2011 AGM: October 15th

[Eoin Devane]

I've spoken to one Oxford University student, who now goes to Cambridge. He frequents this forum, in fact!

I'm here!

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.

That is the route the club would likely have to go down. However, it would be a significant change in the funding structure of the club, and as such not one to be taken lightly. One has to remember that, according to calculations that both myself and Jon have made previously, the University clubs will end up paying around four times as much for playing the same amount of chess as they currently do. In effect, the proposal would result in student teams either having to pay proportionately more than everyone else for their chess or having to substantially change the way their teams are run. Now it may, some may argue, be no bad thing for University clubs to use fewer players and have more fixed teams, but practically there is a concern as to what the net results of that might be.

[Alex Holowczak]

In effect, the proposal would result in student teams either having to pay proportionately more than everyone else for their chess or having to substantially change the way their teams are run. Now it may, some may argue, be no bad thing for University clubs to use fewer players and have more fixed teams, but practically there is a concern as to what the net results of that might be.

It is my experience that locally, there are lots of club internal games that don't get graded, due to:
(1) Not knowing how to get them graded
(2) Not having a grader

I can do (2) for Unis if clubs send me their results. Do you think this would sweeten the deal? You wouldn't be playing any more chess, as such, but you would just be grading chess games that are played at the moment.

At least, that's assuming lots of games get played at Oxford Uni club nights. Birmingham City Uni and Aston do/did.

[Eoin Devane]

You wouldn't be playing any more chess, as such, but you would just be grading chess games that are played at the moment.

At least, that's assuming lots of games get played at Oxford Uni club nights. Birmingham City Uni and Aston do/did.

I don't think the ECF grades 5-minute blitz!

[Roger de Coverly]

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?

I think the answer is "with difficulty". You run into the problem highlighted by Game Fee leagues on the edge of MO areas. The problem is that the Club and League Treasurers have no way of knowing at the start of each season, the mixture of members and non-members playing. The three game exemption also means a need to monitor permitted non-member activity. Many leagues run their affairs on the basis that they charge clubs an entry fee per team, the entry fee being set to raise enough money for the league or county to balance its budget. Under that type of system it didn't matter exactly how many matches were played or how many players were used.

There are various ways that league and club treasurers could try and resolve this issue. The easiest one is to take the league out of the grading system. Then you might have a local rule which said that only members or exempt non-members could play. You enforce this either the hard way by defaulting non-complying boards or the soft way by removing non-compliant games from the grading data. You might run a system whereby you surcharged clubs for their non-complying players. You might absorb it into the league's overall expenses. That's not so different from individual surcharges but spreads it over all the clubs. From the league treasurer viewpoint, the amounts are still unknown. You might stay in the system for the first year, run up a huge bill at £ 2 a game per head and refuse to pay it. Yet another approach is to subdivide your league or teams into members only and open.

[Eoin Devane]

I have to say I think it would leave something of a sour taste in the mouth were this to pass with merely a simple majority, given the prior assurances that it would require 75% to go through.

[Carl Hibbard]

I have to say I think it would leave something of a sour taste in the mouth were this to pass with merely a simple majority, given the prior assurances that it would require 75% to go through.

I hope Andrew Farthing is able to comment on this one?

[Steve Rooney]

(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.

I think there's a fairly urgent need to clarify whether Alex H is speaking in an official capacity on this. It has been clearly stated previously that the changes require a 75% majority.

On 28 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "As far as I am concerned, I want to achieve a sound and sustainable foundation for the future financing of the ECF's activities, based on as broad a consensus as I cn practically manage. If a 75% majority for the final proposals isn't achievable in October, the "broad consensus" criterion will not have been met, so I shall accept the result and do the best I can to resolve the financial situation within whatever constraints Council's decisions impose."

And on 8 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "I also have to be realistic about the possibility of not achieving a 75% majority for the core changes I'll be proposing. This would be disappointing, especially as I am making every effort to shape something as palatable as possible. However, it's a democratic process, so I'll also prepare contingency plans so that the Federation can continue its work."

Has there been a change of interpretation amongst the board/council about the majority required?

[Roger de Coverly]

There's a supplement to the proposals at

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... -paper.doc

This doesn't mention the 50%/75% issue at all. So are the directors playing meeting procedure games? It would be more honest and presumably requiring a 75% vote to scrap the existing Game Fee regulations in their entirety, and then replace them with a new set of rules.

[Sean Hewitt]

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?".

That's exactly the response that I've seen from most players. They don't care really and, if it's £12 a year they can't get excited about it.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think there's a fairly urgent need to clarify whether Alex H is speaking in an official capacity on this. It has been clearly stated previously that the changes require a 75% majority.

On 28 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "As far as I am concerned, I want to achieve a sound and sustainable foundation for the future financing of the ECF's activities, based on as broad a consensus as I cn practically manage. If a 75% majority for the final proposals isn't achievable in October, the "broad consensus" criterion will not have been met, so I shall accept the result and do the best I can to resolve the financial situation within whatever constraints Council's decisions impose."

And on 8 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "I also have to be realistic about the possibility of not achieving a 75% majority for the core changes I'll be proposing. This would be disappointing, especially as I am making every effort to shape something as palatable as possible. However, it's a democratic process, so I'll also prepare contingency plans so that the Federation can continue its work."

Has there been a change of interpretation amongst the board/council about the majority required?

It looks to me like they have realised (as some of us had earlier pointed out) when drafting the changes that there is no need to chnage the articles. That being the case, there is no need for a 75% majority.

I do find the comments objecting to the ECF following the will of the majority confusing. Isn't that democracy?

[Stewart Reuben]

Eoin Devane >I don't think the ECF grades 5-minute blitz!<
But it is the intention of FIDE to re-introduce rating of rapidplay and introduce rating blitz. The suggestion of the Qualification Commission is that the lists should start on 1 July 2012, based on information from 1 January 2011. It is also suggested there would initially be no charge by FIDE. The current ratings will be used to establish the ratings for speedier play.
Running a 10 player round robin blitz tournament in which at least 4 players already have standardplay FIDE ratings is perfectly feasible in an evening. That would be a considerable burden on the International Rating Officer. Those people who see this as a desirable development should be all in favour of the new membership scheme.
Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

I do find the comments objecting to the ECF following the will of the majority confusing. Isn't that democracy?

If you want to introduce a national scheme whereby it's almost compulsory to be an ECF member in order to play league chess, I would have thought you need something like 85-90% support. Something like 55% support is a mandate for a voluntary scheme but no more. There are leagues and counties where support for universal membership is no higher than 10-15%.

On a different but related topic, what do Congress organisers, particularly rapid play ones, think about the need to increase entry fees to non-members, including Scotsmen, by between £ 3 and £ 4.50? I recall the reaction when Game Fee went up one year some years back, so that entry fees to a typical Congress had to go up by nearly a pound a head.

[Alex Holowczak]

You wouldn't be playing any more chess, as such, but you would just be grading chess games that are played at the moment.

At least, that's assuming lots of games get played at Oxford Uni club nights. Birmingham City Uni and Aston do/did.

I don't think the ECF grades 5-minute blitz!

Maybe not, but if there was the option of playing a longer game, with the caveat that it could be graded for free, I think might be prepared to play 15 minutes each!

[Steve Rooney]

I think there's a fairly urgent need to clarify whether Alex H is speaking in an official capacity on this. It has been clearly stated previously that the changes require a 75% majority.

On 28 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "As far as I am concerned, I want to achieve a sound and sustainable foundation for the future financing of the ECF's activities, based on as broad a consensus as I cn practically manage. If a 75% majority for the final proposals isn't achievable in October, the "broad consensus" criterion will not have been met, so I shall accept the result and do the best I can to resolve the financial situation within whatever constraints Council's decisions impose."

And on 8 June, Andrew Farthing wrote: "I also have to be realistic about the possibility of not achieving a 75% majority for the core changes I'll be proposing. This would be disappointing, especially as I am making every effort to shape something as palatable as possible. However, it's a democratic process, so I'll also prepare contingency plans so that the Federation can continue its work."

Has there been a change of interpretation amongst the board/council about the majority required?

It looks to me like they have realised (as some of us had earlier pointed out) when drafting the changes that there is no need to chnage the articles. That being the case, there is no need for a 75% majority.

I do find the comments objecting to the ECF following the will of the majority confusing. Isn't that democracy?

There are often occasions in democracies where a simple majority is not seen to be enough of a mandate.

Andrew refers to the aim of achieving a broad consensus. I can't believe that he interprets this as 50.1%. Unless the proposals achieve that broad consensus, it is quite possible that the membership will fall far below the required targets. Having given the clear view that 75% would be required I think it would be preferable and more honest to stick to it.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

That's exactly the response that I've seen from most players. They don't care really and, if it's £12 a year they can't get excited about it.

They get more irritated with the idea when I point out:

1) How much they currently pay for game fee and that £12 is a very large percentage increase.

2) Players who play a lot of graded games will end up paying less than they currently do.

3) That a £12 up front membership fee may well put off new players from joining a chess club or playing league chess.

4) That the £1 / £2 game fee for non-members is intended to be a temporary measure and that the intention is for 100% ECF membership a year or two after the membership scheme is introduced.

5) How an £8 membership fee for juniors is a massive increase on their current 15p per half-game game fee and that there is no way our schools league can be graded if this is voted in.