ECF Game Fee v Membership

[Chris Majer]

Gary wrote:

How did the ECF let £6000+ of unpaid Game Fee accumulate? There is no way this is one year's unpaid Game Fee - what sort of organisation was/is in place to make sure that Leagues, Congresses etc., not only paid but also paid the right amount (not too much or too less)?

Before anyone gets too excited, I will point out that this is an accounting artifice. I'll do my best to explain; doubtless someone who is an accountant can explain things much better. The accounting year is May to April. Accounts are closed for the purpose of audit on 30th April each year. At that time an amount is estimated for payments from those events that have not paid during the year. This is shown in the accounts as the “debtors’ item”. This item remains fixed in the accounts irrespective of the actual payments received thereafter. Events in April won’t normally pay until May. Consequently, the fact that some events pay in arrears and the way that the accounts are done means that there will always be a debtor’s item. In reality the bulk of the “unpaid” Game Fee had indeed been collected.

[Sean Hewitt]

But this will distort the grading system, probably resulting in some inflation, because it is most likely the weaker players who will avoid membership. And what if player B is ungraded? More complication..

If player B is ungraded, its no different under this scheme than it is under game fee. Will weaker players avoid membership? I dont see any evidence of that here. Indeed, if you linked grading to membership I reckon lower graded players are more likely to join. My anecdotal evidence is they care more about their grade than higher graded players!

So I pay ECF membership twice? Or I would need to choose which club I apply for membership through. This is where some of the complexity starts to show, from the player's and club mamnagement's perspective...

No, you only pay one membership fee. If you join a second or subsequent club you simply say I am already an ECF member and claim the discount (in the same way that a junior says Im under 18 and usually pays less). Its not really that complicated!

No, I find it remarkable that you have made the switch to a membership scheme without incurring additional costs. Again, you argument is that it is simpler, but I say that this is not so for the majority of chess players. The extra hastle though, is probably worth it, if it includes ECF membership...

I think the reason it's worked is that the work has been segmented into little bits, the clubs do their bit, then the county / leagues. And its tied in with start of season revenue collection which everyone already has to do. Of course its very simple for the players - they actually do nothing other than pay their club membership fee - exactly as they always have done.

The costs of of administering 10K members would need to be examined quite closely.

Absolutely correct, although such costs depend upon what you give a member for his money. If it's just his grade, then there should be minimal cost. Of course, there must be added benefit when talking to sponsors of having 10000 rather than 1000 members although this is intangeble.

This begs the question of where the game fee money is going. It seems to me that something is badly wrong with the administration of the game fee. You are of course assuming that membership administration costs won't increase disproportionately.

You only have to look at the recent example of a £6,000 game fee debt suddenly coming to light to realise how right you are with this statement. Membership admin costs shouldnt increase significantly if the scheme is administered locally, and you will save the game fee admin costs. Its difficult to envisage a large maembership fee bad debt occurring, so collection rates should improve also. I wonder what percentage of game fee debt is actually collected?

The fact is that your region is paying less per game. Of course I understand people wouldn't be playing those extra games if using gaming fees, which is why you don't see it as a subsidy. Still, I am not sure how repeatable this success is in other regions.

You're right, although we still pay approx the same amount as when we paid in game fee. I see no reason why other areas couldn't give more chess playing opportunites under such a scheme although of course its not for everyone. About half of our teams have taken the opportunity to play in our league cup for example, and this is evently split amongst the divisions. So there seems to be no strength bias.

Still, it's more complicated for clubs and players, who are the majority.

Players? Not at all. They just pay their club subs. Clubs? Marginally yes, although its a once a year list of members. Not that difficult really.

I think the fee is only a "chess prevention tax" because of the current balance between the cost of ECF membership and the proce of the game fee. Change this balance and ECF membership could be seen as the "chess prevention tax".

I have to say that I don't agree with this. Firstly, I have always assumed that the ECFs revenue requirements are dictated by the activities that it wishes to undertake rather than the method of revenue collection. This certainly ought to be the case. Therefore game fee or membership should raise the same revenues, and there should be no question of an imbalance between the two.

Game Fee is a chess prevention tax for two reasons. Firstly, as an individual I cannot choose not to pay it. If I dont want to pay it (or I cant afford it) I must stop playing. Secondly, and most importantly, the more I wish to play to the more of it I have to pay. Simple economics says that this will place a limit on my demand [to play]. Most club championships that I am aware of used to be graded. They are not anymore, and indeed many clubs dont have one at all now. The reason is the imposition of game fee. I just realised today that internet chess servers don't charge a pay as you play membership, precisely because playing as much as you want for a fixed fee is the attraction. With a membership scheme linked to grading those who cant afford it don't pay it (just as you can play for free on PlayChess, but the game is not rated). I don't think there would be many players who couldn't pay but there may be some. However, such players lose access to the grading system. More importantly, all players can play as much extra chess as they like without having to pay more money. This must be a positive thing and will encourage new additional events to develop, particularly in the summer I suspect.

[Sean Hewitt]

What about at Junior Level? We can send game fee to the ECF and hold a tournament that is graded no problem. If we asked for every entrant to be an ECF member I think numbers would collapse!

The stick to enforce membership was mooted to be no grading of games, the logical conclusion to this would be quite simple, we wouldn't send the event for grading! Therefore the ECF would lose out.

Also why does it have to be an all or nothing approach? I think a compulsory membership scheme would allienate the ECF from the average player even more than it already has.

Paul, unless I've misssed something I havent seen anyone suggest a compulsory membership scheme - indeed I don't think that such a scheme would be unworkable. The only suggestion I have seen thus far is one where only members would have their games graded.

[John Philpott]

Chris Majer stated

I will point out that this is an accounting artifice.

I am not sure that "artifice" is quite the right word - this is simply the application of the standard accruals principle whereby the accounts seek reflect the income receivable for the financial year rather than just the income received in cash during that year (and match that with the expenditure incurred during the year rather than just with what has been paid out in cash). The estimate of the further amount that will be received in respect of Game Fee relating to games played during the financial year which will determine the debtor to be reported will be made not on 30 April but on a date some months later when the accounts are physically drawn up. One of the factors that will be taken into account in quantifying the Game Fee debtor will be the amount of Game Fee for the financial year that has actually been collected between 30 April and that date.

[Gary Cook]

John
Maybe I am being a bit stupid here, but surely if this was down to Game Fee still to be paid, then this must happen every year - and therefore the next year's accounts would show up the additional money from the previous year and roughly balance out?
Gary

[Roger de Coverly]

Paul, unless I've misssed something I havent seen anyone suggest a compulsory membership scheme - indeed I don't think that such a scheme would be unworkable

The Regan board wanted to propose a universal membership scheme but would not give details.

No doubt some at the April Council meeting felt that universal = compulsory.

We already have compulsory membership - It isn't possible to play in the 4NCL or for that matter the open at the forthcoming Milton Keynes tournament without being compelled to be an ECF member.

The proposal of a club/county based membership breaks when you consider the example of a congress only player. A method of collection of revenue from this class of player was one of the original motivations for the design of game fee.

[Sean Hewitt]

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

I know all about the requirement to be a member at Milton Keynes . It's one of my bugbears that the ECF have been so dishonest about it, blaming on FIDE regulations when no such regulation exists. I would have had far more respect had they admitted (as, to be fair, one Director did) that it was simply a way to make more people join the ECF.

I'm not sure the proposal breaks for congress players though. Firstly, they live somewhere (presumably) so could still join via their local county association. Or you could allow them to continue to join via the ECF direct (for a higher fee of course).

[John Philpott]

Gary Cook wrote

Maybe I am being a bit stupid here, but surely if this was down to Game Fee still to be paid, then this must happen every year - and therefore the next year's accounts would show up the additional money from the previous year and roughly balance out?

Gary - the total Game Fee figure in the accounts represents the Game Fee collected in cash during the year plus the debtor carried forward minus the debtor brought forward. The debtor will always be there, but its quantum will vary from year to year - while what I referred to in a previous posting as factors (a) and (b) (April congresses and club events) will be fairly constant, factors (c) and (d) can vary. Prior year Game Fee income received is in effect applied against the opening debtor, and only impacts on the income and expenditure account to the extent that the amount actually received differs from the debtor (which is an estimate): this difference is disclosed separately in the accounts. The problem with the first version of the accounts was that the figures took account of the debtor brought forward (which therefore reduced the reported income) but inadvertently omitted the debtor carried forward. The important point is that this omission was identified and corrected prior to the AGM.

[Paul Stimpson]

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.

[Edward Tandi]

But this will distort the grading system, probably resulting in some inflation, because it is most likely the weaker players who will avoid membership. And what if player B is ungraded? More complication..

If player B is ungraded, its no different under this scheme than it is under game fee.

It's different in that currently all games are graded. We could continue to grade them and hide the results, but I fear name checking will be lacking attention.

So I pay ECF membership twice? Or I would need to choose which club I apply for membership through. This is where some of the complexity starts to show, from the player's and club mamnagement's perspective...

No, you only pay one membership fee. If you join a second or subsequent club you simply say I am already an ECF member and claim the discount (in the same way that a junior says Im under 18 and usually pays less). Its not really that complicated!

So now clubs have to offer ECF membership and an ECF discount.

This begs the question of where the game fee money is going. It seems to me that something is badly wrong with the administration of the game fee. You are of course assuming that membership administration costs won't increase disproportionately.

You only have to look at the recent example of a £6,000 game fee debt suddenly coming to light to realise how right you are with this statement. Membership admin costs shouldnt increase significantly if the scheme is administered locally, and you will save the game fee admin costs. Its difficult to envisage a large maembership fee bad debt occurring, so collection rates should improve also. I wonder what percentage of game fee debt is actually collected?

I believe the fee debt has been covered in other posts. I was referring to the efficiency of the administration.

Last season there were 201'459 standard play games and 259'117 rapidplay games included in the grading. Unfortunately, these numbers are not broken down by season, so I will assume that 2/3 of these games belong to the previous season. That's 134'306 standard play and 172'744 rapidplay games, so assuming most of these are congress/league resuts, the fees (at 46p/24p) should make £61'781 + £29'371 = £101'512. The ECF made £48'676 from grading fees, so where did the rest of it go?

Still, it's more complicated for clubs and players, who are the majority.

Players? Not at all. They just pay their club subs. Clubs? Marginally yes, although its a once a year list of members. Not that difficult really.

Players have to be made aware of ECF membership vs Club membership and they need to understand the ECF discount in the cases of direct membership and multiple club memberships. Not that diffult I agree, but someone has to do the explaining.

Clubs have to manage their members' ECF memberships. New players arrive after the season starts, so this is not a one-off activity. Clubs do not currently perform this function, a volunteer will have to be found to do this ECF administration activity. I expect this will cause some resistance by the clubs. Clubs could just push the burden back to the members, who will then have to apply to the ECF directly.

I think the fee is only a "chess prevention tax" because of the current balance between the cost of ECF membership and the proce of the game fee. Change this balance and ECF membership could be seen as the "chess prevention tax".

I have to say that I don't agree with this. Firstly, I have always assumed that the ECFs revenue requirements are dictated by the activities that it wishes to undertake rather than the method of revenue collection. This certainly ought to be the case. Therefore game fee or membership should raise the same revenues, and there should be no question of an imbalance between the two.

I don't see any reason why game fees should raise the same revenues as membership. I'd like to inderstand how the ECF determine their fees.

Game Fee is a chess prevention tax for two reasons. Firstly, as an individual I cannot choose not to pay it. If I dont want to pay it (or I cant afford it) I must stop playing. Secondly, and most importantly, the more I wish to play to the more of it I have to pay. Simple economics says that this will place a limit on my demand [to play]. Most club championships that I am aware of used to be graded. They are not anymore, and indeed many clubs dont have one at all now. The reason is the imposition of game fee.

The game fee is transparrent to chess players, they just pay tournament and club entry fees. The consequence of the gaming fee right now, I think, is higher prices because of inefficiency in the administration of the game fee. There are unrated tournaments, clubs run them, but they are not as popular as rated ones.

[John Upham]

Supported by a public sector grant which may not last

Martin,

Is this public sector grant able to be used to contribute to the pool of monies which in turns pays office staff salaries?

In other words, does the grant provider get to know the specifics of how it is spent or are they given some kind of smokscreen about furtherence of chess in England?

My bottom line is:

Would the grant be awarded if it was known it was being used for salaries?

[JustinHorton]

What was profoundly depressing was while we were, I believe, the first board to ask members “What do you want the ECF to be?” Many council members simply fixed on the membership scheme and asked: How much is it going to cost? And what are the details?

Discussions do tend to do this though - they veer off, or drift of, or are dragged off, in directions which weren't the ones you wanted and quite possibly aren't they ones they should.

I thyink the quesion itself - "what is the ECF for?" is a good one and I asked it myself on a thread a few days ago. It's partly a good question because, as I think you're trying to observe, what it was for thirty years ago may not be what it's for) or what we want it to be for) now.

The trouble is that it needs to be a rather wider debate, both in terms of the number and range of people contributing to it, and in terms of the picture into which the ECF (or our view of its role) actually fits. It needs to be better-informed and to have thrashed a lot of things out. And that takes time.

[Richard Haddrell]

Last season there were 201'459 standard play games and 259'117 rapidplay games included in the grading. Unfortunately, these numbers are not broken down by season...

I don’t know where these figures are from, but they don’t look right. Standardplay games always far outnumber Rapidplay in the grading.

Actually, the per-season figures for the last four years are given in the printed Grading List. Or, if you can’t afford £23.50, you’ll find them at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/grad.htm. Last season’s halfgames were 208,796 Standard and 66,915 Rapid. You’re doing better than I am if you can work out what this should bring in in Game Fee.

Richard Haddrell
Grading Administrator, ECF

[Edward Tandi]

Last season there were 201'459 standard play games and 259'117 rapidplay games included in the grading. Unfortunately, these numbers are not broken down by season...

I don’t know where these figures are from, but they don’t look right. Standardplay games always far outnumber Rapidplay in the grading.

Actually, the per-season figures for the last four years are given in the printed Grading List. Or, if you can’t afford £23.50, you’ll find them at http://www.sccu.ndo.co.uk/grad.htm. Last season’s halfgames were 208,796 Standard and 66,915 Rapid.

I did actually mention that I got the figures from the grading list (download version 3 2008). I am not amused by your "can't afford £23.50" comment and I wouldn't use it anyway, because I can't load paper into a spreadsheet program.

But regarding the rapidplay totals you are right, I summed the wrong column, it should be 59'488 rapidplay games counted in the grading. 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.

You’re doing better than I am if you can work out what this should bring in in Game Fee.

Given enough information, it can't be that hard to work out. I'm sure someone in the ECF knows exactly how much has come in from grading fees and how much the administration costs are.

[Roger de Coverly]

208,796 Standard and 66,915 Rapid.

This is slightly more than you get from summing column H GRADEGAMES etc. because Richard's totals include games played by people who don't get published. You don't need to adjust or estimate anything because column H is the count of half-games played in the most recent season.

As you correctly observe, if you multiply half games played by game fee amount, you get a much higher total than the ECF ever collects by game fee. If you check the rules for game fee, you find that there are scores of exceptions and exemptions - for example the ECF doesn't bill itself for events like the British Championships, the 4NCL has got itself exempted, games played by some categories of direct members don't count for game fee when played in congresses, lower rates for internal club championships etc. etc.