ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Mick Norris]

Sean is absolutely right that the running of the federation is the job of a CEO not the president. I am much more interested in who is going to take on that very onerous role without recompense for the long hours and effort it will require, while subjecting themselves to the constant sniping on here.

Frankly the last thing we need is to "re-examine the membership scheme". Like it or loathe it, we simply have to make it work.

Absolutely

[Roger de Coverly]

Like it or loathe it, we simply have to make it work.

The likely outcomes are threefold:-

increase office costs.
reduce ECF aggregate income.
reduce both the number of active players and the number of new players.

[Sean Hewitt]

Like it or loathe it, we simply have to make it work.

The likely outcomes are threefold:-

increase office costs.
reduce ECF aggregate income.
reduce both the number of active players and the number of new players.

Possibly, but a more likely outcome is

reduced office costs
increased ECF income
inreased activity of players
increased retention of players
growth in overall player numbers

However, this is not the place for this discussion. I suggest starting a new thread if you would like to debate the outcomes of the membership scheme.

[Carl Hibbard]

I suggest starting a new thread if you would like to debate the outcomes of the membership scheme.

Yes please not another Roger doesn't like the scheme thread

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I suggest starting a new thread if you would like to debate the outcomes of the membership scheme.

Yes please not another Roger doesn't like the scheme thread

Sean's post would have had more force if he had refrained from responding point by point to what Roger (de Coverly) had said. And like it or not, Roger Edwards mentioning this in his election statement does make this a valid topic for discussion. If you want to set parameters on that discussion, please do, but don't stifle debate.

[Carl Hibbard]

If you want to set parameters on that discussion, please do, but don't stifle debate.

Stifle? I was only suggesting a seperate thread as Roger has kindly done

[Carl Hibbard]

I would vote for Roger if I had a vote, but I don't I am not even a member

[David Pardoe]

Roger is right to raise the Membership scheme issue....although its just entering its first `trial` year, and Andrew Farthing deserves much credit for all his hard work, the scheme has its critics, and its perceived weaknesses. No system is ever perfect, but most can be improved, which is what we`re trying for, surely.
I personnally felt that the `Game Fee` system had lots of scope for improvement, and could have delivered better results..
However, the structure and charging of the current scheme appear to be unbalanced and unfair....and we definately need to introduce Membership voting rights...a point I have covered elsewhere.
As I said previously, I can see no reason why a Congress player should pay over 50% more Membership charge than a League player, nor why a FIDE player should pay over 100% more. The basic League rate (Bronze), should be raised to £15 or £16 (certainly a higher figure, in my view). Those in combinations of categories should be `Silver` or `Gold`, based, not on which categories they choose, but on the actual number of categories, ie, those choosing two categories could pay say £20 or £24, and those choosing all three perhaps pay £28 - £32...and maybe this would allow for more benefits, like the ECF diary...or Medals for those winners of the Counties competitions (they used to give a nice wooden plaque to the winners in previous years....a nice and tangible momento for the players).
There`s scope for additional `bells and whistles` to make the Membership scheme even more attractive and beneficial. ie, allowing those who join in one `category` to play say 6 games in any other category without further charge.
I wouldnt be averse to an `Introductory` Membership category, where a player in there first season paid a fixed £10 Membership, regardless of the amount of chess they played, to help encourage new members and allow them to try the coffee......

[Sean Hewitt]

Sean's post would have had more force if he had refrained from responding point by point to what Roger (de Coverly) had said.

Come on Chris - I was having a joke whilst at the same time making a valid point. This is not the place to debate the merits of the membership scheme.

Carl - Perhaps we need a "JOKE" icon?! {INSERT JOKE ICON HERE}

[John Philpott]

Chris Mattos has been nominated by the Chief Executive as Director of Finance. I understand that Chris is in the process of preparing a short background statement which will be published on the website with the other AGM papers.

[Mick Norris]

Chris Mattos has been nominated by the Chief Executive as Director of Finance. I understand that Chris is in the process of preparing a short background statement which will be published on the website with the other AGM papers.

I assume this is Chris:
http://www.randall-payne.co.uk/meet-the ... attos.html

[LawrenceCooper]

I would vote for Roger if I had a vote, but I don't I am not even a member

de Coverly?

[Roger de Coverly]

de Coverly?

Edwards

The candidate for Finance Director also seems involved with this
http://www.mulberrytree.org.uk/free_school_project.htm

[Christopher Kreuzer]

de Coverly?

Edwards

The candidate for Finance Director also seems involved with this
http://www.mulberrytree.org.uk/free_school_project.htm

Maybe he should be allowed to produce a statement before people go digging around on the internet?

[IM Jack Rudd]

This seems to be Chris's grading reference. That fits in with my memory of him from Somerset v Gloucestershire matches.