2011 AGM: October 15th

[David Pardoe]

Sean,
Leicesters` League MO and member costs I guess depend on different player profiles, as to how much value they derive.
I might be mistaken, but I`m looking at this from an individuals point, not a league`s.
Last season, for example, if I`d been in the NCCU MO I`d have been able to play 4NCL Northern and Congresses + league chess, with various discounts, for a cost of about £12.
However, to do the same under the Membership scheme, I`d have to take out Gold Membership at £27, if I`ve got it right.
However, I guess you have also to weigh the game fee, which disappears under the new Membership scheme. eg, play 20 games at 50p per game and you add ten quid under the current system, I guess.
Overheads for league membership to be added as club membership charges +other overheads like Rental costs, etc.. The calculations will vary per club/area....the experts on club finances will know better than I.
At the end of the day, we don`t want to haggle about minor amounts.
In broad terms, to me the main elements that should be added are `voting rights` & a Temporary Membership category.

[Roger de Coverly]

Your £96 figure contains a possibly inaccurate hidden assumption: that the players who make up the new team wouldn't be playing sufficient graded games to trigger a membership requirement otherwise. That wouldn't be true for most of the clubs I've been a member of.

Agreed, but then Sean said that the Leics scheme was that all club members became MO members. I was presuming 8 new players walking through the door. If they're all existing club and team members, it's not really a new team at all, just an existing team playing more matches. We know that under Game Fee, if you play more matches it costs more money. Under membership it doesn't matter how many games you play, but how many people you field. If you have a de minimis number for the head count based charge, there's scope for a certain amount of minimisation if you have enough people and they're happy not to play very often.

[Alex Holowczak]

I believe there will be a proposed amendment on behalf of the Blackpool Congress and certainly supported by Scarborough Congress that the £6 levy on non-members will only apply to English resident players. I'm not sure on the exact wording so, like the ECF Board, 'don't quote me'.

I would hope that such a proposed amendment would receive significant support.

At the risk of being awkward, the Blackpool Congress can't propose an amendment, because it doesn't have any votes, and therefore doesn't have a delegate to propose such a thing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Adam - Why? Most Scottish players would welcome not having an inappropriate English grade based on only a few games and sometimes a few years old when they have more accurate Scottish/Welsh grades that are ignored.

As you know the ECF is proposing a compulsory or as it prefers to term it, universal membership scheme. Such schemes are not directly related to grading, but the proposition that you need permission, or a licence to play in competition chess. If they had followed the design features of the USCF, or the FFE for domestic events, they would would have required not just £ 6 as a payment for permission to play the weekend, but the full £ 18 for Silver membership. So in a way the £ 6 charge is a concession. Because they don't want to subject the proposals to a 75% vote, they are trying to shoehorn them into the existing Game Fee rules. So £ 6 per head per Congress (instead of 58p per game) is the new Game Fee, with the Game Fee waived for ECF Silver members and above.

At the risk of being awkward, the Blackpool Congress can't propose an amendment, because it doesn't have any votes, and therefore doesn't have a delegate to propose such a thing.

I'm sure you've told us that Blackpool runs its Game Fee through Lancs, so Lancs could propose the change.

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm sure you've told us that Blackpool runs its Game Fee through Lancs, so Lancs could propose the change.

Correct.

I've learnt from an amendment I've been asked to propose that an amendment needs a seconder, so it could be worth finding one before getting in touch with the relevant ECF officials. Lancashire/Scarborough would work.

[Mike Truran]

So in a way the £ 6 charge is a concession. Because they don't want to subject the proposals to a 75% vote, they are trying to shoehorn them into the existing Game Fee rules.

That's not true. The £6 proposal was on the table a long time before it became apparent that the changes could be made via bye-laws rather via the constitution.

[Neville Belinfante]

Mike Gunn wrote

The concept is that although the aim is to get as many subs collected at the national level, in the early stages (at least) subs couldl be collected by clubs and leagues as well.

I am unclear what the board's intentions are here. If they wish subs to be collected by clubs, why are they proposing to scrap club membership via Corporate Vice Presidency which would be the club's incentive to collect the subs that the ECF needs?

I have posed some extra questions for board members on the Summary of Funding Proposals for AGM thread.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

[Roger de Coverly]

That's not true. The £6 proposal was on the table a long time before it became apparent that the changes could be made via bye-laws rather via the constitution.

The £6 levy yes. Would not the earlier intention been to have a vote to remove all the Game Fee stuff from the Articles and Constitution? This would require a 75% vote.

They've now found that provided the proposals can be fitted in to the existing Game Fee regulations, that only a 50% vote is needed. The question perhaps is whether a Scotsman exemption can be incorporated into Game Fee regs. The main point I'm making is that a full proper hard nosed membership scheme like the USCF would have charged £ 18 a head per first Congress to turn every single player, including Scotsmen, into ECF members. The initial Farthing paper baulked at such a radical idea, but such propositions are, in my view, inherent in any membership scheme costed per head.

[Alex McFarlane]

At the risk of being awkward, the Blackpool Congress can't propose an amendment, because it doesn't have any votes, and therefore doesn't have a delegate to propose such a thing.

That is why I said 'on behalf of' and not 'by Blackpool Congress'.

Awkward wasn't the term which first came to mind!!

[Paul Cooksey]

I'd be happy for an amendment that said the ECF would not charge the members of other Federations a fee for entering ECF tournaments, provided the other Federation had a similar rule for ECF members.

(I have no idea if the Scots are charging game fee on English entries at the moment)

[Stewart Reuben]

Paul >I'd be happy for an amendment that said the ECF would not charge the members of other Federations a fee for entering ECF tournaments, provided the other Federation had a similar rule for ECF members.<

The only federation unlikely to agree to that sadly is probably the US. It is a bit late to introduce that for the FIDE Congress, notg jut for the ECF of course, but all federations, but it might be possible to slip it in.

[Alex Holowczak]

At the risk of being awkward, the Blackpool Congress can't propose an amendment, because it doesn't have any votes, and therefore doesn't have a delegate to propose such a thing.

That is why I said 'on behalf of' and not 'by Blackpool Congress'.

Awkward wasn't the term which first came to mind!!

This is where I use the Pole from Walsall and the Pole from Warsaw argument. For those not familiar; it's reasonable that the Pole from Walsall should have to pay the £6, because he lives in England but is registered elsewhere due to some other reason; birth, for example. He might be a British citizen registered to Poland. This is probably uncontroversial. But what happens when the Pole from Warsaw visits his friend in Walsall? Should he have to pay the fee to play in English events?

Under the proposals, both Poles must pay the £6 for domestic congresses, but not the Gold membership rate for international events. I think this is a fair solution. If you're playing in domestic events, then I think you'd expect to pay the national body. If you're playing in international events, then I think you'd expect to pay the international body, or your own Federation, not another national Federation.

For these reasons, I would vote against your amendment, unless otherwise instructed.

[Roger de Coverly]

(I have no idea if the Scots are charging game fee on English entries at the moment)

The Scots charge a rating fee for all tournaments for all players. Where a tournament offers entry discounts to Chess Scotland members, the rating fee is at a lower level to partly compensate the event. This level is independent of the number of Chess Scotland members actually taking part.

[Paul Cooksey]

(I have no idea if the Scots are charging game fee on English entries at the moment)

The Scots charge a rating fee for all tournaments for all players. Where a tournament offers entry discounts to Chess Scotland members, the rating fee is at a lower level to partly compensate the event. This level is independent of the number of Chess Scotland members actually taking part.

Surely the Scots aren't asking us for free entry, but denying it to us? I don't want to have to resort to cheap racial stereotypes!

[Roger de Coverly]

Surely the Scots aren't asking us for free entry, but denying it to us?

They give a discount to Chess Scotland members. I've noted Mark Hebden as a member so I don't know if you have to demonstrate being Scottish in some form to become a member.

As an example of discounts http://www.dundee-congress.co.uk/entry.htm and scroll down the page

Chess Scotland members may claim a £2 discount.

(The entry fee for the Open is £ 22 otherwise)


Currently many Congresses give discounts to ECF members. The change is that the discount to ECF members is being increased to £ 6 although this is being expressed as a surcharge of £ 6 for non ECF members. The viewpoint of Blackpool and Scarborough is that part of their market is Scottish players and these are being discouraged. Like Alex H, I tend to think of this as a logical outcome of a membership scheme.