Compulsory Membership?

[David Pardoe]

Somehow we need to find more effective ways of raising funds...and maybe using the funds we have already got to promote and drive our chess forward.
Some of our chess bodies need to be more forthcoming and active both in raising money, and spending it wisely on British chess.
It is becoming apparent that the new ECF Membership scheme will likely see us struggling with shortfalls.
Therefore, if our various chess bodies can contribute to causes like this, it helps take things forward..and gives some breathing space for the ECF fund raising to get its act together. Tying this in with supporting local GMs seems like a good plan....if we can garner support from those able to do so...
Our London based GMs (and others..), need funds to play in big events and live to the style to which they can be comfortable, and which is fitting for UK Chess Embassadors.
So far, we`re looking at beach huts at a cheaper Turkish resort....
Maybe one possiblity is to hold a GM Simultaineous Open day, on say 2 or 3 of our mainline London railway stations. If they set up the stalls on the platforms (at say 7am..), , with say 2 or 3 GMs giving displays throughout the day, where the passing public could make in move (or 2), for say £1, that could rake in loads of dosh. If they had a book stall, large overhead score board, etc...and some additional publicity material for local chess & the Olympiad, it would add interest. Over the course of a day, with large contribution buckets on display, I reckon they could easily raise £10 - 20k at least....with passengers playing or watching and boosting awareness of chess to the public, as they head to and from work/shopping.....

[Mick Norris]

The GMCCA did have money on formation (c£10,000 I was told, not sure if that's right),

Its wrong GMCCA did not have a penny when it was formed. I helped fund its first years activities by selling pens badges and teeshirts

Harry Lamb

Well, that's that theory out the window then

[AustinElliott]

Plausible as investing in equipment sounds, I suspect Manchester of saving up to buy the NCCU. I'm now picturing Mick stroking a white cat in an underground lair.

Well, the MCF Cup Final matches last week WERE played underground, but in a place that was less of a lair than an empty basement nightclub resembling the set of a gangster movie. Lots of empty bottles in dark corners. Though I didn't like to look too closely in case I started finding discarded underwear too.

Just think how much money we would have now [...] - enough to afford a Kasparov simul against our juniors

If it was going to be about the Manchester youth, how about asking C4 TV, Paul Abbott and David Threlfall to sponsor it as the Shameless Keep Our Manchester Youth Off the Street (By Playing Chess Instead) Simul?

[David Sedgwick]

As I have repeatedly said, one of the objectives of the design of the scheme was to address the previous inequity in the effective per-game pricing, taking into account membership subscriptions and game fee, between direct members and non-members. Direct Members typically paid more than twice the amount per game that non-members did.

The primary reason for this would be the £ 27 per head per season charge for taking part in internationally rated events.

If it even matters to correct this, I wouldn't rank it above sending a team to the Olympiad in an order of ECF priorities.

Even with the £27, it depends how much you play. It's difficult to play more than 25 club or county games, so to make up 100 games a season, it's got to be 75 Congress or 4NCL ones. So that's 41.5p each reducing to 27p each following the changes.

I currently play about 25 standardplay games a year, the vast majority club and county games.

However, even if that were all I played, I would still need to be an ECF member under the current arrangements, in order to maintain my position as an ECF Senior Arbiter.

I'm certainly pleased that in future I won't have to pay twice.

[David Sedgwick]

And the SCCU (they must be loaded)...

Why? The last AGM reported they had £3,600 in cash reserves. I don't think the SCCU likes to horde excess cash just for the sake of it.

Spot on, Richard.

The SCCU's turnover is about £1500 per annum, so we have reserves of a little over two years' turnover. We feel that's about right.

We've reduced our fees in the past when our reserves have exceeded these levels.

Even if we had money to spare, I doubt we'd wish to put it towards the Olympiad team. However worthwhile that might be, it's not one of the purposes for which our members have subscribed.

[harrylamb]

Somehow we need to find more effective ways of raising funds.

Don't knock it Dave. There is nothing wrong with selling pens, badges and tee-shirts to raise funds. Every pen used means you have a committed supporter. Every badge worn is another committed supporter. As for the power of wearing a tee-shirt ask our President (and I do not mean Mick Norris!). Winning peoples hearts and minds is worth more than money. Getting money and at the same time winning hearts and minds is fantastic.

[William Metcalfe]

Cleveland money from the chess set is tied up for a few more years it was invested into a long term bank account with a guaranteed intrest rate.That looks like a very smart choice given the rubbish intrest rates at the moment

[William Metcalfe]

Durham county chess associations AGM was held tonight we have agreed to support the ECF membership scheme
1 question was raised in the Durham leagues rules it states you can play 2 games before becomming a ECF member would we have to pay the £2 game fee on those games.
If we have to pay the full game fee then we will impose compulsary membership for all.

[Sean Hewitt]

1 question was raised in the Durham leagues rules it states you can play 2 games before becomming a ECF member would we have to pay the £2 game fee on those games.

Yes you would. Every game by a non-member will be charged at £2 per game per non-member.

[Sean Hewitt]

It is becoming apparent that the new ECF Membership scheme will likely see us struggling with shortfalls.

No it isn't.

It's becoming apparent that the junior concessions proposed off the hoof at the April Council Meeting will leave us with a shortfall. That's not surprising given that the proposer and seconder of those reductions offered no equivalent revenue raising suggestion elsewhere in the budget. They won the vote after suggesting that they had worked out that the ECF would be £10k pa better off by accepting the reduction and for some reason council believed them. I found it all surreal.

[Richard Bates]

Just as a general point is it the intention that the new arrangements come into force on September 1st, with no transitional period? I only say this because i note in passing that the entry form for the Paignton Congress (September 2nd-September 8th) still has game fee reductions of c. 40p a game for ECF members. Implying that there is a potential bill coming their way for things they haven't budgeted for.

[Roger de Coverly]

They won the vote after suggesting that they had worked out that the ECF would be £10k pa better off by accepting the reduction and for some reason council believed them. I found it all surreal.

Haven't you figured it out yet?

You can put what you like in a budget for Income, but that's no assurance it will actually be collected. When the budget claims that it can collect from a particular subset of your population, namely junior organisations, something like 5 times or more what was being collected previously, there is at least a risk that they will say "No". So the practical outcome is equivalent, you just run out of money with the actual accounts in 2013, rather than the budget in 2012.

Put another way, junior organisers were prepared to pay around £ 1 per head per event to be part of the ECF and national grading. Increase the cost up beyond that and they will be tempted to ignore the ECF.

For local leagues and Congresses, the effect was to not more than double the payments to the ECF. As we know the CEO considers the amounts paid to the ECF by the most active players too high and is determined to reduce them. The shortfall has to come from somewhere. It would have been mostly the juniors on paper, but it's now the Olympiad budget.

(edit) Even as finally developed, the Game Fee for a junior rapid play event was 15p per game per player. It's increasing to 25p per game, so that's still a two-thirds increase. (/edit)

[Roger de Coverly]

I only say this because i note in passing that the entry form for the Paignton Congress (September 2nd-September 8th) still has game fee reductions of c. 40p a game for ECF members. Implying that there is a potential bill coming their way for things they haven't budgeted for.

I think that's very likely. They will probably need to insist that all players join directly with the ECF and refuse entries who claim to be members through a local body.

As implementation plans go, this is going badly. At the risk of defeat on points of detail, the ECF should have insisted on locking the rules and amounts of the new scheme last October or November. Either that or it should have locked them at the April meeting for partial introduction in 2012 with complete introduction in 2013.

(edit) It's not all bad for Congresses. If they budgeted to pay the ECF's charge for FIDE rating fees out of the entry fees, then they no longer have to pay this (/edit).

[Adam Raoof]

Put another way, junior organisers were prepared to pay around £ 1 per head per event to be part of the ECF and national grading. Increase the cost up beyond that and they will be tempted to ignore the ECF.

Council's decision was a perfect example of what is wrong with the ECF, and why many critics of the ECF believe the current structure simply fails. Important decisions were pushed down the agenda, and critical business decisions made on the hoof by delegates who simply wanted to leave on time and catch a train.

My opinion is that the ECF needs to be much more firm with junior organisers, and we do have the leverage. I am in favour of a membership scheme aimed specifically at Juniors at a basic level, and I am sure that we will revisit this idea in the future.

Nevertheless, we don't actually know what the effect of Council's changes will be.

[Neill Cooper]

Preliminary indications - in the process of being verified by the Finance Director - are that the impact of the changes made by Finance Council will be to reduce the ECF's income in 2012/13 by an amount in the range £8,750 to £19,750. The range reflects a range of assumptions about behaviours across the country in response to the post-Sept 1 changes, with the higher figure reflecting a worst case scenario.

But the original costings for juniors were greatly optimistic, as made clear in the Junior membership paper. So you should not compare the new figures with the false budget ones. The "real" reductions are therefore not as great as you state.

The new figures, which you produced, were considered by a few of us. My feeling was that they were conservative, but I would preferred to err in that direction. My hope and expectation is that the large county junior organisations will follow Northumberland (an MO) in actively and effectively promoting Junior membership to juniors who regularly play at their events. If that occurs I would expect greater membership: Northumberland has done this and has about 80% membership, not the 10-20% or so we have assumed.