ECF Membership Reform

[Roger Lancaster]

A lot of people seem to be complaining about the cost of playing a sport that is incredibly cheap to participate in, compared to most other sports.
It costs £25 to take part in my local 10k run. It's £17 just to watch my local non-league football team. It's £11 to go swimming for 90 minutes at the local pool.
Annual membership of a national association for as little as £18 is a bargain, even if you only play a handful of rated games. Club memberships usually work out at a couple of pounds per week (or less). Congress entry fees are usually around £25 per day, which is very cheap for a day's participation in any kind of event.

Entirely agree. I can understand that £18 might be significant for those chess players reliant on State benefits, in low-income employment or otherwise financially limited but for most people here it's a pittance. Continued complaints about the ECF fees, even from players who can regularly afford to travel to weekend congresses, must be very dispiriting to many of those actually giving their time to promote chess.

[John Townsend]

The key question is not whether it is cheap or expensive (which depends on the individual), but whether it represents value for money. I would suggest not for many people. As an example, in the case of league chess it is hard to see how the ECF adds any value beyond grading, and that could, surely, be provided at much lower cost.

[Mick Norris]

How depressing

It's hard enough being involved in chess administration (for free, whilst also having a job and a family), without someone trying to make it harder by suggesting that grading/rating could be done cheaper; just how much work does Brian and his team put into it, and those running the LMS?

If they (and the rest of us) charged commercial rates for our time, ECF membership would be over £18 per week, let alone per annum

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think we can say the ECF is doing a good job because chess is cheap, any more than we can say the Equestrian Federation is doing a bad job because a horse costs 10k a year. (possibly, two minutes on google...)

I don't think grading can be done much cheaper than around a pound a member. But I do think value for money is important in some other areas.

I am looking forward seeing the finance council papers, the first update since the government grant so we might or might not see significant changes in thinking.

[Roger Lancaster]

The key question is not whether it is cheap or expensive (which depends on the individual), but whether it represents value for money. I would suggest not for many people. As an example, in the case of league chess it is hard to see how the ECF adds any value beyond grading, and that could, surely, be provided at much lower cost.

Actually, John, no. Whether it represents value for money does depend on the individual. I take it that, since you don't appear to be a member of the ECF, you won't be in a position to judge but quite a few members probably consider 'Chess Moves' alone to be worth £1.50 each month.

[John Townsend]

Paul Cooksey wrote:

"I don't think grading can be done much cheaper than around a pound a member. But I do think value for money is important in some other areas."

I don't follow Paul's argument here. If all that league players get for their £18 is grading, then aren't they, in effect, paying about eighteen times what it costs?

[Richard Bates]

How depressing

It's hard enough being involved in chess administration (for free, whilst also having a job and a family), without someone trying to make it harder by suggesting that grading/rating could be done cheaper; just how much work does Brian and his team put into it, and those running the LMS?

If they (and the rest of us) charged commercial rates for our time, ECF membership would be over £18 per week, let alone per annum

Well said.

[John Reyes]

How depressing

It's hard enough being involved in chess administration (for free, whilst also having a job and a family), without someone trying to make it harder by suggesting that grading/rating could be done cheaper; just how much work does Brian and his team put into it, and those running the LMS?

If they (and the rest of us) charged commercial rates for our time, ECF membership would be over £18 per week, let alone per annum

Well said.

i agreed with Mick there and you need to think what the money is used for?
nothing is free

[Roger Lancaster]

Paul Cooksey wrote:

"I don't think grading can be done much cheaper than around a pound a member. But I do think value for money is important in some other areas."

I don't follow Paul's argument here. If all that league players get for their £18 is grading, then aren't they, in effect, paying about eighteen times what it costs?

I can sympathise with John because it must be difficult following arguments when one really doesn't have a clue. As to "If all that league players get for their £18 is grading", I've already mentioned 'Chess Moves' and https://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecf-mem ... -benefits/ shows a list of other possible benefits. Not everyone will want to avail themselves of those benefits but they're there nonetheless. Then there's the role of ECF officers in obtaining the recent HMG grants where the assumption is that part of the benefits will accrue at grassroots level. The ECF also acts as a focal point for recruiting new players and it's very probable that, without a body such as the ECF, there would be fewer active players and consequently fewer leagues for people such as John, if he takes up chess again, to compete in. Of course, the ECF isn't perfect but we're better off with it - and, in particular, the volunteers who give up a good deal of time working on others' behalf - than without it.

[Paul Habershon]

I can sympathise with John because it must be difficult following arguments when one really doesn't have a clue. As to "If all that league players get for their £18 is grading", I've already mentioned 'Chess Moves' and https://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecf-mem ... -benefits/ shows a list of other possible benefits. Not everyone will want to avail themselves of those benefits but they're there nonetheless. Then there's the role of ECF officers in obtaining the recent HMG grants where the assumption is that part of the benefits will accrue at grassroots level. The ECF also acts as a focal point for recruiting new players and it's very probable that, without a body such as the ECF, there would be fewer active players and consequently fewer leagues for people such as John, if he takes up chess again, to compete in. Of course, the ECF isn't perfect but we're better off with it - and, in particular, the volunteers who give up a good deal of time working on others' behalf - than without it.

Absolutely agree. And the above doesn't include the need for an official body to organise our national representative teams. No doubt some club players have no interest in our national teams and don't see why they should support them financially. However, the proportion of the ridiculously cheap £18 p.a. which helps to fund international play is tiny. Anyway if the ECF didn't exist it wouldn't be long before a committee was formed to invent it.

[John Townsend]

Thanks for the insult, Mr Lancaster. It is a pity we cannot discuss ECF matters without it. I assume it is an attempt to cover up the weakness of your argument.

League chess existed happily for many decades without the ECF, which has not added to the experience other than by increasing the cost. For grading, Paul Cooksey mentioned a cost to the ECF of "around a pound a member". That compares unfavourably with the £18 which I understand players are expected to pay. As for the magazine, I suspect many players, if given a choice, would prefer to have their membership cheaper, especially at a time when many are feeling the pinch.

[Roger de Coverly]

As for the magazine, I suspect many players, if given a choice, would prefer to have their membership cheaper, especially at a time when many are feeling the pinch.

I do wonder how much the magazine is costing. I recall that not so many years ago, the ECF cancelled the previous magazine as a cost saving measure.

[Brian Valentine]

... For grading, Paul Cooksey mentioned a cost to the ECF of "around a pound a member".

A thread on membership reform should not be diverted by the cost of "grading" (rating since 2020), but any diversion into that area should not be anchored in Paul's estimate.

The quotes we got for building LMS and the monthly rating system were material. At £1 per member these would still be being paid off if Malcolm Peacock and Steve Bush had not volunteered. On top of that, If not for the many brilliant volunteer results officers and the central teams, the commercial cost of rating would appear in the accounts and easily cover the £18 membership fee. Whether players put that value on it is another matter.

[John Townsend]

Mr Valentine,

The "diversion" arose because Messrs. Lettington and Lancaster spoke above about the £18 being a "bargain", and it is normal on the forum for views expressed to be challenged, if need be.

There seems a big difference between Paul Cooksey's "around a pound a member" and the kind of sums you are talking about.

[Roger de Coverly]

There seems a big difference between Paul Cooksey's "around a pound a member" and the kind of sums you are talking about.

The difference is what's shown as a cost in the accounts and the cost of the volunteer services if they had to be paid for.