Silver membership at about the same level as the entry fee, thereby doubling the cost.
The cooperation of clubs, leagues, congresses and other organisations in maximising the take-up of ECF membership is vital
Do you really think your proposals will be welcomed with anything other than hostility in at least parts of the country?

Jon D'Souza-Eva

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Jon D'Souza-Eva » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:01 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:Even at 70p., I wouldn't regard Game Fee as a chess prevention tax. At £ 2 a head per game it becomes one. I don't even think non-members get any services for the £ 2. It looks like a straight fine on leagues, counties and Congresses for allowing non-members to participate.
I too am worried about this £2 per half game charge for grading non-members' games.

I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only? I.e. if our league decided not to grade non-members' games, could a game between a member and a non-member be graded for the member only?

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:03 pm

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only?
No, it can't be.

User avatar
Adam Raoof
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:16 pm
Location: NW4 4UY
Contact:

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Adam Raoof » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:06 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only?
No, it can't be.
However a game can be graded for both players, and the results only made accessible to those players who are members - which is what the Scots have done with their slick new grading website - http://www.chessscotland.com/search_players.php.
Adam Raoof IA, IO
The Chess Circuit - https://chesscircuit.substack.com/
Tornelo - https://tornelo.com/chess/orgs/chess-england
Simon Williams "The Ginger GM" - https://gingergm.com/ref/106.html
Don’t stop playing chess!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:10 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only?
No, it can't be.
However a game can be graded for both players, and the results only made accessible to those players who are members - which is what the Scots have done with their slick new grading website - http://www.chessscotland.com/search_players.php.
Agreed. It's what we do with Yorkshire.

Jon D'Souza-Eva

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Jon D'Souza-Eva » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:14 pm

Adam Raoof wrote:However a game can be graded for both players, and the results only made accessible to those players who are members
But then the club / league would have to pay £2 for the non-member? (assuming < 85% of players in the league are members).

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:16 pm

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:
Adam Raoof wrote:However a game can be graded for both players, and the results only made accessible to those players who are members
But then the club / league would have to pay £2 for the non-member? (assuming < 85% of players in the league are members).
Yes

Sean Hewitt

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Sean Hewitt » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:37 pm

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only? I.e. if our league decided not to grade non-members' games, could a game between a member and a non-member be graded for the member only?
This is three questions within a question.

Can a game be graded for one player only? The answer is yes it can.

Would the ECF choose to grade a game for one player only? I'll leave it for ECF officials to answer but I would have thought the answer is almost certainly no.

Will the ECF allow an organisation to choose not to grade non-members game? Again, I'll leave it for ECF officials to answer but I would have thought the answer is almost certainly no.

Roger is right that you could divide events into graded and non-graded elements. But grading would be decided by the status of the event, not the membership status of the player.

Brendan O'Gorman
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Brendan O'Gorman » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:40 pm

Andrew,

Your paper says:
When it is deemed that the scheme has sufficiently bedded down, it
will become a straightforward requirement that English players in a graded event MUST be
members (but see below).
Just to be absolutely clear, does that mean that a league would have to ban non-members (apart from newcomers) or have none of the league's games graded by the ECF?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18989
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:50 pm

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote: I've got a question about grading which I'm sure someone on here will know the answer to - can a game be graded for one player only? I.e. if our league decided not to grade non-members' games, could a game between a member and a non-member be graded for the member only?
Technically it can, because it's done that way for Direct members playing overseas. It you want to and declare your intention beforehand, you send your overseas results and they are included in your ECF grade. When Game Fee was first introduced, you could do this for domestic games as well. This facility was withdrawn when it became apparent that less scrupulous individuals could use it for grade rigging. However I think it's back for Yorkshire players. If as a Yorkshire player and member of the ECF, you play in a dissident league that refuses payment to the ECF, you get your games graded even against non-members.

I don't think the ECF are intending to allow one sided grading though. What I think they intend, as a transitional measure, is to grade both sides of the game, but not to publish the non-member. That was in the June proposal. The latest proposal is to also send the league or county a bill for every non member permitted to play. The obvious counters to this are
(1) you remove results of non-members before sending the grading file for processing
or
(2) you confine non-members to a non-members board or competition
or
(3) you declare your entire league as not part of the ECF membership empire

Comparison to what the Scots do isn't greatly relevant. Their approach is that you don't have be a member of Chess Scotland to play in Scotland even in FIDE rated events. So all games in Scotland played between members and non-members will be Scottish rated subject to the event or organisation paying its membership or rating fees. They even rate some games in the Oxford league (one sided usually). For games played in Scotland, the distinction between members and non-members is that the result history of members is visible for all to see, whereas only the (end season) rating is published for non-members. This isn't the same as the ECF proposal which would leave you to reverse engineer the grades for non-members ( or hack the local grader) in order to find out what they were.

(edit) additional comment plus correction
Last edited by Roger de Coverly on Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18989
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:03 pm

Brendan O'Gorman wrote:Just to be absolutely clear, does that mean that a league would have to ban non-members (apart from newcomers) or have none of the league's games graded by the ECF?
It reads that way. Although if you ignore or offset in some way the shift in financing from tournament players to league players, a scheme which
(a) wasn't compulsory
(b) provided rating services to individual non-members based on chess organisations being the "member"
but
(c) was financially weighted towards per head costing for the more active players

would meet with rather less hostility.

Ian Jamieson
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:00 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Ian Jamieson » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:48 pm

Transitional arrangements

Graded club and league events
The rate will be dependent upon the percentage of players in the competitions who are ECF members.
Is this at the end of August, the start of the event, when each game is played or the end of the event?

Can clubs or leagues pay to make players members even if the players choose not to be members?

Given the answer to this is presumably no, will there be a cap on the charge levied equal to the amount payable if the club or the league was able to do it?

Finally is it currently possible to see who is or is not an ECF member?

Andy Howie
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:32 pm

Re: Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

Post by Andy Howie » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:50 pm

Interesting and congratulations on stopping us coming down to play in your congresses. I'm sure that Blackpool and Scarborough will be delighted to know that the Scots won't come down as we are being expected to shell out £6 per person for the privilidge of playing in your tournament.

I have asked privately about what is going to happen with the British Championships. I still have not had an answer. Are we (The Scots, Irish and Welsh) going to have to pay £6 extra to play in the British Championships?

Post Reply