Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM

[Adam Raoof]

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?

I think the answers are

a) the end of the event
b) yes, why not?
c) n/a
d) yes (see ECF website under Resources), and in future you'll be able to do this via the grading database

[Ian Jamieson]

Adam,

Thanks for the quick response.

My gut feeling is that clubs or leagues shouldn't be able to pay to make players members if the players choose not to be members but I can't at the moment put into words why not?

[Adam Raoof]

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?

a) I sympathise, and

b) No

English (and Scottish) tournaments give discounts to members of their respective associations of about £2.00. All this does is increase that effective discount to £6.00.

But don't hold your breath - it hasn't passed Council's scrutiny yet!

[Paul Cooksey]

Also where does the demerger of the ECF into "charity" and "professional" fit into all this?

I think this is a fundamental question. I am reluctant to even discuss how the ECF should be funded until we have more clarity what form the ECF will take.

[Andrew Farthing]

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?

They are entitled to consider whatever they like. I hope, after due consideration and consultation, that they will not choose to have nothing to do with the ECF.

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.?

The £2 per half-game only applies where the take-up of membership falls below the stated threshold. It pays for grading and contributes towards the activities of the national federation across the spectrum of English chess.

My mandate from Council was to develop proposals to implement a membership scheme. I accept the arguments of those - yourself included, Roger - who commented that to leap to a single source of funding in one go would be risky, and the transitional arrangements are there to offer protection while the switch to membership supported by a majority of Council takes place. The higher £2 rate is intended to offer a clear financial incentive to move to membership, and since a membership scheme is what the majority of Council wanted, I make no apologies for this.

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?

The complexity of the changes and the limitations on my time mean that I shall not be presenting proposals to split the ECF into a charity and non-charity at the October AGM. On reflection, I felt that the magnitude of change was large enough without adding even more complexity, particularly since it would inevitably force the issue on major constitutional change, which would have multiplied the political difficulties of the AGM votes by a factor of several times. I believe that it will happen, but not at the 2011 AGM.

Whilst the £ 6 per head per individual non-member has reappeared for Congresses, this seems a transitional arrangement only.

Incorrect.

Do you really think your proposals will be welcomed with anything other than hostility in at least parts of the country?

No, but I don't see that this gives me the right to ignore the wishes of the majority of Council.

[Adam Raoof]

Adam,

Thanks for the quick response.

My gut feeling is that clubs or leagues shouldn't be able to pay to make players members if the players choose not to be members but I can't at the moment put into words why not?

I agree that if they don't want to be members, then that is their right. However I would not stop any club offering to pay the membership for, say, a player who could afford to pay for themselves or for another player as a gift. Right now, nobody could be a member without signing a form, but that may change in the future.

[Andrew Farthing]

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.

If the event is graded, the £1 or £2 charge (as applicable) will be levied for each result by a non-member. The organiser could not choose not to have the player's games graded within the framework of a graded event. If the event is graded, all the games will be graded, and the results of non-members will be charged for. The issue of grading one player's result only, i.e. if the opponent was a non-member, would not arise.

[Simon Dixon]

I think clubs should run their own FIDE or ECF grading lists. Most of them play within a very small demographic, I think it would be better if they kept themselves seperate from entry fee paying tournament players who play a much wider range of players.

[Andrew Farthing]

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?

The logical consequence of a universal membership scheme is that everyone has to be a member. In practice, it would be Council's decision after a couple of years (say) when data would be avaialble on take-up and we would all have a much better understanding of the response at all levels to the membership scheme.

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

Under the equivalent Game Fee proposals, Scottish players would be incurring Game Fee anyway. So it's not as though it's a totally new cost to account for.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

It's still a bit muddy as to whether in the longer run, the plan is that non-members will be allowed to play for only the extra £ 6 or would be required to cough up the full £ 19. This could of course apply to players resident in England regardless of sporting nationality who were playing up to three Congresses a year. I think it's a straight levy, with no benefits (such as an English grade) offered in return.

If the event is FIDE rated and the player is on the FIDE list as SCO, the cost is reduced to £ 1.50. That's actually less than the ECF charges at the moment. At 54p a game, it's £2.70 for a five round tournament.

[Simon Dixon]

I hope, after due consideration and consultation, that they will not choose to have nothing to do with the ECF.

If they have any sense at all, clubs will/should have nothing to do with the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

The organiser could not choose not to have the player's games graded within the framework of a graded event. If the event is graded, all the games will be graded, and the results of non-members will be charged for.

Why not? If the event organiser removes all the games played by non-members before sending the results for grading, are you going to cross check against the website? Still it's useful to know these things. It influences whether to remove competitions entirely from the ECF's view.

[Andrew Farthing]

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.

No. What we're proposing to do is to grade both sides of the game and publish the grades of all players.

It was clear from the response to the June proposal that there was widespread scepticism that withholding the grade would be a sufficiently strong consequence of non-membership. The options, therefore, were:

(i) Refuse to grade games involving non-members entirely (which I still consider to be unfair on the opponent, if he's a member);

(ii) Grade only those events which comprise 100% members or in some other way seek to impose absolutely compulsory membership from Day 1 (which I felt would never be accepted);

(iii) Make a separate charge for grading the results of non-members (the option chosen).

[Simon Dixon]

The logical consequence of a universal membership scheme is that everyone has to be a member.

That will be the day when I join the Russian chess federation.