Compulsory Membership?

[Roger de Coverly]

It is a matter of concern to me that this is being rushed. I think it would have been better for ECF to plan an orderly, fully informed implementation from 13/14.

It's certainly rushed. Last year AGMs before August couldn't vote in favour or against the scheme because details were partly unknown. This year all you can discuss is how many games to allow before you default players.

It was an essential part of the ECF's strategy to extract more money from players and organisations who don't either play much, or pay much. The Junior organisations are an obvious example, but I suppose the Hastings club is a less obvious one because of its internal tournaments. Like much of the South East, I imagine there's a reasonably high percentage of prospective ECF Gold members in Kent and Sussex. They can at least be consoled with the promise of cheaper league entry fees.

The ECF complains that not having individual membership leaves it out of touch with ordinary club players. But if such a player or their club or league secretary didn't monitor this forum or the ECF website, how would they actually find out? I don't think the ECF has any plans to write to every player on the grading list "inviting" them to become a member. It won't really be a national scheme anyway, as the critical question of whether you need to be a member to play graded chess will vary from area to area and varies in any event between leagues and Congresses and between Congresses. I don't think Congress Organisers of Rapid-Play events know whether they are expected to demand £ 27 membership for all potential ENG players if they want it to be FIDE rated.

[Mike Truran]

The Oxfordshire Chess Asociation committee agreed last week to recommend to our forthcoming AGM that we continue to have our games graded by the ECF and that we therefore sign a membership agreement with the ECF. We will be working through how to operationalise things over the next month or so, but it didn't seem to require a degree in nuclear physics to get it to work based on the discussion on the night.

One thing we have asked Adam Raoof to confirm is that the ECF will (a) provide the members register in a form which will allow local leagues to calculate residual game fee by club (I understand from our webmaster, who I believe understands these things, that the current Excel format isn't fit for purpose in this regard); and (b) provide its own analysis of residual game fee per club when it submits its end of season invoice.

[Simon Brown]

One thing we have asked Adam Raoof to confirm is that the ECF will (a) provide the members register in a form which will allow local leagues to calculate residual game fee by club (I understand from our webmaster, who I believe understands these things, that the current Excel format isn't fit for purpose in this regard); and (b) provide its own analysis of residual game fee per club when it submits its end of season invoice.

That should be interesting!

[David Gilbert]

They can at least be consoled with the promise of cheaper league entry fees.

This is true, but as my Club Treasurer pointed out at our AGM earlier this month, our 2012/13 League fees are based on game fee from the 2011/12 season. Any reduction in League entry fees and subsequent cuts in Club subscriptions are unlikely to follow until 2013/14.

It has probably been noted previously, but the ECF will receive a financial double whammy in 2012/13 accounting year. The new world of membership fees - I'd expect most players to apply for membership before the season starts - will merge with the old world of game fee from the 2011/12 season. Given this, it seems plausible to me that one of Roger's key "measures of failure" (could Roger ever measure in terms of success?), that is "(b) not raising the money required to finance the ECF's activities", will not be realised, at least not during the ECFs 2012/13 accounting year. Is this right - maybe I'm missing something?

I'm not as gloomy as those who invariably make pessimistic predictions on this forum about the eventual outcome. What seems to be happening is that Leagues (at least those reporting through this thread) are applying collective action, whether they realise that or not, to implement a national membership scheme on behalf of the ECF.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Oxfordshire Chess Asociation committee agreed last week to recommend to our forthcoming AGM that we continue to have our games graded by the ECF and that we therefore sign a membership agreement with the ECF.

I can understand the first half, but why does the second half (sign a membership agreement) follow? Why cannot a county association leave it to individuals or at a pinch club secretaries to join the ECF using the ECF's online membership system?

.
This is true, but as my Club Treasurer pointed out at our AGM earlier this month, our 2012/13 League fees are based on game fee from the 2011/12 season. Any reduction in League entry fees and subsequent cuts in Club subscriptions are unlikely to follow until 2013/14.

I think you would be unusual in this. The alternative approach is to set the league or county budget to raise enough money to cover its outgoings without being too precise about exactly balancing Game Fee to clubs.

. Given this, it seems plausible to me that one of Roger's key "measures of failure" (could Roger ever measure in terms of success?), that is "(b) not raising the money required to finance the ECF's activities", will not be realised, at least not during the ECFs 2012/13 accounting year. Is this right - maybe I'm missing something?

The ECF will surely be hit in the 2012-13 year, ie the current one.

Had the old system continued, the ECF would have expected to receive the bulk of its league income round about December 2012. That's because when you are charging every game, you know how much to expect from a league before games have been played. There's an adjustment after the end of the season to balance the numbers which is sometimes carried forward to the new season. It cannot expect anything like that income under the new arrangements because leagues can very reasonably insist that they expect nearly all players to become members and in any case they don't know what club selection policies will be used for the rest of the season. So the ECF's primary source of income will be the £ 12 or £ 13 that it expects from existing non-members replacing the (often smaller) amounts paid by their leagues in Game Fee. For existing Direct members, it won't see anything until after they renew, if they do.

The ECF won't even know and certainly won't see the income from residual Game Fee until at the earliest when it has all the grading data and can then analyse against membership data. The ECF's year end is April 30th, whilst the grading half year runs to 30th June and the membership year to August 31st. If clubs or leagues manage to exclude all players who don't play much, then the head count * £ 13 is all the ECF is going to see and a budget that reckons there's an extra £ 20,000 to come from residual Game Fee is pie in the sky.

[Angus French]

Under compulsory membership, I don’t understand why a chess organisation would become or remain a Membership Organisation. Am I missing something?

It seems it will be advantageous for individuals to apply for membership through the ECF's online facility rather than through an MO:
- The membership activates as soon as possible; there’s no lag
- The cost discount is available throughout the membership year (it doesn’t become unavailable two months into the membership year) and is passed on directly
- Multi-year memberships are available
- A login to the membership system is allocated, enabling the member to update their details at some later time if it becomes necessary, and to renew easily. (Will logins be provided for memberships taken out through an MO?)

MOs obviously require extra administrative effort on the part of the chess organisation. If membership data is routed indirectly (via the MO - [edit]and possibly also via a club[/edit]) then there’s more chance that it will be mis-transcribed or corrupted. The format of membership data which the ECF requires is subject to change (and isn’t currently defined).

Don’t the above points outweigh the benefit that an MO will become liable to pay game fee charges - which should be small if the MO has used its “best endeavours” to ensure that its players become ECF members - at what will likely be a later date than would be the case if it wasn’t an MO? Are there other benefits of becoming an MO?

[Mike Truran]

I can understand the first half, but why does the second half (sign a membership agreement) follow? Why cannot a county association leave it to individuals or at a pinch club secretaries to join the ECF using the ECF's online membership system?

It doesn't follow - please ignore the word 'therefore' in my post. The committee decided to recommend it because it felt it was a sensible thing to do (and it is entirely within the gift of the AGM not to accept the committee's recommendation). As you say, signing up on line is a perfectly valid alternative.

[Roger de Coverly]

Given this, it seems plausible to me that one of Roger's key "measures of failure" (could Roger ever measure in terms of success?),

If you want measures of success it would be
(a) increases the number of players playing at least one game of graded chess
(b) increases the number of graded games played
(c) increases the ECF's income.

Does anyone seriously think that (a) is remotely likely? (b) is possible by virtue of working existing players harder. In a league of a constant number of matches and boards, fewer players means more games by existing players if defaults are to be avoided. (c) is suspect because the nature of the change is to give price cuts to the most active players and hope to raise equivalent and more from the more marginal ones. The Budget has already been compromised because Council reduced the income the ECF hoped to get from Junior Organisations based on a perception that the price asked was too high for new players.

[John Townsend]

Roger de Coverly wrote:

It was an essential part of the ECF's strategy to extract more money from players and organisations who don't either play much, or pay much.

This is what disappoints me most about the new ECF fees/charges. They are, in effect, measures aimed at Caïssa’s less ardent votaries, whereas, in my view, efforts should be made to find and retain more newcomers to the game. The proposals seem more likely to turn them away, together with some players who currently have an interest in chess but are not really committed. Neither can such people vote against because few of them have sufficient understanding of the procedures. Casual interest ought to be nurtured.

[Neville Belinfante]

From page 14

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

The first question has been answered as July 1st. The answer to the last question has been answered today by the statement that the information was put on the ECF website amongst all the membership papers last week (without any publicity). Too late unfortunately for consideration by the Bucks County Chess Assocation executive and the Chiltern League.

I was very disappointed to read that MOs cannot apply to affiliated congresses. At the time of last October's AGM, I believed any organisation which was affiliated to the ECF could become an MO. Did anyone else also have this belief?

As the text in the MO agreement says that fees due are based on an invoice the ECF shall supply, it makes the answer to the middle questions even more relevant than before.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

[Roger de Coverly]

Are there other benefits of becoming an MO?

I think the ECF may have noticed the cash flow problem. If you don't calculate residual Game Fee until August 2013, you don't have any income from it until then. I don't see why a league not operating an MO cannot say to the ECF that it expects all its players to play at least 7 games and they will then become members by force if necessary and it has no intention of paying a bill that may not exist.

For an ECF that seemed determined to assert that collecting a few commercial invoices was a seriously expensive proposition, it now seems remarkably relaxed about continuing the process. It's even trying to retain the feature of estimate and payment that was claimed to be problematic. A lack of integration between grading and billing/collection has always been a problem, there's even now a probably justified demand for a more itemised residual Game Fee invoice. Whilst this wasn't necessary in the past, leagues were not unduly bothered about reconciling Game Fee to the last penny if they met the expense out of entry fees. The system being envisioned is one of pass the parcel, where the ECF sends an invoice of residual Game Fee to the league, who break it down and send it to the club treasurer, who then attempts to collect it from the individual or team captain. It follows that the invoice has to be exactly correct.

For early season Congress organisers and probably the ECF Office, local membership schemes are a potential serious headache . The more of them there are, the less likely the organiser or the Office are able to establish liability for the £ 6 Congress fee and match such payments to an existing Bronze fee. It's not speculation, Alex McF commented a while back on how difficult it was for a Congress to work out what it owed the ECF when it didn't have certainty on who was a member and who wasn't.

[Sean Hewitt]

(a) provide the members register in a form which will allow local leagues to calculate residual game fee by club (I understand from our webmaster, who I believe understands these things, that the current Excel format isn't fit for purpose in this regard)

Hmm. The current format works fine for me.

(b) provide its own analysis of residual game fee per club when it submits its end of season invoice.

If it can do it easily fine, but I don't know if if it can. I'm not sure why the ECF would do this given the liability to the ECF rests with the OCA rather than the clubs.

[Roger de Coverly]

Hmm. The current format works fine for me.

If you want to know who is a member at the time of the list, then I wouldn't have thought any one with spreadsheet experience would have much difficulty. If though, you needed to know not just who was a member at the date of the list, but who had been a member up to twelve months earlier, it wouldn't tell you.

(edit)

I'm not sure why the ECF would do this given the liability to the ECF rests with the OCA rather than the clubs.

It would no doubt be possible, with a little arm twisting, for the grader and treasurer of a county association to both work out residual Game Fee and list it by individual. The difficulty would be if, probably when, the ECF came up with a different total. Wasn't the need to apportion Game Fee by club and individual quoted by Leics as a reason why membership was easier? Like Bucks, Oxon didn't bother to itemise. So they just charged clubs an league entry fee based on the expected number of games and didn't bother how many or how few individuals actually participated.
(/edit)

[Angus French]

Hmm. The current format works fine for me.

If you want to know who is a member at the time of the list, then I wouldn't have thought any one with spreadsheet experience would have much difficulty. If though, you needed to know not just who was a member at the date of the list, but who had been a member up to twelve months earlier, it wouldn't tell you.

I think you'd want a list for each membership year which showed every person who had been a member during the year (including - during the transition phase - those who were a member at the start of the year but whose membership had lapsed during the year) and the date that their membership expired (which will usually be 31 August but could - during the transition phase - be some other month end date).

[Angus French]

I'm not sure why the ECF would do this given the liability to the ECF rests with the OCA rather than the clubs.

It would no doubt be possible, with a little arm twisting, for the grader and treasurer of a county association to both work out residual Game Fee and list it by individual. The difficulty would be if, probably when, the ECF came up with a different total. Wasn't the need to apportion Game Fee by club and individual quoted by Leics as a reason why membership was easier? Like Bucks, Oxon didn't bother to itemise. So they just charged clubs an league entry fee based on the expected number of games and didn't bother how many or how few individuals actually participated.
(/edit)

Presumably the ECF will calculate the game fee due for each event from the event's grading file submission and, since, these list a player's club... it should be easy.