ECF finance meeting 2024

[Paul Habershon]

I was slightly surprised by Roger L's comment that comparison with costs of other hobbies should be a separate matter, and perhaps not everyone would agree with him. John U. asked me questions about two of my recent hobbies, but chess seems to compare the least favourably with the third one, bridge.

Having returned to regular duplicate bridge last year after an absence of thirty years, I was happy to find the sub at my local club was just £8, and, thereafter, each session is charged at £1.50. The round trip for me is about eight miles.

I am a member of the national union, the English Bridge Union, at no extra cost. This is similar to the arrangement concerning my former membership of the Lawn Tennis Association, which I mentioned above.

Question: If membership of the national organisations for tennis and bridge is conferred at no extra cost, why is there a charge for the ECF?

I am not sure if it's been made clear that EBU-affiliated bridge clubs upload the results of each duplicate session. This enables the EBU to charge the club a fee, currently 45p per person, according to the number of bums on seats. The results also automatically feed into the national rating system (NGS). All club members pay a nominal club annual membership fee (at John's club £8) to establish who therefore becomes an EBU member. At Bedford the annual club membership fee is £10 and table money is £2 for members, £3 for visitors/guests. This includes the 45p EBU charge. Bedford table money is even cashless, as we are billed monthly by the club and most use online banking. There is therefore an 'extra cost' for being in the EBU but it's subsumed in the table money and thus paid painlessly in small instalments throughout the year.

All the above is automated. With a click, results are uploaded to the EBU and to the club website and available before you get home. Additionally all the score details for every pair (hands, contracts, opening leads, scores compared with other pairs, computer analysis of best play) are also on the club website.

Although it is possible to join the EBU as a Direct Member for an annual fee of £35, nearly everyone joins through their club. Of course some clubs decide not to affiliate, which is often a bone of contention, and their results don't get rated. You can imagine the chorus of 'What does the EBU do for ME!?' just as with the ECF.

Overall I think chess and bridge costs are very similar and, in my opinion, trivial compared with life's other expenses.

Covid has led to a huge increase in permanent online bridge play, e.g. county matches, but that is another discussion. Milton Keynes Bridge Club has abandoned its venue and meets only online. Online play does have significant advantages, especially with the RealBridge platform involving camera and microphone (now standard in most laptops), which almost eliminates the cheating problem that so bedevils online chess.

[John Townsend]

As Roger de C. mentioned above, the bridge charging method takes into account how much you play to a much greater extent than for chess and does not punish infrequent players. That seems fairer to me. My present bridge playing profile (of playing once most weeks) results in a much cheaper pastime than if I spent the same time at chess.

[Christopher Lewis]

i was surprise that people did not support the new gold to be £33 and i did notice someone from the board saying it was only £2.

the reason is that and people from the board don't see it. if you a silver member, you jump from £27 quid to £35 quid, which is £8 but also for the pay to play would be £13. i would be interested to see how many silver members will increased to gold as you was paying an extra £9 and now you going to be paying £15 extra

The impact of the £2 increase on top of the 1-off increase for silver members was discussed at length by council. At the end of the day, not applying the £2 increase would result in a reduction in the ECF income of 10k-20k. And it seems pretty clear to me that if we want to get any additional grant income from the government, we cannot set a budget showing a deficit as then it appears the grant is funding reduced members subs.

It was also pointed out that member rates have been frozen for (I think they said) 7 or 8 years. We've had 2 years of sky-high inflation. Clearly rates need to increase to reflect increased ECF costs.

I considered the question whether it is right to merge silver and gold a seperate issue previously debated and voted on last year. The key question before council is whether we increase subs by £2 to balance the books, or not..

[Angus French]

It was also pointed out that member rates have been frozen for (I think they said) 7 or 8 years. We've had 2 years of sky-high inflation. Clearly rates need to increase to reflect increased ECF costs.

Er, the claim made in the first sentence is just not true. Also, the ECF has benefited financially from increases in membership numbers... And further, you may like to compare membership rate increases since the inception of the membership scheme against inflation over the same period.

...The key question before council is whether we increase subs by £2 to balance the books, or not..

Alternatively, expenditure could be reduced.

[Roger de Coverly]

Alternatively, expenditure could be reduced.

ECF expenditure on International chess expands to meet the funds available. That's not a problem when sponsorship or Government funding are readily available, but puts the financing onus on the chess playing population when it isn't. It's unhelpful that it refuses to consider any financing model other than annual payments per haed regardless of how much or how little they play. nor that it doesn't place a levy in some manner on the sums now seemingly spent by parents on junior tuition.

[Roger Lancaster]

Alternatively, expenditure could be reduced.

ECF expenditure on International chess expands to meet the funds available. That's not a problem when sponsorship or Government funding are readily available, but puts the financing onus on the chess playing population when it isn't. It's unhelpful that it refuses to consider any financing model other than annual payments per haed regardless of how much or how little they play. nor that it doesn't place a levy in some manner on the sums now seemingly spent by parents on junior tuition.

Um, is that levy "on the sums now seemingly spent by parents on junior tuition" intended to apply just for chess tuition as opposed to other activities, for example football coaching or out-of-school examination preparation?

[John Reyes]

I hope to be looking to send out a Silver member report soon with all the info to the member.