Compulsory Membership?

[John Townsend]

Roger, if you are referring to Berkshire, I won't be joining the ECF. Can't we just play ungraded games? (Some kind soul would probably grade them anyway - some people find grading too interesting for it to be neglected).

John

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger, if you are referring to Berkshire, I won't be joining the ECF. Can't we just play ungraded games? (Some kind soul would probably grade them anyway - some people find grading too interesting for it to be neglected).

Actually it was Bucks.

It depends on what the Berks Exec decides to propose to the Berks AGM and what the Berks AGM approves or disapproves. The financial bottom line is that for every game submitted to the ECF for grading played by a non-member, the county association will be sent a bill for £ 2. What it does in response to this threat remains to be seen.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

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?

Let's see:
game fee: the league can accurately predict the maximum no. of games that will be played and pays the appropriate amount, then deducts defaulted games x game fee when paying next season's bill.

MO: Club sec's have to obtain players' info, county treasurer has to send details to ECF, keep data securely, provide weekly updates, estimate how many games will be played by non members, and chase up game fee from clubs the following summer or autumn.

Conclusion: game fee is a considerably simpler system. There are no advantages to becoming an MO.

I'm guessing that Notts may offer a payment system but not opt for MO because of the extra hassle and I've heard Derbyshire are opting the 'do your own thing' approach (a lot of their players play in Staffs or Notts).

Based on all the games played by members of my club, even at £0.80 game fee, 14 out of 26 would be financially better off if we had kept game fee

[Roger de Coverly]

Conclusion: game fee is a considerably simpler system. There are no advantages to becoming an MO.

Whilst I entirely agree with this, the ECF have withdrawn the scheme. Instead it's in the context of something quite different where league games played by members of the ECF are graded for free, but games for non members cost £ 2 per head. The only option on the table, apart from withdrawing wholly or partly from grading, is whether you make players members through an "MO" or directly through the ECF website. I'm still waiting for reasons why you would prefer "MO" to "website".

[Sean Hewitt]

I won't be joining the ECF.

That's a shame and interesting at the same time. Are you able to say why?

Can't we just play ungraded games? (Some kind soul would probably grade them anyway - some people find grading too interesting for it to be neglected).

There's nothing to stop the playing ungraded games, provided the rest of the players in the event are happy to play ungraded games also. I would have thought it unlikely that 'some kind soul' would submit such games to the ECF as that would cost £2 per player per game for non-members. Of course, if the whole event went ungraded a localised grade for that event could be calculated instead.

[Sean Hewitt]

Let's see:
game fee: the league can accurately predict the maximum no. of games that will be played and pays the appropriate amount, then deducts defaulted games x game fee when paying next season's bill.

That might be the idea, but it's certainly not the reality. Just ask Alex Holowczak, who had to plough through mountains of game fee and grading data to reconcile voting entitlement at the recent finance council. If game fee is really as simple as you suggest, I wonder why is it that so many leagues **** it up?

MO: Club sec's have to obtain players' info

No they don't!

county treasurer has to send details to ECF

No they don't!

keep data securely

You mean they don't already?

chase up game fee from clubs the following summer or autumn.

No they don't.

Conclusion: game fee is a considerably simpler system. There are no advantages to becoming an MO.

Membership is far simpler than game fee, unless you deliberately want to screw it up. The evidence is out there and I speak from the position of having experienced both systems in Leicestershire.

The fact is that all counties that have become MOs have experienced both game fee and membership and have the benefit of seeing both schemes in real life. All such counties appear to be in favour of membership rather than game fee. If game fee were as simple and beneficial as Dragoljub and Roger would have us believe that, would imply every such county had independently reached the wrong conclusion. That seems extremely unlikely in my opinion, and is a fact that the refuseniks are unable to respond to each and every time it is made. It would also seem strange to me that, if game fee were as simple as is being suggested, game fee leagues appear completely unable to administer it competently. That's another fact that refuseniks seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge.

[Roger de Coverly]

It would also seem strange to me that, if game fee were as simple as is being suggested, game fee leagues appear completely unable to administer it competently. That's another fact that refuseniks seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge.

It's not difficult at league or county level. You charge an entry fee for each event sufficient to cover the Game Fee liability and any other local expenses. That's it. One or two transactions a year with the ECF and one transaction a year with the clubs. One transaction with individual entrants to a county championship. It's only if you get anal about it and try to send out itemised bills by player that you need a little bit of IT.

It's the ECF and the BCF before it that put no effort into making Game Fee collection as simple and as cheap at their end as possible. Whilst the reliability of the grading system improved year on year with attention paid to detail of making it as smooth as possible, the same wasn't applied to Game Fee apart from where it fell into place as a grading spin off. Reforms could have included the removal of the voting element if that added too much extra complexity. They could have adopted a Scottish or FIDE approach where a rating fee was payable for every player. I don't see that the ECF's new system of residual Game Fee requires any less work than the old one. In the old system, the ECF Office had to analyse a grading file and send an invoice to the league, county or Congress. The new system is exactly the same in principle with the added detail that you need itemisation by player as well.

The ECF has backed itself into a financial hole. How I ask, does it expand its income? It's no use financially to the ECF to get existing players to play more because it doesn't ask for a rating fee. It's not going to expand the headcount of players with all the barriers to participation being introduced by leagues. That leaves just two sources, it can try for chess tourists playing in non-international tournaments at £ 6 a head, or it can demand more money from the serious players, those left playing after the shake out of all the marginal ones.

[Paul Cooksey]

The Bucks AGM tonight agreed the two principles:
1. All competitive chess played in Buckinghamshire or representing the county in the Chiltern League shall be ECF graded.
2. All players shall be encouraged to join the ECF.

In contrast to neighbouring Oxford, Bucks put the administration in the hands of the clubs. They will handle membership and provide a £2 game/ board fee for any non-member who plays a league game. A motion for the county to fund game fee for players with 3 or fewer games was defeated. All nicely straightforward, and explained on one side of paper. I'm hoping for a similar approach from Berks.

Only one or two dissenting votes on the various motions. The most controversial discussion probably wasn't on funding, but on the composition of the county team in away matches, which I think puts things in perspective.

[Roger de Coverly]

In contrast to neighbouring Oxford, Bucks put the administration in the hands of the clubs. They will handle membership and provide a £2 game/ board fee for any non-member who plays a league game. A motion for the county to fund game fee for players with 3 or fewer games was defeated. All nicely straightforward, and explained on one side of paper. I'm hoping for a similar approach from Berks.

It's a sort of pass the parcel approach. Banning non ECF members from playing would be against the constitution, so it comes down to club treasurers fighting club match captains over the inclusion of non ECF members. Financially the good news is a reduction of £ 33 per team. But if you have three teams and six boards per team and an eligibility system only allowing limited overlaps, you are talking about under £ 5 per head. Whether clubs will just ban non-members from matches or allow match captains a wild card allowance to avoid defaults remains to be seen. We can at least get the season started because of the relatively high proportion of Gold members whose membership will overlap into the new membership year. The attitude to becoming an MO was something to do with barge-poles. So players are expected to become members in their own name. Those not wanting to do this online can presumably increase the workload of the Battle office.

Cut off dates for establishing membership remain unresolved. The ECF documents talk of membership year which implies 31st August 2013. The county treasurer would probably want to close the books before then, implying 30th April 2013 or the last match if later.

[Roger de Coverly]

T
In contrast to neighbouring Oxford, Bucks put the administration in the hands of the clubs

Oxford have a problem with the University club. Not just administration but because the University club have a reasonably large number of players playing in a limited number of matches. Whether charged at £ 12/13 per head or £ 2 per game, it's a lot more money than 58p per game. Venues being free or nearly so, the expenses are the fees payable to the ECF or the county association.

[Mick Norris]

Last night's Bury Chess Club AGM voted unanimously to make ECF Membership compulsory for club members

Ideally, Bury would like to do this by forming an MO as this is seen as much the simpler option

I hope that when Council is asked to accept clubs and congresses (in addition to leagues and counties) being allowed to sign a Framework Agreement and form an MO, Council members will vote in favour

It might not be how you want to operate but it would be petty to deny the opportunity to others who do

[Alex Holowczak]

I hope that when Council is asked to accept clubs and congresses (in addition to leagues and counties) being allowed to sign a Framework Agreement and form an MO, Council members will vote in favour

It might not be how you want to operate but it would be petty to deny the opportunity to others who do

I would vote against it.

Presumably the only reason that Bury would want to become an MO is to get the £1 discount.

The point of the £1 discount is to award it to bodies that collect significant memberships in order to make its collection simple:
(1) Online, because it involves no direct admin, gets the £1 discount
(2) MOs get the discount because some leagues may sign up 100s of members who won't do it directly, giving the ECF fewer points of contact, making it more administratively simple. Hence the £1 discount.

If you start doing that for every club, you seem to be flying in the face of (2).

If you want the £1 discount, why not just make everyone a member online?

[Alex Holowczak]

Last night's Cannock League AGM decided to vote for a £2 Game Fee liability for non-members (and £1 for juniors, presumably). It didn't sign a framework agreement, because everyone in the Cannock League plays in either the Wolverhampton League (which is signing a framework agreement) and the Birmingham League (which everyone expects will sign a framework agreement).

[Sean Hewitt]

Am I missing something? Where are the burning buildings, the rioting in the streets, the mass exodus and the death of the ECF that some forumites were predicting?

So far, we have heard that Yorkshire might disaffiliate (hardly a shock as they pay bugger all now) but precious little else. Certainly, no confirmed moves not to grade events.

Perhaps those that thought that game fee organisations would implement the membership scheme (albeit reluctantly) were right after all?

[Paul Cooksey]

Am I missing something? Where are the burning buildings, the rioting in the streets, the mass exodus and the death of the ECF that some forumites were predicting?

Well yes, although I'm afraid my glass is still half full.

With all these MOs springing up, are we going to see less admin for the ECF?