Membership year vs grading year

[Roger de Coverly]

Can you explain what you mean by one legged facility please Roger? I am of the understanding that ECF members can have all their games graded in these other leagues. Are you saying this is wrong?

Yorks and the other MOs have this facility in the MO agreements terminating 31st August. It's been withdrawn in the new Framework agreements. Had it not been withdrawn, county associations in other parts of the country could, by signing MO agreements, have allowed their local non territorial leagues and junior organisations to allow players to opt out of grading on a selective basis. By abolishing league Game Fee for existing Direct Members, the ECF is giving quite a lot of money away in comparison to its current funding, even before it tries to recover from the loss of the DCMS Grant. As it is, it's making over optimistic assumptions about what it will collect as residual Game Fee.

(edit) By one-legged, I mean the facility to calculate the grade for one of the players only, so No Game Fee is collected for member v non member. The new rules require £ 2 to be owed in those circumstances by the organisation running the event. The ECF could if it wished, make it a benefit of Gold or Platinum membership that a game against anyone anywhere would count for grading. The Welsh and Scots do this with their membership schemes. But the ECF don't for events in England.
(/edit)

[Ian Jamieson]

Must be a new record for ignoring the thread title and re-hashing - for the hundredth time - the funding argument.

The thread is about how county organisations respond to the funding argument. In general they are finding that the reduction in league fees is less than the individual membership cost. In practice, it appears AGMs, anyway, are prepared to absorb this extra cost and expect the non AGM attending local players to do likewise.

Or is it still disputed that per head costing works out more expensive for less active players?

I am the person who started the post and I intended the thread to be about whether or not it would be a good idea for the membership year to be changed to coincide with the grading year.

[Mick Norris]

I think a membership year that starts on 1 September makes sense, given the winter seasons start late September early October and some players don't play over the summer

Following on from that, it may well make sense for the ECF to change it's financial year to match i.e have a year end of 31 August

I think you need to have gradings available when entering teams (and picking captains) for the winter league and county seasons, so I would favour the current grading year staying put

[Roger de Coverly]

I am the person who started the post and I intended the thread to be about whether or not it would be a good idea for the membership year to be changed to coincide with the grading year.

With the grading year now a six month period, you would have the choice of the calendar year or the period 1st July to 30th June. The calendar year approach was used by the BCF for the levy and registration scheme abandoned in around 1994. For individual members, a 1st July to 30th June would mean that players intending to play in the British Championships and other July or August events would have to renew early. League only players might not bother until they were sure they were playing club chess in the new season. Club or league based MOs wouldn't really be functioning in July or August so aren't in a position to collect anything.

[Ian Jamieson]

It doesn't make any difference as far as I can see whether someone who only plays September to May joins in September but doesn't use his membership from the following June to August or joins in June but doesn't use his membership until September.

Under the new system it also doesn't matter when in the season you join only whether you were a member in the membership year the game was played in.

/Edit I was thinking about changing the membership year to July to June. I don't think Roger's points about having to renew early or not entering until September are valid - someone is going to have to renew early whenever the membership year starts and under the new system it doesn't matter when in the membership year someone joins. I accept Roger's point however about some leagues / MOs not functioning in July /Edit

[Adam Raoof]

It doesn't make any difference as far as I can see whether someone who only plays September to May joins in September but doesn't use his membership from the following June to August or joins in June but doesn't use his membership until September.

Under the new system it also doesn't matter when in the season you join only whether you were a member in the membership year the game was played in.

Normally I would suggest that memberships should begin just as you suggest, as the season starts and people are thinking of joining clubs and starting league chess, and be offered pro rata throughout the year. However what makes this... unusual... is the retroactive effect of joining later in the season to cover games played earlier in the year and the complication of game fee. Does it really matter when the membership begins in those circumstances?

[Ian Jamieson]

It doesn't make any difference as far as I can see whether someone who only plays September to May joins in September but doesn't use his membership from the following June to August or joins in June but doesn't use his membership until September.

Under the new system it also doesn't matter when in the season you join only whether you were a member in the membership year the game was played in.

Normally I would suggest that memberships should begin just as you suggest, as the season starts and people are thinking of joining clubs and starting league chess, and be offered pro rata throughout the year. However what makes this... unusual... is the retroactive effect of joining later in the season to cover games played earlier in the year and the complication of game fee. Does it really matter when the membership begins in those circumstances?

It is only really an issue for games played between 1/7 and 31/8 each year so won't effect leagues unless they run summer leagues but does effect e.g. the British

The problem is that games played in this period fall in a different grading year than membership year. e.g next year's British falls in the grading year 1/7/2013 - 30/6/2014 but in the membership year 1/9/2012 - 31/8/2013.

[Roger de Coverly]

under the new system it doesn't matter when in the membership year someone joins.

That's only conditionally true. For a Congress, it's necessary to be a Silver member or the Congress will charge £ 6 extra. If you play in a FIDE rated event and want to keep your rating it's Gold membership. If you play in a league which has enacted a "members only" rule, you need to be a member or else your team may be defaulted.

Membership backdating only applies to leagues, county matches and internal club events. Congresses are expected to settle on the basis of the membership status at the time of the Congress. As far as the British Championships are concerned, the ECF is likely to need a 14 months for 12 offer every year, although it will only apply to new or upgrading players.

[Ian Jamieson]

True.

All good reasons for becoming an ECF member as early as possible in the membership year.

[Ian Jamieson]

Rather than have a 14 months for the price of 12 offer every year wouldn't it be easier to bring the financial year and the membership year in line with the grading year particularly if the financial year is being changed anyway?

[Ian Kingston]

Must be a new record for ignoring the thread title and re-hashing - for the hundredth time - the funding argument.

The thread is about how county organisations respond to the funding argument. In general they are finding that the reduction in league fees is less than the individual membership cost. In practice, it appears AGMs, anyway, are prepared to absorb this extra cost and expect the non AGM attending local players to do likewise.

Or is it still disputed that per head costing works out more expensive for less active players?

Read the title and the first post. It's not about costs for less active players.

[Roger de Coverly]

Read the title and the first post. It's not about costs for less active players.

The first two lines of the very first post in the thread read

Apologies if this has already been raised.

I have recently been thinking how my local league can cover its potential game fee liability.

Although the edit now says he was more interested in the case for moving the financial year end to 30th June ( from 30th April) and the membership year end also to 30th June ( from 31st August). In both cases this coincides with one of the half-yearly grading cut offs.

I'm not sure how far the change to 31st August as the year end has been progressed; Council have yet to discuss or vote on it, but the budget seems to have been prepared as if it's a done deal. Moving from 30th April to 30th June has the advantage, if it is one, of not having the British Championship falling twice in one financial year.