Compulsory Membership?

[Alex Holowczak]

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.

OK, so the second attempt at getting this simple system right. How many halfresults were paid for in 2010/11? Using those numbers, I get 2,752, minus the defaulted matches, which comes out at 2,678.

This is still not the number of games shown in the database.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Can't you just assign one entity to be responsible for paying for each half-game result? i.e. have a column in the database that says "bill this organisation"?

[Roger de Coverly]

Can't you just assign one entity to be responsible for paying for each half-game result? i.e. have a column in the database that says "bill this organisation"?

I'm sure there were any number of straightforward measures that were possible, few of which the ECF ever bothered with.

[Alex Holowczak]

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?

As usual, you're stirring a pot unnecessarily.

With framework agreements, "the ECF gets a list of players that it can send calendars to and all the other supposed benefits of membership". It gets the same thing either way.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Can't you just assign one entity to be responsible for paying for each half-game result? i.e. have a column in the database that says "bill this organisation"?

I'm sure there were any number of straightforward measures that were possible, few of which the ECF ever bothered with.

Are there any sports that bill to this level of granularity (billing for each game played), or is it only chess in England?

[Roger de Coverly]

Are there any sports that bill to this level of granularity (billing for each game played), or is it only chess in England?

Rating fees are pretty common to chess organisations worldwide. The ECF will become an exception in not really having them. So counting games or players and having an amount per game or player is common. Offering exemptions to subsets of players, I would think is uncommon. Leagues present a difficult problem because of the time period over which they take place, so the BCF/ECF wasn't able to finance waiting to the end of the season for payment. Thus you end up with an estimation process in the interests of improving the ECF's cash flow.

The advantage for a chess organisation in raising money both per head and by activity is that it has the scope to tune its charges to what the market is prepared to pay. In the case of hardened Congress players, I really don't think £ 3.00 per Congress made much difference as to whether they played or not, given all the other expenses of playing. But as proved by the attitudes of the Junior Organisers, it's too much to ask an extra £ 12 as cost of playing in a first junior rapid-play.

[Roger de Coverly]

people play more chess.

But is that also more people play chess? Did the club form the team from new players or from getting more games from existing ones? If, in any way, you rely on players playing a handful of games to make your teams possible, the new arrangements are likely to push you to into disbanding teams rather than forming them. At the very least, they make that sort of team more expensive to run.

[Alan Walton]

If, in any way, you rely on players playing a handful of games to make your teams possible, the new arrangements are likely to push you to into disbanding teams rather than forming them. At the very least, they make that sort of team more expensive to run.

Or perhaps the players from the club relize that £12 is not a lot of money and worth paying.

Why is it that chess players moan about paying a small amount of money to play in organized competitions in something they enjoy

I had to do exactly the same when I was playing in my local pool team (had to be a member of the national federation), I paid the £10 even with the knowledge I may have only played a couple of games because I was a reserve for the team (I played 5 games in the season)

[Dragoljub Sudar]

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.

OK, so the second attempt at getting this simple system right. How many halfresults were paid for in 2010/11? Using those numbers, I get 2,752, minus the defaulted matches, which comes out at 2,678.

This is still not the number of games shown in the database.

I'm sure it isn't because my efforts to help you were purely guesses from memory and not based on the actual figures therefore your comment above is unhelpful. 5 defaulted matches (48 half games) plus 43 defaulted games (86 half games) gives a total of 2618 half games which I'm sure you'll tell me is wrong while not bothering to tell me what figure you have.

edit/

I've just found our grader's 2010-11 report and guess what? He sent 1309 league results. I'm going to the pub to have 10 half pints...

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm sure it isn't because my efforts to help you were purely guesses from memory and not based on the actual figures therefore your comment above is unhelpful. 5 defaulted matches (48 half games) plus 43 defaulted games (86 half games) gives a total of 2618 half games which I'm sure you'll tell me is wrong while not bothering to tell me what figure you have.

No, you've now got it. 2,618 halfresults is the amount you should have paid for in 2011/12.

But it took three attempts, so it can't be that simple. And of course, we don't know how many Nottinghamshire actually paid for. (I don't have the data in front of me.) If your Treasurer managed to estimate 2,618, then he's a genius.

[Roger de Coverly]

Or perhaps the players from the club relize that £12 is not a lot of money and worth paying.

Sean seemed to be trying to make the point that Game Fee discouraged the new team. On ten games that would have been around £ 6 a head, so I don't see why your point about it not being very much doesn't apply equally to such a decision.

[Dragoljub Sudar]

I'm sure it isn't because my efforts to help you were purely guesses from memory and not based on the actual figures therefore your comment above is unhelpful. 5 defaulted matches (48 half games) plus 43 defaulted games (86 half games) gives a total of 2618 half games which I'm sure you'll tell me is wrong while not bothering to tell me what figure you have.

No, you've now got it. 2,618 halfresults is the amount you should have paid for in 2011/12.

But it took three attempts, so it can't be that simple. And of course, we don't know how many Nottinghamshire actually paid for. (I don't have the data in front of me.) If your Treasurer managed to estimate 2,618, then he's a genius.

It didn't take 3 attempts. It took me 1 proper attempt. The other 2 were merely guesses based on memory.

The treasurer would have estimated 2752 games in Nov 2010 and then would have used the 2618 figure provided by our grading officer to deduct the appropriate game fee from the following year's bill. That's the point - it's a very simple process.

[Alex Holowczak]

The treasurer would have estimated 2752 games in Nov 2010 and then would have used the 2618 figure provided by our grading officer to deduct the appropriate game fee from the following year's bill. That's the point - it's a very simple process.

It may well have been for yourself, but think about it at the ECF end.

(1) You need to keep track of several years' worth of data to see whether the balance matches up. If you don't do this, it's impossible to track the information from one year to the next. You can never say how much they've paid for certain.
(2) Voting Register requirements. If you estimate 2,010 results, and have 1,990 actually, how many votes should you have? You'd be given 3 for paying for more than 2,000 results, but you were only ever entitled to 2. You could buy votes in this way.
(3) The Office would often receive cheques from a body covering multiple events, and breaking them down into separate items is a very time consuming (and therefore costly) process.

What results is a system that's impossible to administer properly.

[Alan Walton]

Or perhaps the players from the club relize that £12 is not a lot of money and worth paying.

Sean seemed to be trying to make the point that Game Fee discouraged the new team. On ten games that would have been around £ 6 a head, so I don't see why your point about it not being very much doesn't apply equally to such a decision.

My view is if you can stretch to have another team without an increase in registered members, then having a membership scheme would result in no extra cost directly to the club, whereas game fee the club is liable to find the increase in the fees

So Membership scheme is a benefit to the club and it shows because they have entered another team

Why are we continuing to dwell on this, it is going to happen, lets see how it goes, and whatever happens somebody will be eating humble pie

[Angus French]

The treasurer would have estimated 2752 games in Nov 2010 and then would have used the 2618 figure provided by our grading officer to deduct the appropriate game fee from the following year's bill. That's the point - it's a very simple process.

It may well have been for yourself, but think about it at the ECF end.

(1) You need to keep track of several years' worth of data to see whether the balance matches up. If you don't do this, it's impossible to track the information from one year to the next. You can never say how much they've paid for certain.
(2) Voting Register requirements. If you estimate 2,010 results, and have 1,990 actually, how many votes should you have? You'd be given 3 for paying for more than 2,000 results, but you were only ever entitled to 2. You could buy votes in this way.
(3) The Office would often receive cheques from a body covering multiple events, and breaking them down into separate items is a very time consuming (and therefore costly) process.

What results is a system that's impossible to administer properly.

Alex,

Re (1), it's not several years but two years. For each new year you pay the balance owing from the previous year + the estimate for the new year.
Is (2) relevant to the current discussion?
What you say about (3) is nonsense if there's a proper process in place. It's a failure of current ECF Board members to institute a proper process.

You sought to prove a point but abjectly failed even though your target - Dragoljub - wasn't especially qualified to answer your obscure questions he did so. The decent thing to do would have been to recognise that his early answers were very close to the mark.