2011 AGM: October 15th

[Paul Cooksey]

According to the SCCU website "The Executive decided, with 1 dissenting vote, that the Union would support further work on Membership-based funding."

link?

[Roger de Coverly]

Union would support further work on Membership-based funding.

Membership based funding doesn't have to involve making membership compulsory for many practical purposes, nor ( citing Bridge) does it require per head charging. So research could and probably should include a scheme similar to that of Chess Scotland. Is there a good reason for ruling out rating fees as a method of funding?

Other dissidents may vary, but these would be my red lines.

Jon D'Souza-Eva and Neil Cooper have already commented on the difficulties a per head scheme will cause for the continued grading of Secondary School leagues. By way of example, you have a school league of 8 teams, 6 players per team, single round. The cost you charge in aggregate under a per game system is 8*7*6*29p = £ 97, just over £ 12 a team. On membership the cost is what? You don't know how many players each team is going to field across the season, nor do you know how many will already be members. Assume 8 players per team, of whom 2 are already members and they all play at least 4 games. So your cost could be 8 * 6 * £8 = £ 384, £ 48 for the team excluding the two existing members, £ 64 otherwise. I'd agree that the £ 97 cost could increase to £ 118 to help plug the ECF's deficit. What does the school league get for the extra cost of £ 266? Internal championship games, if they exist, can now be graded for nothing. Anything else?

[Paul Cooksey]

Membership based funding doesn't have to involve making membership compulsory for many practical purposes, nor ( citing Bridge) does it require per head charging. So research could and probably should include a scheme similar to that of Chess Scotland. Is there a good reason for ruling out rating fees as a method of funding?

We've been through head vs rating before, but in brief, my position is:
1. Costs are more closely associated with heads than games. Charging by head is fairer.
2. Collecting money for every game requires considerable admin. Charging by head is less wasteful.

Of course, we all know Roger disagrees. So it is interesting to make comparisons with Chess Scotland. I found it relatively easy to get information, which was much more difficult when I looked at the ECF a few months ago. Inconveniently, the evidence from Scotland seems to support Roger more than me. The Scots seem to have an extraordinarily complex system for fees. But looking at their accounts, they run this on <10% of the admin the ECF does.

Scotland are smaller (2200 players to our 12500), but if anything that should give us an economy of scale. I don't think they can claim superiority in every respect. For example, they've had a comparable decline in players since the mid nineties. (Unlike the French with their brilliant concept of free rapidplay). But in most respects they seem to be equal or superior.

I claim zero expertise in Scots chess, so I hope one of our visitors will correct whatever obvious mistake I must be making. Surely they don't have a better Federation than us?

[Roger de Coverly]

Collecting money for every game requires considerable admin. Charging by head is less wasteful.

That would be true if it was what happened, but it isn't. The ECF counts up the number of games and collects from the event organiser. The event organiser may or may not be collecting from each individual player. If they do, it's called an entry fee.and would be required whatever format was used for financing the national body. Individuals or clubs pay the organisation and the organisation pays the ECF. So that's one payment to the ECF instead of hundreds as under individual collection.

The way I look at it, the organisation pays a membership fee to the ECF based on its size as measured by the number of games played in its events. As an organisation, fees to people taking part are just one of its possible sources of finance. If you had sponsorship income, you could pay the ECF from that.

You could envisage a system design whereby the ECF sent every player an invoice at the end of the season alongside their grading printout. But that's not the way it works.

In the Scottish system, the rating team send out an invoice for rating fees when they receive the results for rating. It doesn't matter how many members played as the level of fee depends only on whether Chess Scotland members are offered a discount by the Congress. Leagues work on what appears to be a deemed membership/rating fee based on the nominal number of boards in the event. Whilst the rating charge for Congresses is at a comparable level to the ECF's Game Fee, the league membership fee is quite a bit cheaper. I think they indicated a value of around £ 2 per head which they were comparing to the ECF's proposed £ 12 per head. The major advantage the Scots have is that they had a vote some years ago on whether they wanted universal membership. This was rejected and the advocates of such systems took no for an answer and worked to promote the voluntary scheme instead. So they aren't constantly fighting or trying to introduce compulsion by the back door. They took the trouble for their national league, which is FIDE rated, to find out whether they were expected to enrol all the players in their voluntary membership scheme. The answer was no, so players can play in the SNCL without restrictions.

. Cost are more closely associated with heads, not games. Charging by head is fairer.

I really don't think fairness matters one way or another. If you think you can collect £ 12 for one game of chess, even the ECF don't agree, as they propose three games for free in a league and five or six for six quid in a Congress.

[Paul Cooksey]

You could envisage a system design whereby the ECF sent every player an invoice at the end of the season alongside their grading printout. But that's not the way it works.

I agree. Although it is the kind of model I was hoping for, rather than the proposed hybrid model.

The major advantage the Scots have is that they had a vote some years ago on whether they wanted universal membership. This was rejected and the advocates of such systems took no for an answer and worked to promote the voluntary scheme instead.

I disagree. I don't think the voluntary membership scheme is very successful. It is raising £3.30 per player. Scaling up, 40k would not solve the ECFs problems. Rather, I think the Scots major advantage is they are only trying to raise £7 a head.

Charging by head is fairer.

I really don't think fairness matters one way or another.

Er, a remarkable statement I admire John Rawls

If you think you can collect £ 12 for one game of chess, even the ECF don't agree, as they propose three games for free in a league and five or six for six quid in a Congress.

I think someone would be foolish to only play one game after playing their £12, although it would still be better value than going to the cinema.

The point charging is a disincentive to casual players is reasonable, although an issue in all charging models. I think G60 is good enough for most juniors and beginners, and I would be happy if the ECF made rapidplay free to encourage new players.

[Roger de Coverly]

. I think G60 is good enough for most juniors and beginners, and I would be happy if the ECF made rapidplay free to encourage new players.

Currently under Game Fee it would be £ 1.45 per head for a five round tournament. If I read the small print, it becomes £ 6 under the proposed new scheme. Venue and prize costs are on top of this of course, so entry fees hit the £ 12 to £ 20 range.

[Roger de Coverly]

I think someone would be foolish to only play one game after playing their £12,

I don't know the circumstances, but if you review the download of the published grading data, it's not uncommon. But there aren't financial disincentives under Game Fee structures.

Actually there are circumstances in which the current ECF want £ 27 for no games and it's a feature which they've kept in the proposed system.

[Roger de Coverly]

It is raising £3.30 per player.

I don't know where you get that figure from.

at http://www.chessscotland.com/membership ... m#benefits, it tells us that Adult membership without the magazine costs £ 19.50 per head. This being about the same as the ECF's proposed silver membership.

Also http://www.chessscotland.com/csinfo/fees.htm

Rating fee for Congresses at 54p a player a game (48p if the Congress offers member discount) is comparable to current ECF charges.

The cheap one by ECF standards is the cost to play in leagues, at £ 30 per club plus £ 2.85 per board per team.

[Paul Cooksey]

It is raising £3.30 per player.

I don't know where you get that figure from.

Total amount raised by membership (7434.5 in the accounts) divided by players (2265 in the grading section of the annual report)

[Roger de Coverly]

Total amount raised by membership (7434.5 in the accounts) divided by players (2265 in the grading section of the annual report)

I believe they have about 300 to 400 members. The amount per individual member is comparable to ECF amounts, as is the rating fee. It's the cost they charge to clubs and leagues which is way down on ECF figures. Their admin expenses are much smaller of course. But the Scottish comparison bears out what I've observed of the ECF for many years, that it represents a device for recycling money from club (and previously Congress) players to an office in Battle. The proposed changes just tilt the balance towards the less active clubs and club players paying a higher proportion.

[Roger de Coverly]

The real point however was that in answer to the inevitable question "what are we getting for this compulsion to join" the answer would have been "grading and ownership" Without the ownership element compulsory membership is simply painting lipstick on a pig.

I reckon many players don't give a fig for the potential size of the activities of the ECF and who controls its voting rights provided
(a) it doesn't stick its nose in and generally get in the way with annoying rules
and
(b) it doesn't demand unreasonable sums of money, particularly for minimal services.

[David Robertson]

This doesn't make "many players" wise or right. And it doesn't make for a healthy ECF. Moreover, the alleged 'disinterest' of the mass constituency has universally been the defence of those who would restrict the franchise.

[Roger de Coverly]

Its abject failure is seen in the fact that the ECF skirts with bankruptcy while having eye popping amounts of cash in the bank.

That needs to be challenged. Whilst both the JRT and the BCF PIF have investments of a reasonable worth, neither is legally or physically under the control of the ECF directors. Whilst in many circumstances, the BCF's PIF would come to the financial aid of a struggling ECF, I don't think it is required of it. There might be circumstances in which it (the PIF) was better to let the ECF go to the wall and preserve its financial assets to support a replacement body.

[Roger de Coverly]

The federal structure does not work, has never worked and will never work.

You are evidently well at variance with the current incumbent, despite both of you wanting to push the same type of financial structure. The BCF was set up in 1904 with a federal structure, it must have done something right in a hundred years?

You could in fact abolish Council in its present form and introduce membership without needing compulsory per head funding:-

Bullet points
(1)Every player with a grade is deemed a (free) member
(2)Votes to a Council directly elected by players accrue with games played and perhaps additional (paid for) membership categories
(3)Organisations running events are regarded as service providers and charged a fee for access to grading and other ECF services. You might also want to give them some Council representation. Their fee is the Game Fee structure as it or something more radical.

You get yourself out of the bind, that what looks like small charge to the player taking part in 100 games a year, looks a serious disincentive to a player or team only playing 4, particularly where they are taking part as part of an institutional league.

[David Pardoe]

I hope the ECF listens carefully to what is being said here.
Andrew Farthing is to be commended for the effort he has put into this Membership project, but it is fundamentally incomplete.
Options to enable the membership to truely buy into this organisation and have a propoer say in its running is vital. We need the facility to both allow individuals to vote directly (online only), and make proposals (online only), which, in order to go forward would need to gain sufficient `online` support.
I`ve mentioned a figure of 50 online votes for a proposal to go forward. With the online voting, I`ve suggested that 50 online votes should equal 1 direct delegate vote. Whether these weightings are right or not I`m not sure...others might offer more appropriate numbers.
What this is about is membership buyin. Without this the ECF is a dead duck. The current system and structure is rife with problems and is wide open to abuse at all levels.
As well as buyin, this should also add vital checks and balances to the organisation.
As has been said, not everyone will want to get involved. But those who do should be allowed to do so.
Nay, they should be encouraged to do so. It might throw up a whole set of new people, with fresh enthusiasm, ideas, and initiates, that can help re-energise the UK chess scene.
Word of caution.....such a scheme needs to be based on a detailed paper that can cover the workings in more detail. One concern I have is about how the suggested voting system and proposals options might work in practice...and not clog up the works with great offerings that might create instability.
ie, you need an organisation with a clear mission which isnt trying to head in a myriad of conflicting directions.
You also need to resolve issues relating to voting and amendments, although maybe you simply defer to the delegates at the meeting.