2011 AGM: October 15th

[Alex Holowczak]

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

Which it isn't; it'll go up for some and down for others, because the final net amount the ECF take is the same.

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

Yes, the members (usually) will pay £27 for Membership but still pay Game Fee on their league games like everyone else. So members don't pay their Game Fee twice.

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

Well, they just said it was hardly nothing. They can't have it both ways. Remember, ungradeds who play less than 3 games won't have to be members.

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.

It makes sense that a membership scheme encourages membership, surely?

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.

Which is arguably desirable for the accuracy of the grading database. Junior-only events tend to produce very unrealistic grades. Warwickshire were flooded with juniors who had scored well against other juniors based on the English Chess Challenge, and they were totally out of synch with grades of juniors who didn't play in that competition.

[Gavin Strachan]

A lot of work on this membership scheme has been done, interesting debates, etc. Just one minor drawback. It has to be voted in. I cannot see this happening.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

A lot of work on this membership scheme has been done, interesting debates, etc. Just one minor drawback. It has to be voted in. I cannot see this happening.

I think it's very likely that it will receive more than 50% of the vote. If the Chairman has moved the goalposts and decided that a simple majority is good enough to change to rules in such a radical way then so be it. I think it is more likely that Alex H. is just stirring it.

[Roger de Coverly]

Which it isn't; it'll go up for some and down for others, because the final net amount the ECF take is the same.

7005 out of the published 2011 grading list played no more than 15 games. Spell it out. It's a price rise (considerable in % terms) for the less active players and a price cut (possibly) for the most active players. It's an inevitable consequence of the distribution of charges in a per head scheme against a per event scheme. BUCA is 5 round league. If you strip away all external factors, then under per head costing the amount payable to the ECF is £ 48 for a four player team. For a five round event, even at £ 2 per game, the cost is £ 40 per team. If you assume a reserve as well, the cost becomes £ 60 v £ 40.

It's possible, of course, that we've been deluding ourselves for years about the true size of the English chess. As a Game Fee structure allows marginal players to play at a marginal cost, perhaps the true size is nearer 6-8,000 than 12,000 once you discourage all the more casual players.

[Mick Norris]

A lot of work on this membership scheme has been done, interesting debates, etc. Just one minor drawback. It has to be voted in. I cannot see this happening.

I think it's very likely that it will receive more than 50% of the vote. If the Chairman has moved the goalposts and decided that a simple majority is good enough to change to rules in such a radical way then so be it. I think it is more likely that Alex H. is just stirring it.

Personally, I would like to see the ECF follow their own rules, and if majority is in the rules, then OK, if 75% is needed, then OK

Whatever the result, I am sure the objections will continue

[Gavin Strachan]

Which it isn't; it'll go up for some and down for others, because the final net amount the ECF take is the same.

7005 out of the published 2011 grading list played no more than 15 games. Spell it out. It's a price rise (considerable in % terms) for the less active players and a price cut (possibly) for the most active players. It's an inevitable consequence of the distribution of charges in a per head scheme against a per event scheme. BUCA is 5 round league. If you strip away all external factors, then under per head costing the amount payable to the ECF is £ 48 for a four player team. For a five round event, even at £ 2 per game, the cost is £ 40 per team. If you assume a reserve as well, the cost becomes £ 60 v £ 40.

It's possible, of course, that we've been deluding ourselves for years about the true size of the English chess. As a Game Fee structure allows marginal players to play at a marginal cost, perhaps the true size is nearer 6-8,000 than 12,000 once you discourage all the more casual players.

From what I can tell it does look like more money will come in (though this is based on that those playing less than 15 games a year are willing to pay).

[Alex Holowczak]

I think it is more likely that Alex H. is just stirring it.

If I had any intentions of "stirring it", I can think of much more creative ways of doing it. For example, I'd have told Roger while he was at the e2e4 event in Sunningdale last weekend, perhaps while he was away from the board waiting for his opponent to move...

I only mentioned it here because I suspected the answer to Roger's question would be obvious by reading the Agenda.

13.2 states that 75% are required to change the Articles of Association. 13.3 makes no mention of 75% and mentions Bye-Laws.

[Roger de Coverly]

13.2 states that 75% are required to change the Articles of Association. 13.3 makes no mention of 75% and mentions Bye-Laws.

It isn't especially clear from the Agenda and accompanying papers. I was asked last night by one of the local delegates whether I'd seen the Agenda and whether he correctly interpreted that the 75% vote was only on relatively obscure technical points rather than, as promised, the entire scheme.
You could vote against the removal of the Guarantor requirement. Even that doesn't stop the scheme, since the online version can go ahead without the white form. The ECF have dropped the pretence that Guarantor membership was a FIDE requirement, despite plastering it over their website for several years.

[Roger de Coverly]

From what I can tell it does look like more money will come in (though this is based on that those playing less than 15 games a year are willing to pay).

Some of it is being given back. The beneficiaries are those who
(a) play a lot of county and league chess
and/or
(b) play a lot of Congresses without currently being ECF members.

[Michele Clack]

There is a 3rd category who will be better off. Those people who are currently paying twice, firstly as a membership fee and secondly as board fees on top of that. This has always been unfair and I am glad that there is a proposal to put this right.

On the voting I agree with Mick Norris. The ECF should stick to whatever the rules actually are. If they were mistaken about the proposal needing 75% now the mistake has been realised they should take the correct course as per the rules.

[Roger de Coverly]

There is a 3rd category who will be better off. Those people who are currently paying twice, firstly as a membership fee and secondly as board fees on top of that. This has always been unfair and I am glad that there is a proposal to put this right.

Being historical about this for a moment, back in 2000 when the BCF's only membership categories were effectively "platinum", that really didn't matter. It was only when the BCF used the excuse of "FIDE says you must be a member" to try and increase individual member numbers that the double charging started.

[Ian Thompson]

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?

Maybe I'm missing something, but its not clear to me why a league would want to become an MO. It seems to place obligations on the league with no obvious benefits.

Keeping £1 of a player's ECF membership fee is a not a benefit. The league could just as easily collect £1 (or any other amount) from its players separately from the ECF membership fee if it wanted to, most easily by asking clubs to make a single payment on behalf of all their players.

The league could also not rely on raising funds from collecting ECF membership fees as it wouldn't know how many players would join through it, as its players might join the ECF directly or through another organisation. So what's the benefit of becoming an MO?

[Mike Gunn]

The reason for a County or League to become a MO is to collect the membership fees from its members and therefore avoid the higher level of game fees which non-members attract when membership is less than 85%

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

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?

We decided to ask our ECF representative (Mike Truran) to vote against the funding proposal at the ECF AGM. However the feeling of those present seemed to be that we would not leave the ECF if it was voted in.

Any word yet from Andrew Farthing about whether the proposal needs 75% or 50% of the votes to pass?

[Mike Gunn]

The board has been discussing the principles of how a membership scheme should operate. We had assumed that it would require a 75% majority because this is a fundamental change, but when the constitution/ rules experts looked at what needs to be changed it turns out that these matters are covered in the Bye-Laws (which can be changed by a simple majority) rather than the Articles (which need a 75% majority).

If the changes are passed I hope that people will respect the democratic decision and try to make the new system work.