English Chess Forum

Alex Holowczak wrote:(2) Council hasn't set the membership category charges yet; they get set by April's Finance Council meeting.

And this is the worry for Congresses early in the new season that will have entry forms produced before then. Scarborough being the most obvious example. If the figures are significantly different from those suggested will allowances be made?

EDIT BY SEAN - Split into separate thread.

Alex McFarlane wrote: And this is the worry for Congresses early in the new season that will have entry forms produced before then. Scarborough being the most obvious example. If the figures are significantly different from those suggested will allowances be made?

I have congresses planned in August and September so will be even more affected, but I'm not sure that I understand the point Alex (me being thick again. Obviously too busy being power crazed ). We know that players will need to be Silver to play in a congress, or Gold if the congress is FIDE rated. We know that a £6 charge can be levied for non-members. Do the actual costs of Gold an Silver matter? What else do we need to know?

We know what the suggested fees are but Council could alter these substantially.

I was also round a table when an ECF Director stated that the £6 fee would not apply to members of other national federations. The £6 fee is very important when you run an event with a large number of non-English entrants (approx 10% at Scarborough) or stage the event in Yorkshire with a low ECF membership. Even relatively small amounts can play havoc with a budget.

If you budget on 'worst case' scenario of people not taking out membership and not being willing to pay the £6, then Scarborough wouldn't happen but hopefully being more realistic and accepting the 85% membership target we could potentially be looking at a £1000 dent though I think £500 might be a more reasonable estimate. Even with a budget like Scarborough's that is significant.

Alex McFarlane wrote:We know what the suggested fees are but Council could alter these substantially.

Why would they? They've never done this with Game Fee. The biggest "shock" of recent times was last year, when the Board proposed leaving rates as they were, but Council voted a 8%ish increase. A 8%ish increase on £12 is £13. If that's the limit of Council's radical-ness, I don't think you need to worry about it.

Alex H,
I didn't say I was worried but I am concerned. Anything could happen at the April meeting that could affect things no matter how unlikely. If the Robinson Trust were to refuse to back the ECF for example (and note I'm not saying that's going to happen) then the financial structure would have to change dramatically. A prudent organiser HAS to consider such things.

We have no idea what the uptake on membership will be. Yorkshire has proved to be a particularly impoverished area in terms of ECF membership. Is that likely to change? If there is a boycott of tournaments (and recent events have indicated that may be more likely than I had previously thought) due to enforced membership it is more likely to happen in Yorkshire. Even a £1 increase could trigger such a reaction. Talking to several Scottish players, for example, a £3 levy would have been acceptable but £6 is seen as too much, others, of course, say it won't matter but if we lose 20 entries that's £600 down.

Few events can afford that.

Alex Holowczak wrote: Why would they? They've never done this with Game Fee. The biggest "shock" of recent times was last year, when the Board proposed leaving rates as they were, but Council voted a 8%ish increase. A 8%ish increase on £12 is £13. If that's the limit of Council's radical-ness, I don't think you need to worry about it.

Next year's Finance Council and whoever draws up the budget will have one, possibly two, major issues to deal with.

The first is that they will have to guess how many players there will be playing graded chess and how much graded chess there will be. This may loop on itself as the higher the charges, the fewer the players.

The other issue is that the financial position may be much worse than previously considered ( I'm referring to the lack of finality regarding the April 2011 financial position) and a base amount of £ 12 nowhere near enough to finance the Office and other necessary or unnecessary activity.

Alex McFarlane wrote:Talking to several Scottish players, for example, a £3 levy would have been acceptable but £6 is seen as too much, others, of course, say it won't matter but if we lose 20 entries that's £600 down.

Few events can afford that.

Whilst I agree that no event would want to lose 20 players I find it difficult to believe that players travelling from Scotland to Scarborough, incurring costs for entry, travel, overnight accomodation, food and especially drink are really so price elastic that a sum equivalent to the price of a pint of beer is going to stop them from playing - regardless of what they might say now. It's such a small percentage of their weekend spend.



As Victor Meldrew would say, I don't believe it.

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Alex McFarlane wrote:Talking to several Scottish players, for example, a £3 levy would have been acceptable but £6 is seen as too much, others, of course, say it won't matter but if we lose 20 entries that's £600 down.

Few events can afford that.

Whilst I agree that no event would want to lose 20 players I find it difficult to believe that players travelling from Scotland to Scarborough, incurring costs for entry, travel, overnight accomodation, food and especially drink are really so price elastic that a sum equivalent to the price of a pint of beer is going to stop them from playing - regardless of what they might say now. It's such a small percentage of their weekend spend.



As Victor Meldrew would say, I don't believe it.

I think Sean is right in principle. What might happen is that Scottish players "boycott" the event in the way Alex is concerned about because the Scottish object to any notion of having to fund the English Chess Federation, regardless of the fact that they've been doing just that for the last however many times they've been going to Scarborough.

As for the revelation of chessplayers thinking £x is too high, and only wanting to pay £(x - y), this is hardly going to send shockwaves through the UK chess circuit.

Sean Hewitt wrote: Whilst I agree that no event would want to lose 20 players I find it difficult to believe that players travelling from Scotland to Scarborough, incurring costs for entry, travel, overnight accomodation, food and especially drink are really so price elastic that a sum equivalent to the price of a pint of beer is going to stop them from playing - regardless of what they might say now. It's such a small percentage of their weekend spend.

I've expressed similar views myself.

It's not a view shared in the past by officials of the NCCU. In 2003, in the context of an increase in Game Fee of about 50p per player per Congress their Minutes record:-

The President said we also need to start a campaign towards the BCF against double taxation on congresses. On the one hand congresses are having to raise and pay game fee, then this game fee is being used for other BCF purposes rather than supporting congresses. Congresses are really struggling to meet the fast-rising game fee (the secretary strongly concurred at this point) and some congresses and rapidplays are now suggesting taking ‘holidays’ from paying the game fee.

Sean Hewitt wrote:...are really so price elastic...

.....N.??

I echo Alex's McFarlane's concerns. I organise the Manchester weekend congress. Its traditional weekend (for the last two years!) is the first weekend in September. That gives me a dilemma because I believe that the first congresses under the new system will be financial disasters. In my case everybody would have to be a silver member. But I am sure the great majority will not be. It may have been discussed at length on this forum but in the real world out there I am sure that most chess players do not understand the implications. They will consider that they are paid members of the ECF they have a valid membership. They will ask why is that no longer enough. There is also the associated problem that I ask them if they are a silver member of the ECF and they say yes. Knowing that they have a membership that allows them to play in congresses and get a rebate off the entry fee. Now I will have to explain to them. Over 100 of them! that they need to play extra to pay.

Then how do they pay the extra fee or the new membership?

Do I take it off them. If so how do I calculate it? Do they get a rebate because their old membership has expired? I thought I read somewhere that the idea was for membership fees to be paid direct to the ECF. So

If they say they will send the money to the ECF? Do I trust them?

If the ECF gets a payment at the end of September for someone who played in my congress. Will the ECF be savvy enough to realise that it covers my congress. I think not. I think the ECF will just go ahead and fine me. How much will the ECF fine me. Its not clear to me. I do not understand the system. And if I do not understand the system what chance have my competitors.

Could any ECF official reading this please tell me

If a player has valid membership from the pre 1 Sep 2012 system. How much will the ECF charge me (NB to be tactful I have changed the word from fine!).
If a player has no ECF membership whatever how much will the ECF charge me

I believe that the confusion will be such that most of my players will not have the right membership and that I will pay several hundred pounds in extra charges to the ECF. The subsequent loss I believe will be so high that some members of the MCF executive will want to abandon running the congress. I am not exaggerating. Losses on congresses was the reason why we went down from 4 congresses to one.

I must say that the ECF has shown poor leadership on this issue. As Alex McFarlane says we do not know what the charges on our congress will be until the April council meeting. Which will be too late as we need to publish our entry form before then.

The Director responsible for introducing the system seems to have little idea of the practicalities of introducing the new system. Instead of telling us what the rules are he wants us to tell him what the rules are. On this forum See the first post on thread http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3582 where issues a long list of 16 questions asking us to tell him the answers when in my opinion as the director responsible for implementation he should be telling us.

As an example of the lack of leadership by the ECF the first question is

"Who has to become a member of the English Chess Federation?"

Well if the ECF cannot tell us that who can!

Having written all that I have just looked at the calender. I have a get out of jail card. By a fantastic one in seven chance August Bank holiday Monday 2012 is on August 27. Which means our congress starts on the last day in August. It runs from Friday Aug 31-Sep 2. I presume that as it starts in August it runs under the old system and I do not have a problem. Would an ECF official please confirm this

May I wish the best of luck to my colleagues in Leek whose congress starts one week after mine!


Harry Lamb
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation

Alex McFarlane wrote:Talking to several Scottish players, for example, a £3 levy would have been acceptable but £6 is seen as too much, others, of course, say it won't matter but if we lose 20 entries that's £600 down.

Few events can afford that.

Thinking on, isn't it only a £3 levy anyway - given that the congress will save £3 per player in game fee?

Sean Hewitt wrote:Thinking on, isn't it only a £3 levy anyway - given that the congress will save £3 per player in game fee?

No, that assumes current game fee levels, which would have gone up significantly. Call it £2.

Paul Cooksey wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:Thinking on, isn't it only a £3 levy anyway - given that the congress will save £3 per player in game fee?

No, that assumes current game fee levels, which would have gone up significantly. Call it £2.

I'm not a definitive source to answer your questions, but here's my go at helping:

harrylamb wrote:In my case everybody would have to be a silver member.

Incorrect. They need to pay the £6 Pay to Play fee. Alternatively, if your entry form says that they need to be bronze members to play in leagues, and the difference between bronze and silver is £6, then you could perhaps have the facility on your entry form to make them become silver members.

E.g. "£20 entry for ECF silver members. £26 for non-members." Then explain that you can become a silver member via the congress for £20 + £x, where £x is whatever Council votes for as being the rate of silver membership. Explain too that this will entitle them to a season's chess in all domestic graded competitions.

harrylamb wrote:But I am sure the great majority will not be. It may have been discussed at length on this forum but in the real world out there I am sure that most chess players do not understand the implications. They will consider that they are paid members of the ECF they have a valid membership. They will ask why is that no longer enough. There is also the associated problem that I ask them if they are a silver member of the ECF and they say yes. Knowing that they have a membership that allows them to play in congresses and get a rebate off the entry fee. Now I will have to explain to them. Over 100 of them! that they need to play extra to pay.

Or, you could just look at the online membership list, which will tell you if they're members or not (under whichever system).

harrylamb wrote:Then how do they pay the extra fee or the new membership?

(1) You can direct them to the ECF website, and ask them to become members via that.
(2) You can take the money of the entrants yourself at the point they enter the congress, and pass it on to the ECF.

harrylamb wrote:If they say they will send the money to the ECF? Do I trust them?

Why not just take it as part of the congress entry fee if you think it'll be that much of a problem?

harrylamb wrote:If the ECF gets a payment at the end of September for someone who played in my congress. Will the ECF be savvy enough to realise that it covers my congress. I think not.

The issue you raise is a good one, because memberships apply retroactively for the season. This issue had crossed my mind. It's one to e-mail the Andrew Farthing about.

harrylamb wrote:I think the ECF will just go ahead and fine me. How much will the ECF fine me. Its not clear to me. I do not understand the system. And if I do not understand the system what chance have my competitors.

Ask your President, Mick Norris. He voted for it.

harrylamb wrote:If a player has valid membership from the pre 1 Sep 2012 system. How much will the ECF charge me (NB to be tactful I have changed the word from fine!).

£0 if your event is played before his membership expires. Existing memberships will be honoured for their duration.

harrylamb wrote:If a player has no ECF membership whatever how much will the ECF charge me

£6 per player

harrylamb wrote:I believe that the confusion will be such that most of my players will not have the right membership and that I will pay several hundred pounds in extra charges to the ECF. The subsequent loss I believe will be so high that some members of the MCF executive will want to abandon running the congress. I am not exaggerating. Losses on congresses was the reason why we went down from 4 congresses to one.

I have full confidence in Mick Norris being able to make sure this "issue" remains only an "issue".

harrylamb wrote:I must say that the ECF has shown poor leadership on this issue. As Alex McFarlane says we do not know what the charges on our congress will be until the April council meeting. Which will be too late as we need to publish our entry form before then.

This has been true since Game Fee was first introduced. If Council had doubled Game Fee in April after you publicised your entry form, you'd have been just as screwed as you think you will be here. Your best bet is to take the fee that the Board intends to propose. I think the £6 is fairly set in stone, which is the important number.

harrylamb wrote:The Director responsible for introducing the system seems to have little idea of the practicalities of introducing the new system. Instead of telling us what the rules are he wants us to tell him what the rules are. On this forum See the first post on thread http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3582 where issues a long list of 16 questions asking us to tell him the answers when in my opinion as the director responsible for implementation he should be telling us.

Adam is not the Director responsible; the Chief Executive is. This explains away your subsequent questions.

harrylamb wrote:Having written all that I have just looked at the calender. I have a get out of jail card. By a fantastic one in seven chance August Bank holiday Monday 2012 is on August 27. Which means our congress starts on the last day in August. It runs from Friday Aug 31-Sep 2. I presume that as it starts in August it runs under the old system and I do not have a problem. Would an ECF official please confirm this

Might I suggest e-mailing the Chief Executive; you may increase your probability of getting a reply.