ECF meeting reports

[Roger de Coverly]

Board consensus, if I read the minutes correctly, is to combine bronze/silver/gold but with 'grandfathering' for existing bronze. Is that how others read it?

I suspect a majority rather than a consensus. I don't know why Congress representatives would support grandfathering as the proposed rule tells players they lose their concession if they enter a Congress.

There is also this comment

The Board further noted that existing ECF funding of international chess could potentially be redirected to grassroots chess.

It might be necessary to suggest to the Board that a redirection to "grassroots" chess might involve not trying to extract so much money from it for the Board's pet projects. But is that lilkely?

[NickFaulks]

I don't know why Congress representatives would support grandfathering as the proposed rule tells players they lose their concession if they enter a Congress.

Where does it say that? I believe the opposite is true.

[Ian Jamieson]

Board consensus, if I read the minutes correctly, is to combine bronze/silver/gold but with 'grandfathering' for existing bronze. Is that how others read it?

I suspect a majority rather than a consensus. I don't know why Congress representatives would support grandfathering as the proposed rule tells players they lose their concession if they enter a Congress.

There is also this comment

The Board further noted that existing ECF funding of international chess could potentially be redirected to grassroots chess.

It might be necessary to suggest to the Board that a redirection to "grassroots" chess might involve not trying to extract so much money from it for the Board's pet projects. But is that lilkely?

The Board presumably thinks that players would rather play a Congress even though it means losing the concession.

I have already posted on here and in a pm to Mike Truran that if it goes through I won’t play any congresses in future, at least not in England.

[Roger de Coverly]

Where does it say that? I believe the opposite is true.

I understood the rule to be that if you upgrade to Silver/Gold by entering a Congress or otherwise, you cannot go back to concessionary Bronze. Is that not correct? But then the treatment of non-members or the wrong type of member entering a Congress isn't entirely clear.

It won't matter if the Council voters say "none of the above" to the Board proposals.

[Ian Jamieson]

Where does it say that? I believe the opposite is true.

I understood the rule to be that if you upgrade to Silver/Gold by entering a Congress or otherwise, you cannot go back to concessionary Bronze. Is that not correct? But then the treatment of non-members or the wrong type of member entering a Congress isn't entirely clear.

It won't matter if the Council voters say "none of the above" to the Board proposals.

The Board appear to be trying to sneak through one set of proposals without giving any details under cover of another set of proposals.

If this isn’t the intention perhaps the Board should clarify what is intended and even rerun the consultation exercise.

[Ian Thompson]

Where does it say that? I believe the opposite is true.

I understood the rule to be that if you upgrade to Silver/Gold by entering a Congress or otherwise, you cannot go back to concessionary Bronze. Is that not correct? But then the treatment of non-members or the wrong type of member entering a Congress isn't entirely clear.

It won't matter if the Council voters say "none of the above" to the Board proposals.

The Board appear to be trying to sneak through one set of proposals without giving any details under cover of another set of proposals.

If this isn’t the intention perhaps the Board should clarify what is intended and even rerun the consultation exercise.

What's not clear in:

"Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress."?

[Ian Jamieson]

I understood the rule to be that if you upgrade to Silver/Gold by entering a Congress or otherwise, you cannot go back to concessionary Bronze. Is that not correct? But then the treatment of non-members or the wrong type of member entering a Congress isn't entirely clear.

It won't matter if the Council voters say "none of the above" to the Board proposals.

The Board appear to be trying to sneak through one set of proposals without giving any details under cover of another set of proposals.

If this isn’t the intention perhaps the Board should clarify what is intended and even rerun the consultation exercise.

What's not clear in:

"Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress."?

If the Board’s proposals are clear why do Roger and Nick have different interpretations of them?

[Roger de Coverly]

What's not clear in:

"Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress."?

Can they revert back to Bronze the following season or membership year? If not, this isn't a similar position to the present arrangement where pay to play is also an automatic upgrade.

[NickFaulks]

What's not clear in:

"Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress."?

I don't know. I suppose a lawyer could argue that the two options are in fact exactly the same, so pay to play gives up rights, but that is obviously not the idea.

[Roger Lancaster]

Unfortunately we have the rather silly situation that ECF directors aren't allowed to respond here to clarify but I imagine that, if someone PM'd Mike Truran or for that matter another director, he'd be happy to respond.

[Ian Jamieson]

Unfortunately we have the rather silly situation that ECF directors aren't allowed to respond here to clarify but I imagine that, if someone PM'd Mike Truran or for that matter another director, he'd be happy to respond.

Or not - I have exchanged PMs with Mike Truran

[Roger Lancaster]

Or not - I have exchanged PMs with Mike Truran

Curious. The key clause, it has been pointed out to me, is ‘Existing Bronze members outside the new membership scheme will lose their Bronze membership status if, for example, their membership lapses, or if they upgrade to the new single rate to play congress chess. Council should note that in practice Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress’. In short, 'grandfathered' bronzes can remain so if they don't upgrade but instead elect the P2P route into congresses. (And thanks to MT for assistance).

[Ian Jamieson]

Or not - I have exchanged PMs with Mike Truran

Curious. The key clause, it has been pointed out to me, is ‘Existing Bronze members outside the new membership scheme will lose their Bronze membership status if, for example, their membership lapses, or if they upgrade to the new single rate to play congress chess. Council should note that in practice Bronze members would therefore be in a similar position under Option 1 as under present arrangements, under which they can either upgrade to Silver/Gold or pay a £9/£12 pay to play fee to play in a congress’. In short, 'grandfathered' bronzes can remain so if they don't upgrade but instead elect the P2P route into congresses. (And thanks to MT for assistance).

That’s more than MT pointed out to me.

[Roger de Coverly]

In short, 'grandfathered' bronzes can remain so if they don't upgrade but instead elect the P2P route into congresses.

Congress organisers would have thought the upgrade was automatic. Some players may even want it that way. More wording to put on Congress entry forms.

[Roger Lancaster]

That’s more than MT pointed out to me.

It's not inconceivable that he wondered why we hadn't read (or understood) the paragraph in question for ourselves. If so, I see his point.