Compulsory Membership?

[Alex Holowczak]

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

Yes, because they're dealing with maybe 50-100 contact points for membership, rather than 10,000.

This is considerably less than the contact points for Game Fee, because there are far more than 100 graded events each year!

[Roger de Coverly]

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

I wouldn't have thought so, you still have to process all the data and calculate and send out Game Fee invoices. You've just got more volunteers at local level co-ordinating it all. It becomes a nightmare for early season Congresses but then I don't see the Bronze/Silver distinction surviving anyway. If, or more probably when, the ECF needs more money, where does it look?

[Dragoljub Sudar]

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!

Are you sure? From the Framework Agreement:

'MO as agent for ECF shall collect and account for the membership fees for ECF Direct Members by 31st October in every year at the rates current at the time of payment and shall submit to ECF by such date details of such members in an electronic format compatible with ECF office systems as stipulated from time to time by ECF'

Also

'Details of new members after 31st October shall be forwarded to ECF on a weekly basis so that the relevant information can be forwarded to Congress Organisers'

The point is that someone within the county has the hassle of collecting and passing on the info, and someone in each club has to obtain that info to pass to the someone within the county.

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

No they don't.

'MO shall account for Game Fee for non members within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from ECF following the submission of the results of its registered graded results'

Unless the county wishes to absorb the game fee cost it will either send bills to clubs / players or add the game fee to the clubs' next bill.

As for game fee, in Notts it was exactly as simple as I stated because that's how I did it. I'm amazed that other leagues managed to mess up something so simple. I accept that congress controllers had more work due to deducting game fee for direct members but that's less hassle than having to check that everyone who enters but doesn't pay £6 extra is a silver or higher member.

[Alex Holowczak]

As for game fee, in Notts it was exactly as simple as I stated because that's how I did it.

When the Nottingham League paid the Game Fee for 2010/11 (in November 2010, presumably), how many halfresults' worth of games did it pay for?

[Dragoljub Sudar]

I didn't do it as I'm not the treasurer (I did it in 2005 & 6) but I'm guessing it was 4 divs x 8 teams x 14 matches x 5 boards plus 1 div x 9 teams x 16 matches x 4 boards = 2816 half-games, minus £1.16 for every game defaulted but already paid for from the previous season.

[Alex Holowczak]

I didn't do it as I'm not the treasurer (I did it in 2005 & 6) but I'm guessing it was 4 divs x 8 teams x 14 matches x 5 boards plus 1 div x 9 teams x 16 matches x 4 boards = 2816 half-games, minus £1.16 for every game defaulted but already paid for from the previous season.

Well, I can see that there was a difference between this estimate and the number of halfresults that actually happened. So either Notts paid too much or too little, just like pretty much every other Game Fee paying league, in pretty much every year I've got records for.

Under Game Fee, the ECF was able to acquire a sum of money from the various bodies, but never the right sum of money.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

That would be due to 4 defaulted matches and approximately 30 defaulted boards. The amount of money we pay is always correct.,

[Roger de Coverly]

Under Game Fee, the ECF was able to acquire a sum of money from the various bodies, but never the right sum of money.

I don't think it ever expected too. According to local treasurers, they would calculate and pay the estimate as suggested based on expected number of games. At the end of the season, they or the ECF would recalculate this based on the number of games actually played and agree with the ECF whether to settle any outstanding amounts immediately or to carry them forward to the next estimate. Pretty standard commercial and for that matter taxation practice. At the cost of more work both by the ECF,local treasurers and graders, it would have been possible to do it exactly. All you would need is a monthly data submission and an integration of that with the billing and invoicing process.

I disagree with the assertion that the system for 2012-13 has any less contact points than 2011-12.

For each league or non-Congress, I would expect the grading file to be analysed to establish membership and this has to be done at the date of each game for current "Direct" members. That done, you send someone a bill and they are likely to want to know what and who it's for.

For Congresses, you again have to analyse the grading file to find all the non-members and Bronze members in order to charge the Congress £ 6 a head. You also have to input data to your membership records for all the Bronze members in order to upgrade them. As far as FIDE rated Congresses is concerned, they pay nothing to the ECF except FIDE fees and the IRO charge, so nothing really changes. Whether the ECF uses FIDE rated Congress data to prepare the hit list of suspended players, I wouldn't know.

As far as MOs are concerned, the proposition that you should pay £ 13 to the ECF in order to save £ 33 for a six board team is a non-starter to ordinary club membership, not least if you have to combine it with rules unpleasant to newcomers and casual players. The proposition that you pay £ 13 to the ECF instead of £ 27 and your club also saves £ 33 is perhaps a better deal provided you can find enough FIDE rated players willing to push it through. If on the other hand, the proposition is either £ 13 or you have to withdraw from national grading, then outside of Yorkshire, the £ 13 deal is least worst and you have to accept that even if no one else does it, club treasurers are going to impose restrictions on games played by non ECF members. Alternatively if your club members won't join the ECF, you tell them there isn't a team they can play in.

[Alex Holowczak]

Under Game Fee, the ECF was able to acquire a sum of money from the various bodies, but never the right sum of money.

I don't think it ever expected too. According to local treasurers, they would calculate and pay the estimate as suggested based on expected number of games. At the end of the season, they or the ECF would recalculate this based on the number of games actually played and agree with the ECF whether to settle any outstanding amounts immediately or to carry them forward to the next estimate. Pretty standard commercial and for that matter taxation practice. At the cost of more work both by the ECF,local treasurers and graders, it would have been possible to do it exactly. All you would need is a monthly data submission and an integration of that with the billing and invoicing process.

Neither do I.

The starting point was the levy, which was very rough and ready. Game Fee was a replacement for the levy, and only served to quantify what had been done on an ad hoc basis before. I hope even you will agree with me that it is only fair that people pay what they're supposed to be paying, and not some other amount of money.

I disagree with the assertion that the system for 2012-13 has any less contact points than 2011-12.

Must ... resist ... fewer ...

For each league or non-Congress, I would expect the grading file to be analysed to establish membership and this has to be done at the date of each game for current "Direct" members. That done, you send someone a bill and they are likely to want to know what and who it's for.

For leagues that sign a framework agreement, they'll get this in the form of an invoice.

For Congresses, you again have to analyse the grading file to find all the non-members and Bronze members in order to charge the Congress £ 6 a head. You also have to input data to your membership records for all the Bronze members in order to upgrade them. As far as FIDE rated Congresses is concerned, they pay nothing to the ECF except FIDE fees and the IRO charge, so nothing really changes. Whether the ECF uses FIDE rated Congress data to prepare the hit list of suspended players, I wouldn't know.

The ECF doesn't have the power to create a "hit list" for anything. We know this from other incidents raised on here.

All of the above is done now, in various similar ways.

As far as MOs are concerned, the proposition that you should pay £ 13 to the ECF in order to save £ 33 for a six board team is a non-starter to ordinary club membership, not least if you have to combine it with rules unpleasant to newcomers and casual players. The proposition that you pay £ 13 to the ECF instead of £ 27 and your club also saves £ 33 is perhaps a better deal provided you can find enough FIDE rated players willing to push it through. If on the other hand, the proposition is either £ 13 or you have to withdraw from national grading, then outside of Yorkshire, the £ 13 deal is least worst and you have to accept that even if no one else does it, club treasurers are going to impose restrictions on games played by non ECF members. Alternatively if your club members won't join the ECF, you tell them there isn't a team they can play in.

None of which are problems that have occurred in practice. I know one club that said the last sentence to its members, but it met no opposition from any of them.

[Alex Holowczak]

That would be due to 4 defaulted matches and approximately 30 defaulted boards. The amount of money we pay is always correct.,

No, it isn't, because even accounting for these, you've still not hit the right number.

Therein lies the problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

Game Fee was a replacement for the levy, and only served to quantify what had been done on an ad hoc basis before

It was rather more than that. It moved the financing base away from being exclusively the members of clubs in territorial counties. Non-territorial leagues and Congresses were expected to contribute as well. So if you give Congresses rating for free, you end up increasing charges to club members. It was an error to have a Congress discount in a parallel membership scheme in the way it was done. The Scots compensated Congresses by asking a lower rating fee if events gave members a discount. The BCF on the other hand introduced complexity by enabling the Game Fee to be reclaimed at an individual level. Deemed Game Fee was an error as well. If you transfer financing back to individuals, the votes should have gone with them.

If you move from a system where who plays doesn't matter to one where it does, then expect effects and changes. In practical terms the changes take effect next season, but are issues for clubs where the local league has no explicit ban on non-members, but will be presenting bills for £ 2 per game if non-members take part.

I've never really understood why the BCF/ECF was so unwilling to devote any resources to developing and streamlining its primary revenue raiser. Well I do understand, but I'd be accused of inventing a conspiracy theory.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

That would be due to 4 defaulted matches and approximately 30 defaulted boards. The amount of money we pay is always correct.,

No, it isn't, because even accounting for these, you've still not hit the right number.

Therein lies the problem.

Apologies, provided the 2011-12 season figures by mistake; for 2010-11 it was 5 defaulted matches and about 50 defaulted games but I don't know what figures you're looking at. If anything we'll overpay.

Edit/ The number of games I quoted in my original reply should be 8 teams x 15 matches x 4 boards plus 1 team x 8 matches x 4 boards in the lowest division as a team entered hal-way through. That'll explain the difference to your figures.

[Roger de Coverly]

For leagues that sign a framework agreement, they'll get this in the form of an invoice.

And for those that don't sign?

Why the sudden enthusiasm for framework agreements? What does it do for the ECF that on-line membership doesn't? With on-line membership the ECF gets a list of players that it can send calendars to and all the other supposed benefits of membership. Why the cold feet? Is there a worry that all these people new directly to the ECF might want a say in its affairs?

[Sean Hewitt]

As far as MOs are concerned, the proposition that you should pay £ 13 to the ECF in order to save £ 33 for a six board team is a non-starter to ordinary club membership, not least if you have to combine it with rules unpleasant to newcomers and casual players.

At our club curry last night I learnt that club has decided to run 4 teams in the local league next year rather than 3 this year. A little bit of evidence of that, once you abolish the chess prevention tax, people play more chess.

Who'd have thought it?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Club curry? Not a chessboard in sight?

On a more serious matter, I dutifully cancelled my standing order with the ECF and I'm really hoping that the online thing will be ready before I'm due to renew (in August). I'm also hoping that it can be set to renew automatically, as the standing order was convenient in that I didn't have to lift a finger to do anything each year (I might have had to increase the amount once in several years, I think).