ECF Game Fee v Membership

[Michele Clack]

David asks what I know. I know all I need to know that the reason for the strange placement of Greater Manchester in the MCCU is part of an ancient feud. I don't want to know all the ins and outs of it but I would urge the NCCU to be magnanimous and invite them back into the fold. This sort of situation is bad for the people directly involved and bad for the chess community in general.

Many people say that clubs are short of members because of internet chess and there is a lot of truth in that. There are no doubt other factors involved such as increased road congestion and the long hours culture of recent years. What benefits do people gain by joining a club? Well I would say that one of the benefits for many people is becoming part of a chess community. Now some people might wonder is a community that has allowed a feud to continue for over 30 years a community they want to join and they would have a point. This is the sort of area where I would like to see the ECF showing some leadership. At Redditch the people involved in the original feud had long since passed away but the situation had just carried on by default really. Then our president showed some real leadership and put up his own money to show us what we were missing. I for one am very grateful as I really enjoy the County matches. We have been very lucky with our presidents. This one recently decided to step down after many years of service to the club because he thought it was time to go "before he got too old to realise he ought to step down" and he selected an excellent replacement.

Coming back to Game Fee v Membership, it seems to me that getting national agreement on this is very unlikely. People become entrenched in their views and chess players seem particularly good at that. Surely better to have a federal system whereby each county decides on their own solution and pays the ECF board fees or memberships. If the benefits of membership become obvious then people will be clamouring to pay by that method.

Personally I would like the ECF to be more in tune with the needs of their membership and I think OMOV would help that. However, I accept my husband's argument that chess clubs in Worcestershire are under so much pressure financially that risking a membership scheme that might put off new people from becoming involved in the league scene is not sensible at the moment. New people often start to get interested when they first get a grade having been dragged into a few games to make up the numbers. Chess takes a bit of getting into and helping people past the initial stages can be difficult. It is not sensible to risk putting them off by not including them in the grading system if they don't want to pay extra straight away.

[John Upham]

We have been very lucky with our presidents. This one recently decided to step down after many years of service to the club because he thought it was time to go "before he got too old to realise he ought to step down" and he selected an excellent replacement.

ummmmm. I think everyone knows what I'm thinking here.

Anyone else wishing to agree?

[Mick Norris]

John

Great minds think alike (or is it fools seldom differ, 44 today and my brain has stopped working again)

Michelle

I think I agree with most of what you say, but I should add the MCCU continues to make us very welcome (although some of their county captains have a poor grasp of geography when selecting venues)

Roger

As David says, some of us know quite a bit

I hope the rest of you have better things to do than find out!

[Steve Henderson]

We have been very lucky with our presidents. This one recently decided to step down after many years of service to the club because he thought it was time to go "before he got too old to realise he ought to step down" and he selected an excellent replacement.

ummmmm. I think everyone knows what I'm thinking here.

Anyone else wishing to agree?

Steady John
You never know who is watching

I have heard something about the NCCU and Manchester having a bit of a disagreement
I feel that should have its own thread though, anyone care to start it?!

[William Metcalfe]

Ok back to the original topic i can only comment on what has happened to our club since the introduction of membership.
Our members are now paying less money for club membership they now pay £22 per year instead of £25 a year also every member of darlington chess club is now a ecf member through the nccu mo.Every club member now has a ecf grade before membership 20% never had a ecf grade.Our internal club championship and quick play championship now get graded.We now run 6 teams instead of 5 teams.
As you can see membership has acually benifited the ecf as much as it has benefited darlington chess club the ecf has gained members that never played league chess before.We now have 2 club nights as members are playing more chess either league matches or internal championship matches.
I hope you all agree this is a huge improvement on chess clubs dying like they seem to be in certain areas

[David Robertson]

But the sword is a damn sight more satisfying in certain cases

David

[William Metcalfe]

Now that game fee is recomended to go up to £1.00 per game what game fee price is too much.@what price does membership look like the more cost effective option for the average club and player.
I expect the usual argument will be what about the player that only plays 3 to 5 games per season this is a red herring he pays the same club membership or subs than the player that plays 30 games+ a season

[Greg Breed]

Now that game fee is recomended to go up to £1.00 per game what game fee price is too much. @what price does membership look like the more cost effective option for the average club and player.
I expect the usual argument will be what about the player that only plays 3 to 5 games per season this is a red herring he pays the same club membership or subs than the player that plays 30 games+ a season

Blimey this is news to me. I thought we were at about half that at the moment! Surely the membership scheme would be an undoubted favourite if the cost went up this much!...
...Clubs would therefore no longer have to submit game fees via the league then and £40 for 3 years plus club subs/cost wouldn't seem so bad. Could this actually be a covert way of forcing the membership scheme?...

[Greg Breed]

Now that game fee is recommended to go up to £1.00 per game what game fee price is too much.@what price does membership look like the more cost effective option for the average club and player.
I expect the usual argument will be what about the player that only plays 3 to 5 games per season this is a red herring he pays the same club membership or subs than the player that plays 30 games+ a season

Ah I just realised my mistake. It is currently at about 48p per half game right?...

[Mike Truran]

Correct!

[Tim Lunn]

I have a question that I'm not sure about (have tried to look around for this stated somewhere):

If a County Association is paying game fees, then is it the case that any direct members (individuals within that county) have already paid their game fees through their membership, and therefore, that games played by direct members can be deducted from that which the county pays?

ie; deduct number of 'half-games' played by direct members from the total number of half-games played - to arrive at the game fee that the county needs to play?

[Mike Gunn]

No, the game fee is only waived for play in congresses.

[William Metcalfe]

Direct members so not get there game fee covered so you have to pay there half board.
Where it gets more complicated is if the players are MO members as there game fee is covered also if a direct member plays in a MO area then there game fee is covered.
The situation last year in cleveland when cleveland went to paying game fee was all NCCU Northumberland.Durham. MO members there game fee was paid also any direct members game fee was paid as Cleveland was in a MO area the above NCCU mo area.
I hope that explains just how complicated running a dual econimy really is lol