Compulsory Membership?

[John Philpott]

Matthew Turner wrote

That does not negate my point that the grant would have been cut previously had some official looked at how the ECF spent it's money, because it simply wasn't spent in the way the government wanted.

For many years I had a direct involvement with the claiming of the DCMS grant. One of the specific items of information regularly submitted was a profile of how the grant was intended to be spent and actually was spent. The profile included (and I am quoting here from a fax that I sent as long ago as 1 December 2000) specific items such as Junior Chess Development, Women's Chess Development, International Chess, Coaching and Education Initiatives, Prisons and Disabled Chess Initiatives and Marketing Chess, and a not insubstantial figure for Central Office Support. If the DCMS or its predecessors had had a problem with the last of these items, they would presumably have said so at the time.

[Matthew Turner]

John,
Reading that statement without seeing the accounts I don't think somebody would jump to the conclusion that the spending on Office Support was several multiples of the first six items combined. It is a fantastic example of how the ECF portrayed their spending to the government. If the government wanted the bulk of the grant spent on the Office then why not list that first. The ECF didn't because the government didn't.

[Neville Belinfante]

Would someone on the board be able to answer the following questions please

What is the current estimate for when the CVENT Online Membership Payment System will go live?

What is the current estimate for when automatic invoices are sent to event treasurers based on what was submitted for grading? Is this going to be part of the CVENT system, or independent of that?

What is the current estimate for when information about how to become a MO is sent to any league/county/congress that may be considering becoming one?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

Thanks to Alex H for answer the first of these questions when I raised them two pages ago. Hopefully other board members can answer the other questions.

Who decided the order of items for the agenda for the Council meeting?

By putting the Junior Membership paper right at the end of an over-packed agenda, meant it had little chance for discussion. There would have been even less chance of its contents making the budget, even if they were discussed and approved unanimously by the meeting.

Thanks to Andrew for confirming the answer to the first question; answering the supplementary question and his precis of the situation a few posts up.

I fully supported the changes made at the meeting, because the figures proposed by the board were deeply flawed. The belief that Junior Organisors should expect children playing their first tournament to become members at £13 or be charged £6 extra is just fanciful. On the original proposals many events would have gone ungraded. With the new scheme I expect eveything is still graded, and more junior events will spring up.

I look forward to the answer to my second and third questions in due course.

[John Philpott]

Matthew Turner wrote

Reading that statement without seeing the accounts I don't think somebody would jump to the conclusion that the spending on Office Support was several multiples of the first six items combined.

It would have been erroneous to jump to such a conclusion because the statement that the spending on Office support was several multiples of the first six items combined was simply not the case, at least during the period when I was dealing with the grant.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would have been erroneous to jump to such a conclusion because the statement that the spending on Office support was several multiples of the first six items combined was simply not the case, at least during the period when I was dealing with the grant.

The annual budget spreadsheets which can be downloaded from the ECF site show columns going back several years. Even five years ago, outside of grading and International there is hardly any net spending shown on anything other than Management Services.

The budget spreadsheets have not in recent years disclosed anything regarding the DCMS submission.

[Neill Cooper]

My concern about the assertions made concerning likely reactions from junior chess organisers or competitors was that they were largely taken as read, when in fact their evidentiary basis was thin and, in my view, very questionable. They did not gel with the responses that I was getting from junior organisers in my local area.

Who were the junior organisers you spoke to? Or at least, which organisations did they represent?

In our analyse an important component was how many games were graded at present, because they would have the biggest effect if they stopped grading games because of the new junior game/membership fee. The rough figures were as follows:

Code: Select all

Association       Games
Coulsdon CF       4585
Kent	           2668
Enfield/Barnet    2653
Sussex            2316
Essex	          1410
Northumberland    1383
LJCC	           1347
Briant Poulter	 1196
Wilts	           906
Herts              681
Berks	           634
Oxon	            616
Yorks	           579

We consulted with all organisation with over 1000 games, which meant we did not consult with Wilts who proposed the new grading fees. Did you consult with any of these organisations? Between them they account for three quarters of all games in junior events. Obviously much smaller organisations (Worcs had 42 games and Warwicks 82) could more easily adapt to the new situation, but they will have negligible effect.

On a slightly different tack, I now have approximate figures for the number of graded secondary school games:

Code: Select all

 League                     Games
Briant Poulter League	    1196
ECF Schools 	              851
Millfield International      544
Birmingham Schools League      6
All other Sec Sch Leagues      0

Which is why the Briant Poulter wished to be considered a special case. I think the Millfield International should also be seen as a special case, since the ECF schools, by virtue of being run by the ECF, is a special case. That is one reason why all secondary school chess matches should be graded for free.

[E Michael White]

Matthew Turner wrote

That does not negate my point that the grant would have been cut previously had some official looked at how the ECF spent it's money, because it simply wasn't spent in the way the government wanted.

For many years I had a direct involvement with the claiming of the DCMS grant. One of the specific items of information regularly submitted was a profile of how the grant was intended to be spent and actually was spent. The profile included (and I am quoting here from a fax that I sent as long ago as 1 December 2000) specific items such as Junior Chess Development, Women's Chess Development, International Chess, Coaching and Education Initiatives, Prisons and Disabled Chess Initiatives and Marketing Chess, and a not insubstantial figure for Central Office Support. If the DCMS or its predecessors had had a problem with the last of these items, they would presumably have said so at the time.

I expect the department considered the size of IHT clawback via the JRT money which made the withdrawal of the DCMS grant easier. Also since 2008 charity tax relief is avalable to a well organised ECF which wouldnt have been ignored by the DCMS people. Governments often give with one hand and take with the other. i doubt office expense was significant in the decision.

The ECF board need to reposition financially instead of self delusion with old solutions.

[Roger de Coverly]

In our analyse an important component was how many games were graded at present, because they would have the biggest effect if they stopped grading games because of the new junior game/membership fee.

I think that made a game count (half game count?) of around 21,000. So if it's half game count, that's between £ 3,000 and £ 6,000 in Game Fee depending on the mix between rapid and standard. If you assume 14 games on average, that represents 1,500 players. So at £12 each for Junior Silver, that's around £ 18,000 the ECF expected to be found by the Junior organisations. Even if you can achieve that sort of price rise, you are unlikely to be able to get there in one season.

[Neill Cooper]

In our analyse an important component was how many games were graded at present, because they would have the biggest effect if they stopped grading games because of the new junior game/membership fee.

I think that made a game count (half game count?) of around 21,000. So if it's half game count, that's between £ 3,000 and £ 6,000 in Game Fee depending on the mix between rapid and standard. If you assume 14 games on average, that represents 1,500 players. So at £12 each for Junior Silver, that's around £ 18,000 the ECF expected to be found by the Junior organisations. Even if you can achieve that sort of price rise, you are unlikely to be able to get there in one season.

Full games, not half games. A total of 23,217 rapid and 4414 long.

[Alex Holowczak]

Birmingham Schools League 6

It should be noted that this was the first time in memory that it was graded, and my memory of this league dates back to 2001. This will probably never be repeated.

[William Metcalfe]

I need to double check something the only way a none ECF member can play congress chess would be if the congress was not graded by the ECF.
Some people seem to think there is some kind of payment to cover the game fee cost that would allow none members to play in Congresses i have been saying there is no such thing am i right.

[Roger de Coverly]

I need to double check something the only way a none ECF member can play congress chess would be if the congress was not graded by the ECF.
Some people seem to think there is some kind of payment to cover the game fee cost that would allow none members to play in Congresses i have been saying there is no such thing am i right.

The £ 6 "Scotsman Charge" has been part of the proposals from the beginning. So non members are not barred from Congresses, rather the Congress will be billed for £ 6 per head by the ECF. Whilst it may not be much of an issue for a number of events, Alex McF has noted the potential problems for UK-wide events such as Scarborough and Blackpool.

I suppose I should refrain from being nasty, but I do get angry when those advocating and presumably voting for proposals in the ECF Council don't actually know what the proposals are.

(edit) I should add the caveat that the various versions had different rules. Version 1 as approved by the April 2011 Council meeting had the £ 6 non-member charge for everyone. Version 2 which came out after the Council meeting and was current during the AGM season, restricted the charge to "not English". Given this is almost impossible to define, version 3 reinstated the Version 1 concept. Those who voted at the October Council meeting, voted to modify the Game Fee for Congresses to be a flat £ 6 per head if it was a "Silver" Congress. If it's a "Gold" Congress, in other words FIDE rated, non-members, if English, are barred, but foreigners, including Scots, Welsh and Irish can play for no revenue to the ECF except a contribution to the FIDE rating costs. (/edit)

[William Metcalfe]

Ok so a none ecf member who is based in England can pay £6 extra and play a congress.Next question what kind of member do you need to be to play a ecf rated 1 day quickplay tournament.

[Roger de Coverly]

Ok so a none ecf member who is based in England can pay £6 extra and play a congress.Next question what kind of member do you need to be to play a ecf rated 1 day quickplay tournament.

It's exactly the same, Silver. So if you have a one day event, the Game Fee for five rounds this year was £ 1.45 per head per non-member. On the new scheme it will be £ 6 and the entry fee might increase from around £ 15 to around £ 19 or £ 20. At that sort of level, organisers might contemplate offering ungraded events or sections. Also the increase will apply to "Bronze" members playing their only Congress of the year. As one of the reasons stated for the introduction of the NMS was a resistance by Congress organisers and players for increases in entry fees when Game Fee went up, it remains to be seen how this will play out.

(edit) FIDE rated rapid-play presents a problem. Will the ECF count it as Silver, in which case the "Scotsman Tax" applies? Will they count it as Gold, in which case Scotsmen get in for no ECF payment but English are expected to buy or upgrade to Gold? (/edit)

[Andrew Farthing]

I need to double check something the only way a none ECF member can play congress chess would be if the congress was not graded by the ECF.
Some people seem to think there is some kind of payment to cover the game fee cost that would allow none members to play in Congresses i have been saying there is no such thing am i right.

Ok so a none ecf member who is based in England can pay £6 extra and play a congress.Next question what kind of member do you need to be to play a ecf rated 1 day quickplay tournament.

William,

The best place to find authoritative answers about the new arrangements is the ECF website http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=18690. There's a danger that you may be misled by incomplete or inaccurate answers on this forum.

1. You don't have to be an ECF member to play in a graded congress (unless the congress organiser specifies otherwise).

2. If you are not an ECF Silver member or above, you will have to pay the full entry fee without the game fee discount usually available to ECF members. It's up to congress organisers how they price their event and how much of a discount, if any, to offer to ECF Silver members or above, but the cost to the organiser of each non-ECF member or Bronze member is £6 per adult and £4 per junior. This is the same regardless of the rate of play and number of rounds.

3. In the case of FIDE rated events, the ECF requires that any English-registered player is a Gold ECF member or higher. If, despite this, an English-registered player takes part in a FIDE-rated event, the player will be de-registered from the FIDE list.

4. In the case of FIDE-rated rapidplays, we are in effect in a trial period while FIDE assesses demand and whether it wishes to continue to rate rapidplay events on an ongoing basis. Currently, FIDE makes no charge for rating rapid plays. In recognition that this is still a trial period, the ECF is asking organisers of FIDE-rated rapidplays to ask for English participants to be ECF members, but we would take a more flexible view in considering individual exceptions if the only FIDE-rated events in which the person had competed were rapidplays.