ECF Game Fee v Membership

[Mick Norris]

Good points Roger. I was at the meeting and took universal to mean "Available to all" rather than "Compulsory" but it’s clear from the discussion here that some have taken it to mean the latter.

Sean you are correct that this is my interpretation of it, but this is based on the following:-

Say you were graded 169 previously

1. If you don't have a published grade how can you play in an u170 event?
2. How can you play for the county at u175?
3. How can you play in a league if you are supposed to be barred on grading? Would the club know your grade?

The above to me makes this effectively a compulsory membership unless you are prepared to play only in open events and no league chess whatsoever.

1. You explain to the organisers which section you wish to enter, what your previous grade was and why you think you are the appropriate strength - the organisers then give you an estimated grade for that event
2. The county captain provides the tournament controller with the information in 1., more than 7 days before the match, and the TC gives, or refuses, permission for you to play (and allocates you a "grade" for the purposes of that season's event)
3. As with 2., but the info goes to the league controller

[Paul Stimpson]

Mick,

Thanks for these ideas but are they really workable?

1. You explain to the organisers which section you wish to enter, what your previous grade was and why you think you are the appropriate strength - the organisers then give you an estimated grade for that event

If you are doing well you will be transferred to the Open in all probability. If you are allowed to stay in that section and win the event are you going to get the prize or are you going to be accused of being a ringer?

2. The county captain provides the tournament controller with the information in 1., more than 7 days before the match, and the TC gives, or refuses, permission for you to play (and allocates you a "grade" for the purposes of that season's event)

I guess this is workable but hardly ideal.

3. As with 2., but the info goes to the league controller

OK this could work, however if there are channels to get the actual grade of the player doesn't this make it a farce?

Also won't opposing match captains in League and County Chess want evidence that an opposing player was eligible to play in that team if it's grade restricted? How would that work?

[Roger de Coverly]

If you didn't have a grade because you aren't an ECF "universal" member ...

How can you play for the county at u175?

The ECF might have the courage of its convictions and demand that you needed to be an ECF member to take part in the County competitions. That's the rule applied at the British Championships.

You might think that such a rule could cause the county competitions to collapse - I wouldn't comment.

Such thoughts may have passed through the minds of the evil southerners at the April council meeting though.

[Roger de Coverly]

Also we could in theory just make up any old number and give that figure for I doubt the system ever checks that the money received matches the actual games played in the CCA area.

Why not just count the number of games graded ? This does however require the grader and treasurer to be on speaking terms.

I suppose the reason why you pay an estimated amount is that the ECF, like any organisation, has cash flow issues. Therefore it's better for the ECF to receive an estimated amount in October and a balance of settlement amount in May rather than wait until May to get an exact amount.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think this is an issue on which the country is fairly evenly divided. Why this should appear to be geographical I have no idea!

Assuming therefore that we are not going to reach a consensus, what is to be done? I agree with Roger that all the exemptions to game fee etc make the whole thing unworkable.

I therefore suggest the following. It is far from a complete proposal, and there would be much detail required no doubt. The idea is to remove complexity, and the current dual membership / game fee scheme we currently have by allowing counties to only be one or the other. The basics are :-

1) Each county, league or congress (Union?) declares itself to be either a game fee or a membership event.

2) Membership events will only have games graded for members. Non members may play, but their games would not be graded.

3) Game Fee events pay game fee on all their games. Members may play, but there are no membership discounts.

Having lit the blue touch paper, I am going to retire a safe distance by going out. I shall look forward to the fireworks when I return!

[Mick Norris]

Mick,

Thanks for these ideas but are they really workable?

1. You explain to the organisers which section you wish to enter, what your previous grade was and why you think you are the appropriate strength - the organisers then give you an estimated grade for that event

If you are doing well you will be transferred to the Open in all probability. If you are allowed to stay in that section and win the event are you going to get the prize or are you going to be accused of being a ringer?

2. The county captain provides the tournament controller with the information in 1., more than 7 days before the match, and the TC gives, or refuses, permission for you to play (and allocates you a "grade" for the purposes of that season's event)

I guess this is workable but hardly ideal.

3. As with 2., but the info goes to the league controller

OK this could work, however if there are channels to get the actual grade of the player doesn't this make it a farce?

Also won't opposing match captains in League and County Chess want evidence that an opposing player was eligible to play in that team if it's grade restricted? How would that work?

Paul

They are all workable

1. is what we do at the Bury (Manchester) Rapidplay - Sunday 14 December, everyone welcome to enter - however, you need a current ECF grade to be eligible for a grading prize - if we have deemed you to be U155 and put you in that section and you win it, you get all the prize money due for first place

2. is what happens in the MCCU and ECF County Championships - it is the rules!

3. is what we do in the Manchester League new U100 division - it is up to the Registrations Secretary of the league to check player eligibility - anyone can query a player's eligibility, although there tends to be an element of trust in the MCF apart from the clubs that dislike each other

I'll be honest, I think you are making a big fuss over nothing

Mick

[Gary Cook]

In the CCA under game fee we are asked to estimate the number of games to be played in the season and paid game fee accordingly. So far as I have been able to establish the ECF never gave us a refund for games that were defaulted in previous years simply because we never claimed! Would we have got the refund if we had asked?

Within my League when then the invoice comes in for the Game Fee, I know what the esitmate for the current season will be (matches x boards x 2), I know what we estimated the previous season and then take off (if less games were played than paid) or add on (if more games played than paid) the difference - thus we get the refund. The same is done for each individual club when we invoice them at the start of each season.

[Paul Stimpson]

I'll be honest, I think you are making a big fuss over nothing

If 9,000 players potentially becoming ungraded is nothing, then Yes!

[Neill Cooper]

Still, as an estimate, that's 134'306 standard play and 32'992 rapidplay games in the season, which using the stated assumptions equates to £61'781 + £7'918, which is near enough £69'700. There is still a big gap between this and £48'676.

But remember that juniors are half price so this will reduce the total.

[Steve Henderson]

I have read with interest the posts that have been made, but I'm still waiting for the ECF delegates to come on here (with the exception of Sean )and explain why they voted the way they did. If you are a Southern player and know who your ECF delegate is call them and find out how they voted, then let us all know Better still tell them about this forum and ask them to join so they can take part in the discussions

I get the feeling that the grass root player does not realise (or is simply not interested) that they pay game fee as it is wrapped up in club subs. They pay a fee to the club at the beginning of the season and play chess, they get a grade at the end of the season, job done!

I wonder if the players know how much of their club subs is game fee ?
Get your club treasurer to explain how your subs are calculated - you may be paying to much! On the other hand you may be paying to little !!

[Roger de Coverly]

explain why they voted the way they did. If you are a Southern player and know who your ECF delegate is call them and find out how they voted, then let us all know

As you may have noted, Southern players have reservations, to say the least, about a universal membership scheme. The Regan board proposed

The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on a Universal Membership Scheme and gives Council notice that it will present such a scheme for consideration to the AGM in October.

If unlike the board, Council delegates were not convinced and in particular couldn't establish whether universal meant compulsory, then to my mind they made the right call in rejecting the board's plans.

If the board (as they now claim) really wanted the finance council to discuss the role and function of the ECF in life, the universe and everything, then perhaps there should have been an agenda item:-

The Board has become convinced that the future of the ECF depends on an in depth review of its objectives, finances and functions, and gives Council notice that ..

...

I wonder if the players know how much of their club subs is game fee ?
Get your club treasurer to explain how your subs are calculated

As a club treasurer, the club's largest expense is the hire of the room. We pay entry fees to the local county associations based on the number of teams we enter in their events. The county associations set their entry fees so as to balance their budgets both by year and activity. Neither county has thought it necessary to balance individual club entry fees down to the last 48p of game fee.

I can recall the introduction of game fee fifteen years ago. The costs of entering county competitions went down. Both counties abolished the notion that it was necessary for individuals to pay a county membership or registration fee in order to participate in local events. So if you have a team of 6 boards playing 12 matches, it doesn't matter to the county whether you field the same 6 in every match or choose from a squad of 24. If there's a north/south divide is it that many Northern associations kept a rule which said that you had to pay, say, a fiver to the local association for each individual, whereas their southern counterparts noted that the game fee concept meant that a county membership/ registration was obsolete?

[Mick Norris]

I get the feeling that the grass root player does not realise (or is simply not interested) that they pay game fee as it is wrapped up in club subs. They pay a fee to the club at the beginning of the season and play chess, they get a grade at the end of the season, job done!

I wonder if the players know how much of their club subs is game fee ?
Get your club treasurer to explain how your subs are calculated - you may be paying to much! On the other hand you may be paying to little !!

At Bury, members pay the Chess Club an annual membership fee, most of which we use to pay the individual's memebrship fee for the Sports Club where we play

The Sports Club do not charge us room hire (Mondays and Tuesdays, 52 weeks a year except bank holidays), so this works well for us

It would be easy for us to join an MO and have that as compulsory, but most of our members don't pay as much game fee as they would membership fee - the NMS offers those members nothing, as they don't play in congresses

Personally, I'm in favour of replacing game fee with ECF membership linked to some form of OMOV (limited to what extent I've not thought through), and I'd be happy for the Bury Rapidplay to have to pay some form of registration fee to replace the game fee we have to pay each year

Bury won't be joining any NMS type scheme as long as the NCCU continues to refuse to accept Greater Manchester - on Saturday, I'm driving to Bushbury near Wolverhampton to play a county match, in February it will be south Birmingham for another, and the petrol will cost more than I spend on chess club membership! I could of course be going to Leeds, Atherton or Heywood to play county chess if we were in the NCCU rather than the MCCU

Not sure if there's a north/south divide, just lots of wasted energy

[Michele Clack]

I've often wondered why Manchester play in the MCCU so now I know. That is a real shame and not good for chess. Years ago long before I joined Redditch Chess Club there had been some sort of incident with another Worcestershire club. The upshot was that Redditch pulled out of the Worcestershire County League. This situation carried on for years. We could have rejoined and thought about it but the fees were more than the Worcs & District League and we also play in the Birmingham League so we didn't bother. Then our president who had once been first team captain for Worcestershire and felt we were missing out offered to pay our fees to the County league for a year. We took up his offer and have played in this league now for several years.

Obviously this is slightly different as Worcestershire were only too glad to have us back. The point is though is that both Redditch and Worcestershire have gained a lot by us being involved with Worcestershire again. As a club we have got to know a lot of other Worcestershire players better and we have become very involved in The County Teams. Currently two Redditch players run County Teams and quite a few Reddtich players play in them, so everybody has gained. Whatever the ins and outs of your situation I would urge the NCCU to reconsider and invite Manchester back into the fold. I am sure both parties would gain if you did so.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've often wondered why Manchester play in the MCCU so now I know.

This dispute goes back to the 1970s. Following the restructuring of local government in 1974, there were some changes to the county composition of the NCCU. Merseyside was created from parts of Cheshire and Lancashire and Cleveland from Durham and Yorkshire. Neither restructure created any unresolved problems. For reasons well lost in the mists of time, the NCCU in general and Lancashire in particular took umbrage at the creation of Greater Manchester as a county and refused them admission to the NCCU. Thirty years later, it's one of those feuds that few can remember the origins of but no one seems able to resolve.

[David Robertson]

I've often wondered why Manchester play in the MCCU so now I know

What do you know, Michele? I very much suspect you don't know; probably wouldn't want to know if told; and will shortly wish you'd never mentioned it

Roger is also deeply wrong, and clearly not a qualified anthropologist (or psychiatrist!), to suggest that few can remember the origins of the feud. The families of Calabria & Sicily have the memories of goldfish and the forgiveness of saints compared with the chess players of Manchester and Lancashire

Mick Norris may want to provide a summary - not least for the entertainment of the masses reading this - of why Greater Manchester is a member of the MCCU, not the NCCU. I should warn that any 'summary' will likely run to several dozens pages, require access to antique archives, trigger extensive litigation, and spark off a renewed bout of 'ethnic cleansing' in the Lancashire/Manchester borderlands

NB I hold no brief for the NCCU, nor any other party in the matter

David
Atticus CC (MCA)