Compulsory Membership?

[Angus French]

I think this £2 capped at £12 is a misunderstanding. Andrew Farthing was asked about this at the meeting and said the £2 would keep being paid until that player becomes an ECF member. In theory once game fee paid reaches £12 that player should automatically become a member but there is no way of compelling somebody to be a member. Andrew Farthing, if he's reading this, will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong.

No, the original statement should be very close to the mark assuming leagues are 'on the ball'. Game fee liability will be determined once a league has been concluded and its results have been submitted for grading. Thus a decision can be taken on whether it's cheaper to pay game fee or to sign up for Bronze membership. It's not the case that game fee has to be paid until a player becomes a member. ECF memberships run from 1 September until the following 31 August, irrespective of when taken out.

In the tiny Harrogate league (six teams, four boards - the only league I can speak for) the majority of players (I'll have to work out exact stats later) play for Harrogate in the Yorkshire league and would become members under the universal membership scheme. Therefore the majority of games would qualify for grading. Andrew Farthing seemed to imply that games played between member vs non member would be graded with the non member's grade becoming hidden and non member vs non member would not be counted. Andrew Farthing also implied that the fee for leagues to affiliate (currently based around the amount of game fee that would be paid - hope I've got that right) would be removed.

All submitted games qualify for grading, regardless of whether players are ECF members or not. No grades are hidden.

[MartinCarpenter]

Not actually so clear cut for Huddersfield's team - 17 players overall, of which only about 3 playing congresses that I can see from the chessnuts site. Maybe some playing congresses outwith Yorkshire of course. Thats perhaps rather less than usual - York A and B are basically at hundred per cent for at least one congress/other league etc.

The overall number of players isn't shocking though - emergency reserves reasonably common of course. Huddersfied had 8 people who played 18 games overall between them and certainly some of those wouldn't be a priori ECF members. 2 pounds/head managable I suppose.
(Transport costs to away games definetly above that.).

[Andrew Zigmond]

Not actually so clear cut for Huddersfield's team - 17 players overall, of which only about 3 playing congresses that I can see from the chessnuts site. Maybe some playing congresses outwith Yorkshire of course. Thats perhaps rather less than usual - York A and B are basically at hundred per cent for at least one congress/other league etc.

The overall number of players isn't shocking though - emergency reserves reasonably common of course. Huddersfied had 8 people who played 18 games overall between them and certainly some of those wouldn't be a priori ECF members. 2 pounds/head managable I suppose.
(Transport costs to away games definetly above that.).

If a person just plays the odd game as a reserve then they wouldn't have to become an ECF member, they could just pay the game fee instead. Three games works out as £6, the same as the affiliation fee they used to pay.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding game fee liability - J Bloggs plays 10 games in the Yorkshire league while stating he will never become an ECF member under any circumstances. How much will the Yorkshire league be charged for, £12 equivalent to bronze membership or £20 for ten games at £2 game fee? The latter case was a key plank of the no argument yesterday so it's important to get this clarified.

[Roger de Coverly]

Three games works out as £6, the same as the affiliation fee they used to pay.

It's entirely up to Yorkshire to decide how to collect money for its internal purposes. But if it charged £ 6 for each head taking part in the Saturday league, then on three games, it would have paid 3 * 0.58 to the ECF, so the balance is income to Yorkshire.

Elsewhere teams were charged entry fees to local competitions, did Yorks do it on the basis of free entry but £ 6 per player? It's the effect that players already Direct (ie non MO) Members may get a modest price cut provided local organisations pass on savings in League Game Fees.

[Roger de Coverly]

How much will the Yorkshire league be charged for, £12 equivalent to bronze membership or £20 for ten games at £2 game fee? The latter case was a key plank of the no argument yesterday so it's important to get this clarified.

As far as anyone is aware, the ECF will attempt to charge £ 20 to the league or county. The point is that because it isn't doing so until 31st August 2013, the whole local collection chain from the county or league downwards has the opportunity to notice that the expenditure can be capped at £ 12 by using the on line facility to pay £ 12.

The collection chain is that the liability to the ECF is in the name of the organisation which submitted the event for grading. It can stop there as it usually does with current Game Fee. Alternatively you can have agreed local rules that the amounts will be passed on to the clubs. Again the club could just pay or have an internal rule that it passes the cost on to the match captain or the individual concerned. If the player has given up chess, or the club has folded, it's just a bad debt. Other solutions are no doubt possible, a system whereby clubs make a deposit with the local league to cover the £ 2 per heads was suggested as a means of handling the bad debt problem.

With the Yorkshire League and now any league, the larger your squad for the same number of matches, the more the club or collectively your players pay. But I think Yorks worked like that anyway, even under Game Fee. In the 4NCL it's effectively £ 27 a head, rather than £ 6.

[Roger de Coverly]

Local leagues remain untouched and graded via Yorkshire, but the Yorkshire league - which is serious and involves giving up multiple Saturdays, inter city travel costs etc - is.

Actually the treatment of Yorkshire players helps to explain a mystery, that is why there are quite so many players in the national grading list playing a handful of games. With the new detailing of results on the ECF grading site, you can clearly see active players with 20 to 30 Yorkshire local league games, playing just a handful of games in the Saturday league and having their national grade based on those. Whether a switch to a charge of £ 2 per game (max £13) affects the count of those playing in the Saturday league remains to be seen. If there was previously a headcount charge of £ 6, perhaps increasing it to £ 13 or £ 2 per game isn't seen as a major issue. You've still got to establish your mechanism of collecting it.

[Mark Howitt]

It's pretty obvious that a lot of Yorkshire players that they don't care about an ECF grade... some don't care about grades at all, even some highly rated players. I look forward to seeing the figures of how many people actually pay the chess tax. A Yorkshire grade is enough for many players.

Maybe the YCA should get clubs to find out how many of their members want to pay extra.

[Mark Howitt]

Right... this is the last post I'm doing this because it's too much time. I played in the Yorkshire league for 12 years and was never asked directly for a headcount charge of £6- neither were members of clubs I played for.

Don't get this idea that there are loads of super dedicated players wanting to play Saturday chess in Yorkshire. Teams still default boards and matches... there are some dedicated members, but many of them will be ECF members already. Many teams struggle to transport their team from one city to another.

[Roger de Coverly]

Maybe the YCA should get clubs to find out how many of their members want to pay extra.

As I see it, the Yorkshire County Association have made it a condition of taking part in the Saturday League. It's a gamble of sorts, because players could just decline to take part under those conditions.

In the rest of the country, national grading is sufficiently highly regarded that leagues will probably get away with it. One ticking bomb will be that the ECF will inevitably require more money, so the £ 12 cost won't be held. The other ticking bomb is that it becomes more difficult to recruit new players or entice back retired ones.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Right... this is the last post I'm doing this because it's too much time. I played in the Yorkshire league for 12 years and was never asked directly for a headcount charge of £6- neither were members of clubs I played for.

Don't get this idea that there are loads of super dedicated players wanting to play Saturday chess in Yorkshire. Teams still default boards and matches... there are some dedicated members, but many of them will be ECF members already. Many teams struggle to transport their team from one city to another.

Netherton would have paid the £6 registration fee to the YCA on your behalf, how the that was accounted for within fees you paid to the club is something you'd need to ask them.

[Andrew Zigmond]

It's pretty obvious that a lot of Yorkshire players that they don't care about an ECF grade... some don't care about grades at all, even some highly rated players. I look forward to seeing the figures of how many people actually pay the chess tax. A Yorkshire grade is enough for many players.

Maybe the YCA should get clubs to find out how many of their members want to pay extra.

The Yorkshire grading system arose after years of schism with the ECF which we're trying to move away from. As was pointed out during the meeting the Yorkshire grading system relies on somebody being willing to put in the (unpaid) hours necessary to do it. As I pointed out yesterday the last time a YCA grader retired we had one hell of a job finding a successor.

[Roger de Coverly]

I played in the Yorkshire league for 12 years and was never asked directly for a headcount charge of £6- neither were members of clubs I played for.

Presumably it was hidden in the club subscription and treated as part of the entry fee to the competition. So if you have 20 members of whom 15 play in the Saturday league in an average season, you either make sure you cover £ 6 per head for everyone and put the £ 30 surplus to your reserves, or you charge £ 4.50 per head and accept the minor cross-subsidy. You can do the same with £ 13 per head, but the hidden numbers are bigger.

Perhaps the Yorkshire county asked for £ 6 from everyone as a condition of access to the Yorks grading system and threw in the right to play in the Saturday league.

[Roger de Coverly]

The Yorkshire grading system arose after years of schism with the ECF which we're trying to move away from.

This is what used to be said, dating from twelve years ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/200410120629 ... adpoly.htm

It would have been simple enough on paper for the Yorkshire County Association to discontinue local grading and submit all the local leagues to the BCF under its own name. That way it would pocket all the votes at the cost of being responsible for raising money for the then BCF. Any local league not willing to pay would have been excluded from national grading. That was why in most of the rest of the country, non territorial leagues were willing to sign up.

[Paul Buswell]

Regarding game fee liability - J Bloggs plays 10 games in the Yorkshire league while stating he will never become an ECF member under any circumstances. How much will the Yorkshire league be charged for, £12 equivalent to bronze membership or £20 for ten games at £2 game fee? The latter case was a key plank of the no argument yesterday so it's important to get this clarified.

I assume it must be £20. If this situation arises within the Hastings club - and we have one active player who has declared their intention to resign ECF Membership as a result of the new scheme - then we could not in good conscience make J Bloggs a member against their will. If they play then our club will need to account for the sum of the £2s incurred. Our club AGM will consider a proposal to pass the game fee on to the players concerned.

PB