Compulsory Membership?

[Paul Cooksey]

The relationship between league, club and player can be many to many to many

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

You would think so, but I gather Cleveland asked for this a while back and were given a brush off. Game Fee and Grading got separated sometime in the mid nineties and it's only recently that they've been, up to a point, put back together again. The original problem was that the system of itemised data for grading ran into implementation difficulties, so Game Fee was implemented as a normal invoicing system but based to an extent on organisations being honest on how large their events were. If you don't have rebates for special classes of people you can do rating fees just based on the number of games played. You don't need the pairings or the results.

[Paul Buswell]

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.

I certainly hope no league will 'force' a player to become an ECF member in that scenario - I would find that immoral. If the League says before the season that all players must join, then it is the player's choice whether to participate in the League; but not membership compelled in that scenario. I am sure there are players who would prefer to be taxed @ £2 per game rather than join.

PB

[Angus French]

The relationship between league, club and player can be many to many to many

It's true that a player can play for more than one club in a league - it happens in the Surrey League for example (when a player may play for one club in one division and another club in another division). So, yes, in such leagues it may not be so easy to assign game fee liability (a possible solution might be to split the grading submission - for example, Surrey could have a grading submission for each division).

[Roger de Coverly]

I am sure there are players who would prefer to be taxed @ £2 per game rather than join.

A hard hearted league Treasurer would cap the League's expenditure at £ 12 or £ 13 by processing membership regardless. So would a club Treasurer. It would be a League or club rule, a condition of play. So I don't think the ECF will ever see more than £ 13 per head per league player.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's true that a player can play for more than one club in a league - it happens in the Surrey League for example. So, yes, in such leagues it won't be so easy to assign game fee liability.

I think a league or county would probably want to reverse engineer the calculation so as to be able to group data for billing in whatever manner it decided. You'd want the ECF to be able to give you a line by line itemised list so you can resolve any disputed totals.

If you are trying to bill people after the grading data had been processed, you could just look them up on the ECF grading site. You might end up with the league or county billing individuals directly. You would need something for county matches as well, as the SCCU proposes to bill county teams for non-members.

[Angus French]

You'd want the ECF to be able to give you a line by line itemised list so you can resolve any disputed totals.

... And also because, during the transition phase, a player could play some games for which game fee was payable (those played after membership had lapsed) and others for which it wasn't.

[benedgell]

Both the Bristol League and Somerset have voted to adopt the Membership Scheme.

[Neville Belinfante]

Assuming a league or county does not wish to go non-graded, then there is still a choice - become an MO or do not become an MO. Can someone give an assurance that the residual Game Fee liable and ECF Council voting entitlements for the league and county are the same regardless of this choice.

[Andrew Farthing]

Assuming a league or county does not wish to go non-graded, then there is still a choice - become an MO or do not become an MO. Can someone give an assurance that the residual Game Fee liable and ECF Council voting entitlements for the league and county are the same regardless of this choice.

Yes - voting rights aren't affected by MO/non-MO status.

[Sean Hewitt]

Assuming a league or county does not wish to go non-graded, then there is still a choice - become an MO or do not become an MO. Can someone give an assurance that the residual Game Fee liable and ECF Council voting entitlements for the league and county are the same regardless of this choice.

There are advantages to both the league and its member clubs in becoming an MO. In addition the game fee liability is deferred to the end of the season, but voting entitlement is unaffected.

[Roger de Coverly]

There are advantages to both the league and its member clubs in becoming an MO.

These being?

(edit)
I've actually thought of one. If you have a hypothetical 100% membership, but 100% membership through the ECF website, then leagues and Congresses are reduced to the role of service providers making no contribution to the finances of the ECF. Why then should such bodies still have the power to elect directors and make ECF policy, including financial policy? That's leagues, I don't see what's in it for clubs except to the extent that they dictate league and county policy. (/edit)

In addition the game fee liability is deferred to the end of the season, but voting entitlement is unaffected.

If all the players are members through the ECF website because you've barred anyone who isn't, there isn't anything to pay.

[Sean Hewitt]

There are advantages to both the league and its member clubs in becoming an MO.

These being?

Aren't they obvious to anyone who has considered the pros and cons of game fee vs. membership in an unbiased manner in order to formulate an opinion based on the facts?

[John Townsend]

They aren't obvious to me.

[Roger de Coverly]

Aren't they obvious to anyone who has considered the pros and cons of game fee vs. membership in an unbiased manner in order to formulate an opinion based on the facts?

No they aren't. Why would a county AGM faced with the limited choice of expecting players to join the ECF through the ECF website or through an MO elect the MO route?

For what it's worth, previous local AGM's rejected MOs not least because the amount saved on Game Fee for most individuals would be less than the cost of per head membership. Perhaps we were wrong. With all the players taking part in e2e4 and 4NCL events, perhaps the most active players could have short-changed the ECF. The extra amount of work involved in MOs and the duplication with neighbouring counties are also issues. With the option of joining the ECF through the ECF's website now on the table, why wouldn't an AGM select the "direct" option so as to cap expenditure at £ 12 per head per season?