Compulsory Membership?

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex Holowczak wrote

Don't sign a framework agreement, and you pay as you do now (by December 15).

Unless Council amends the Game Fee Bye Laws to change the due date for chess leagues to 30 days after the conclusion of the event.

Well yes. I couldn't really write a post that gave an answer to a question based on what the Bye-Laws might say in future, on the basis that there are an infinite number of things they could say in the future...

[Roger de Coverly]

The answer to the question you were accusing the ECF of not thinking about the answer of is:

Sign a framework agreement, and you are invoiced the Game Fee at the end of the season.

Don't sign a framework agreement, and you pay as you do now (by December 15). If this is inconvenient administratively due to all the problems of estimating Game Fee, then sign a framework agreement.

So you aren't an MO, you estimate the amount of Game Fee on December 15th. Why should the estimate be any higher than £ nil?

Has the ECF changed its mind yet again about whether it wants people to join it directly?

[Roger de Coverly]

Unless Council amends the Game Fee Bye Laws to change the due date for chess leagues to 30 days after the conclusion of the event.

You could do that. In addition wouldn't you also need to restrict the back dating of membership? The rules as currently written appear to enable someone joining on 31st August 2013 to trigger Game Fee waivers on all league games (and Congress "pay to play"?) going back to 1st September 2012.

[Mick Norris]

Alex Holwczak wrote

This isn't true at all. Have you not read the framework agreement that new MOs are going to sign on the ECF website?

I think that Roger could be excused for not having done so as the agreement has been belatedly added as a link on the "important changes to ECF membership and Game Fee" page of the website without much of a fanfare. See http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-conte ... ment-3.pdf

Thanks John, that wasn't there last time I looked at the ECF Membership page

I note the MO is restricted to Leagues, Counties and Constituent Units and therefore not for clubs themselves - I assume clubs can run a quasi-MO where they insist internally that club members become ECF members and do the online bit for their non-internet savvy members

[Alex Holowczak]

So you aren't an MO, you estimate the amount of Game Fee on December 15th. Why should the estimate be any higher than £ nil?

This is what some leagues estimate their Game Fee at now, in that they don't pay their Game Fee by the deadline. So this isn't a new problem, but a continuation of the old problem.

If membership was truly compulsory, then this particular problem would disappear. (I'm well aware that it'd create new problems; you don't need to list them for me. )

[Alex Holowczak]

I note the MO is restricted to Leagues, Counties and Constituent Units and therefore not for clubs themselves - I assume clubs can run a quasi-MO where they insist internally that club members become ECF members and do the online bit for their non-internet savvy members

Yes, I know of two clubs that are doing this.

[Sean Hewitt]

It would be good to know whether there is broad acceptance or a peasants' revolt.

Stockport league will allow 3 games by a non ECF member, at a cost of £2 per game to the club. All players playing more than 3 games will be required to be an ECF member in order to be eligible.

No-one thoought that this would be a problem (and the question was asked directly).

Leicesershire league will require all players to be an ECF member. This is not such a shock as Leicestershire is a current MO, and the clubs voted 12 months ago to make it mandatory that all players be ECF members.

[John Philpott]

Mick Norris wrote

I note the MO is restricted to Leagues, Counties and Constituent Units and therefore not for clubs themselves

That is because this is a restriction to this effect under the Membership Bye Laws as they currently stand. I would be in favour of listing this restriction to allow any ECF member organisation to act as as MO, as I am aware of a couple of Congresses that very reasonably would like to have MO status.

The club situation is touched on in the information on the ECF website:

The £1 retention is only available to organisations which are themselves members of the ECF and have signed a framework agreement. Informally, if – for example – a club in an area not covered by framework agreement wanted to collect payment and membership forms from its members and submit them to the ECF en bloc, they would be accepted for processing but the retention of £1 per member would not be available to the club concerned and the full membership subscription would be paid to the ECF.

This seems a little unfair to me. I would personally be in favour (given the disappearance of the Corporate Vice President Category) of clubs being able to become members of the ECF. At present this would require a vote by Council to admit the club concerned as an "other organisation".

[John Philpott]

On the "Peasants Revolt" issue I can report that the General Purposes Committee of the Essex Chess Association (which comprises the Officers plus one representative of each club and each other affiliated organisation) voted last week with none against and one abstention to require compulsory ECF membership not just to play in the Essex League but for all the Association's activities. I am a member of the sub-committee charged with drawing up proposed rule changes to give effect to this decision for consideration by the AGM at the end of June.

[Roger de Coverly]

This is what some leagues estimate their Game Fee at now, in that they don't pay their Game Fee by the deadline. So this isn't a new problem, but a continuation of the old problem.

There is a difference between not paying a largish bill under current Game Fee rules and estimating zero for a bill that may be zero anyway. Don't forget the parts of the country where there's a moderately high percentage of players with FIDE ratings. These leagues will be getting a rebate for all their Gold members.

I don't know if the ECF have got round to internally publishing their financial budget for 2012-13 yet. I know it won't, but it ought to have a head count and game count budget as well. If I remember the grading investigations, the ECF was in a steady state or marginally increasing, so you had a loss rate of around 15% and a gain rate of around 16%.

[Roger de Coverly]

to require compulsory ECF membership not just to play in the Essex League but for all the Association's activities.

It is not intended that the ECF membership requirement should be a barrier to new players or those whose graded chess activity has been so infrequent that they have no grade.

[Sean Hewitt]

to require compulsory ECF membership not just to play in the Essex League but for all the Association's activities.

It is not intended that the ECF membership requirement should be a barrier to new players or those whose graded chess activity has been so infrequent that they have no grade.

Is there anything that could ever persuade you that this membership scheme is not going to the disaster that you prediceted (perhaps even hoped for)?

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there anything that could ever persuade you that this membership scheme is not going to the disaster that you prediceted (perhaps even hoped for)?

I don't think that local club leagues and compulsory national membership are compatible, so the introduction of one leads to the slow death of the other. The junior organisations have already threatened to walk and got significant concessions as a result.

What is the measure of the scheme's failure? As I see it, it will lead to the triple effect of
(a) a reduced number of players
(b) not raising the money required to finance the ECF's activities
(c) increasing the work load on the ECF Office.

[Mick Norris]

Mick Norris wrote

I note the MO is restricted to Leagues, Counties and Constituent Units and therefore not for clubs themselves

That is because this is a restriction to this effect under the Membership Bye Laws as they currently stand. I would be in favour of listing this restriction to allow any ECF member organisation to act as as MO, as I am aware of a couple of Congresses that very reasonably would like to have MO status.

The club situation is touched on in the information on the ECF website:

The £1 retention is only available to organisations which are themselves members of the ECF and have signed a framework agreement. Informally, if – for example – a club in an area not covered by framework agreement wanted to collect payment and membership forms from its members and submit them to the ECF en bloc, they would be accepted for processing but the retention of £1 per member would not be available to the club concerned and the full membership subscription would be paid to the ECF.

This seems a little unfair to me. I would personally be in favour (given the disappearance of the Corporate Vice President Category) of clubs being able to become members of the ECF. At present this would require a vote by Council to admit the club concerned as an "other organisation".

My club AGM is tomorrow night, and thanks to organising a Rapidplay, Bury is an ECF member already, but it would appear that Bury can't have an MO for the club

[Paul Buswell]

Kent have advised Clubs of a proposal from committee to require clubs to pay £2 per ECF-non-member's game. That will go to AGM on 2 September. Kent AGM is decided by individual players' votes, with notice of AGM being deemed served if sent to the club of which the player is a member.

I understand that Mid-Sussex League will be proposing the same, although the official Agenda for the AGM on 12 June is not due out yet. Voting at Mid-Sussex League AGM is per team, not individual.

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. I recognise the need for haste, give the loss of DCMS grant, but I fear a rushed implementation with inadequate procedures in place. For example, back in late April ECF told me that publication of a simple PR/selling document was a priority, for mass circulation, but I see no sign...

PB