English Chess Forum

A news item on the ECF website which is dated 27 August states: "The ECF will begin the process of issuing invoices in respect of the Game Fee liability for winter leagues for last season in the week commencing 2 September 2013".

The news item goes on to state: "Retrospective 2012/13 memberships will not be accepted by the ECF after midnight on 31 August 2013".

But:
1. So far as I am aware, this is the first time it's been stated that retrospective memberships wouldn't be accepted. I can't, for example, see that it is stated on the membership advice pages of the ECF's website or in the documents which the website links to. For example, I can't see it stated in: Guidelines for organisers - Leagues, County Associations, Constituent Units and Other Organisations.
2. Four days notice is surely insufficient.
3. The means of promulgating the information is surely insufficient. Not everyone who needs to see the notice will see the notice - especially if it doesn't show on the first page of news items (as I believe will have been the case due to a number of 'pinned' news items).
4. Many leagues and clubs will, I'm sure, be reliant on invoices to determine what game fee amounts are due and whether it will be financially beneficial to acquire memberships rather than pay game fee. Such invoices - as the notice states - have yet to be provided.
5. Why shouldn't retrospective memberships be accepted (within sensible limitations)?

Angus French wrote: 3. The means of promulgating the information is surely insufficient. Not everyone that needs to see the notice will see the notice - especially if it doesn't show on the first page of news items (as I believe will have been the case due to a number of 'pinned' news items).

Your posting is the first to draw attention to this. That suggests it was hidden in plain view.

The ECF's estimates of income were always conditional on being able to collect residual Game Fee in September 2013. There was an attempt two months ago to get leagues and counties to pay up on an estimated basis. Presumably most declined in the absence of any indication from the ECF as to what they might owe. If a county or league caps the expenditure for each player at £ 12 per head and refuses to pay any more, what nasty sanctions does the ECF have in mind?

Angus French wrote:A news item on the ECF website which is dated 27 August states: "The ECF will begin the process of issuing invoices in respect of the Game Fee liability for winter leagues for last season in the week commencing 2 September 2013".

The news item goes on to state: "Retrospective 2012/13 memberships will not be accepted by the ECF after midnight on 31 August 2013".

But:
1. So far as I am aware, this is the first time it's been stated that retrospective memberships wouldn't be accepted. I can't, for example, see that it is stated on the membership advice pages of the ECF's website or in the documents which the website links to. For example, I can't see it stated in: Guidelines for organisers - Leagues, County Associations, Constituent Units and Other Organisations.
2. Four days notice is surely insufficient.
3. The means of promulgating the information is surely insufficient. Not everyone who needs to see the notice will see the notice - especially if it doesn't show on the first page of news items (as I believe will have been the case due to a number of 'pinned' news items).
4. Many leagues and clubs will, I'm sure, be reliant on invoices to determine what game fee amounts are due and whether it will be financially beneficial to acquire memberships rather than pay game fee. Such invoices - as the notice states - have yet to be provided.
5. Why shouldn't retrospective memberships be accepted (within sensible limitations)?

I don't think the cut off is unreasonable. Leagues have known the underlying principle for a long time and could have taken steps to assess the order of magnitude of their liability and to minimise it. Twelve months backdating is pretty damn generous already, let's leave it at that.

I am more concerned at:
the Board decision not to solicit renewals by post from those who did not join online, which has been discussed in another thread;
what seems to me to be communication by website announcement, rather than directly (I accept my impression may be misinformed);
whether the ECF has the right staff and management for the grunt work of administrating Membership and Game Fee, it takes a particular approach and personality (again, I accept that my concern may be ill-founded but my concern exists).

PB