2011 AGM: October 15th

[Roger de Coverly]

The various formal proposals are at http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=897


Two immediate questions
(1) How many of these need a 75% majority
(2) It seem to be proposed that counties and leagues become MOs. What happens if they decline this offer?

[Alex Holowczak]

(1) How many of these need a 75% majority

Amendments to Articles of Association need a three-quarters majority. Amendments to Bye-Laws need a simple majority.

All of the things that make a membership scheme happen are in the bye-laws, so only need a simple majority to go through. The only things requiring a three-quarters majority are:
(1) Getting rid of the requirement to be a guarantor - which you're in favour of, and I can't see why anyone wouldn't be
(2) Changing the way results are counted for the purpose of the voting register - neither here nor there

It makes sense that it only needs a simple majority; it's the equivalent of bumping up the Game Fee rate and lowering the Membership rate, which can be done by a simple majority at any Council meeting anyway.

(2) It seem to be proposed that counties and leagues become MOs. What happens if they decline this offer?

Then their players can become members directly via ECF. Existing MOs might be happy enough to continue under existing arrangements, save for a price restructuring. So basically, the choice is for the counties/leagues. I don't see that being objectionable?

[Roger de Coverly]

Amendments to Articles of Association need a three-quarters majority. Amendments to Bye-Laws need a simple majority.

All of the things that make a membership scheme happen are in the bye-laws, so only need a simple majority to go through.

So let's get this right.

Contrary to statements made in the discussion papers back in March and in the Council meeting in April, the ECF directors now propose to push through on a simple majority. a membership scheme which changes the relationship between players and the ECF.

So the changes are
(a) restructuring of the existing membership categories to include abolition of Family membership and multi-year membership
(b) change the Game Fee for Congresses to £ 6 per head for non-members
(c) increase the Game Fee for leagues from 58p to £ 2 per head per half game (so £ 4 for every game played between non-members) with concessions for leagues with 85% individual members reducing it to £ 1 per non-member and £ nil per individual member.

[Roger de Coverly]

(2) Changing the way results are counted for the purpose of the voting register - neither here nor there

I don't think so.

Fundamental to Game Fee was that your representation on Council as an organisation was proportionate to the amount you paid for your organisation's membership of the ECF. If organisations no longer pay anything to the ECF or a de minimis amount, why should they have votes on Council?

[Carl Hibbard]

I think you will find most of this has been organised in advance so just expect the changes to get waved past!

[Michele Clack]

I don't think it is by any means certain that the membership proposals will get through. Personally I hope they do as on balance I believe it would be a much better system. However, a lot of players probably are as unhappy with change as Roger so it's all in the balance. if a membership scheme does get through then I presume that once it had bedded in there would be a review of voting rights taking account of the situation then.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think you will find most of this has been organised in advance so just expect the changes to get waved past!

There are however a number of Counties and Leagues whose AGMs have voiced majority opposition, sometimes even near unanimous opposition to the proposals. In some cases the Council rep agrees with the AGM.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Amendments to Articles of Association need a three-quarters majority. Amendments to Bye-Laws need a simple majority.

All of the things that make a membership scheme happen are in the bye-laws, so only need a simple majority to go through.

So let's get this right.

Contrary to statements made in the discussion papers back in March and in the Council meeting in April, the ECF directors now propose to push through on a simple majority. a membership scheme which changes the relationship between players and the ECF.

I do hope that Alex is wrong about this. It would be astonishingly dishonest of those in favour of the proposal to announce at the AGM that they only need a simple majority to pass it.

[Roger de Coverly]

I do hope that Alex is wrong about this. It would be astonishingly dishonest of those in favour of the proposal to announce at the AGM that they only need a simple majority to pass it.

I suspect he's right. Is it really any surprise?

Have the OCA had their meeting yet? Did you figure out how to keep the University club at a reasonable cost in the event of this proposal going through?

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I do hope that Alex is wrong about this. It would be astonishingly dishonest of those in favour of the proposal to announce at the AGM that they only need a simple majority to pass it.

I suspect he's right. Is it really any surprise?

Have the OCA had their meeting yet? Did you figure out how to keep the University club at a reasonable cost in the event of this proposal going through?

Our meeting is tonight. There is a suggestion / proposal for keeping Oxford University costs down, but I don't know if it will be discussed tonight. I'd rather not post the details on here.

To be perfectly honest I don't know which way our vote will go, I don't even know which way my own club will vote. Despite my attempts to get the information to the ordinary league players, at the two AGMs I've been to less than a quarter of those present knew anything about the proposal and when a quick summary was given to them the predominant feeling was "If it's only £12, who cares?".

[Alex Holowczak]

I do hope that Alex is wrong about this. It would be astonishingly dishonest of those in favour of the proposal to announce at the AGM that they only need a simple majority to pass it.

I suspect he's right. Is it really any surprise?

Have the OCA had their meeting yet? Did you figure out how to keep the University club at a reasonable cost in the event of this proposal going through?

Our meeting is tonight. There is a suggestion / proposal for keeping Oxford University costs down, but I don't know if it will be discussed tonight. I'd rather not post the details on here.

To be perfectly honest I don't know which way our vote will go, I don't even know which way my own club will vote. Despite my attempts to get the information to the ordinary league players, at the two AGMs I've been to less than a quarter of those present knew anything about the proposal and when a quick summary was given to them the predominant feeling was "If it's only £12, who cares?".

I've spoken to one Oxford University student, who now goes to Cambridge. He frequents this forum, in fact! He suggested that they'd just change their fees. At present, they'd pay £25 for life membership, but they might just increase that subscription. They'd then pay for memberships out of the pot of money that generates, as and when they're needed. Bearing in mind that they'll have a lot of ungraded players who don't play 3 games per season, it won't be as big deal as it could. They'll need to be members by the time they play in the BUCA event, anyway.

As a delegate for a league, the silence has been deafening. One has energetically offered to contact his members, and I'm sure he will. One has echoed the above; "£12 is fine, I pay far more to be a member of <something else that I forget>". My last e-mail was of the nature, "I'm voting for this unless you tell me not to", in the hope of garnering more emotion from the clubs. Silence...

[Matthew Turner]

"£12 is fine"

Maybe so, but from Andrew Farthing's paper

"It should be stressed that Council is not making a commitment to specific membership fees"

When we are talking about £12 this actually means the ECF getting a little more than £9 (I think), because £1 will go back to the MO and then there is VAT to consider. I cannot really see the membership proposals raising the predicted revenues. In that case how long will the membership fees stay at £12?

[Alex Holowczak]

"£12 is fine"

Maybe so, but from Andrew Farthing's paper

"It should be stressed that Council is not making a commitment to specific membership fees"

I was merely reporting the responses, or lack thereof, that I received. If such replies are deemed to have missed the point entirely, that's not my fault!

I cannot really see the membership proposals raising the predicted revenues.

It was calculated that if everyone played the chess they played in the 12-month season - and were members at the correct levels - we had available at the time of publication, that these fees would be enough.

VAT won't suddenly be this horrible burden that came from nowhere; we pay VAT now on Game Fee and Membership anyway, don't we?

[Roger de Coverly]

When we are talking about £12 this actually means the ECF getting a little more than £9 (I think), because £1 will go back to the MO and then there is VAT to consider. I cannot really see the membership proposals raising the predicted revenues. In that case how long will the membership fees stay at £12?

I think they are talking about £ 13 being the charge to an individual through an MO, but £12 being the net receipt by the ECF (before VAT).

They haven't published breakdowns of the amounts expected to be collected. In particular there is presumably an assumption of the percentage of the several thousand less active players signing up for £12 net a head. If significant numbers retire from graded over the board chess or find other ways to avoid or evade the ECF charges, then the ECF is back in a financial hole and will have to raise the amounts it wants to spend from the rump of paying membership. If per head charging becomes the ECF's sole method of finance, then all expenditure increases have to be financed from this source.

[Matthew Turner]

The key element of the proposals is this

"A charge will be levied on each half-game played by a non-member, to be calculated at the end of August each year. The rate will be dependent upon the percentage of players in the competition who are ECF members. If there are 85% or more ECF members, the rate per half-game will be £1. If the proportion of ECF members falls below 85%, the rate per half-game will be £2. These rates will apply irrespective of the type of competition (i.e. standard play, rapid play, junior, club, etc.)."

Without this game fee element then I think that there is no way that the proposals will raise the revenues that have been predicted. How will Leagues and Congresses respond to this? I am sure that some will leave the ECF/grading system, but how many and will this effect the viability of the whole scheme?