The grading submission shows the club that the player was representing in the relevant match. The whole point is that it is a grading submission of a club game - whether the player is a member of that club or a different club or no club is quite irrelevant as the player is not being charged. The club is being charged (normally, one hopes, zero) for including non-ECF members in league matches.Angus French wrote: Would all clubs - be they large or small in membership - get the same allowance? Can we be sure that a player's club would be accurately reported in grading submissions?
I think there is a case for allowing clubs that play more league games to have a bigger allowance. Fairly straightforward (eg 5 games + 5% of league games played, rounded downwards: could conceivably include internal club games. Figures made up on the spot: not to be taken as a thought out suggestion).
I'd be happier with your suggestion, Angus, if bronze were abolished and replaced with your Copper*. I've never really understood why someone playing 20 league games a year should pay less than someone playing no league games but entering four 5-round congresses. [Oh dear - signs of battle lines being drawn up between the member reps ]
*Also copper is surely worth more than bronze!