ECF Membership - a (summary) reply to the Proposal

[David Robertson]

I suggested on the related thread that I had fundamental misgivings about the latest proposal for a membership scheme. I regard the general direction of travel of that proposal to be good. But it veers off-course alarmingly at the end. This summary critique is an attempt to set the proposal back on the right path.

I had hoped to draft a full critique, but that is now beyond me. I don't have time; and in any event, it may all be a waste of time: the discussion rattles along regardless. At least, I'm offering my best advice in an effort to clarify and rectify proposals that are crucial to ECF's future. Sitting on my hands would be easier, but not more helpful.

Some cautions before I publish my summary principles. I've read the 'official' (ie Farthing) papers; and I've tried to wade through the various threads on the matter. But I don't pretend to have read every word; nor to have absorbed every point. And I certainly don't possess the stamina to fight over every line. Nor do I claim to know in great detail how the ECF works, nor its history, nor every wrinkle of the matters in view. Others here are better placed than I in that regard.

I don't claim either that I have the last word. There could be a hole in my thinking that communal critique and public scrutiny will expose. But I'm pretty clear that the proposal currently under discussion needs to be modified if it is not to produce further problems downstream. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to amplify what I mean, and why, in any subsequent discussion.

Finally, I'm initially publishing unamplified points: rather gnomic statements of principle. I would ask, indeed beg, that colleagues work with the grain of what I'm getting at - by all means disagreeing if they choose - rather than misunderstanding my point or purpose. In short, don't demand I rebuild the house for want of a few dodgy bricks.

I'll do my best to respond and clarify as we go along.

[David Robertson]

PRINCIPLES

‘User-pays’ financing (eg game fee) is best adopted where rationing is required; or to achieve equity where unfairness would otherwise result; or where no credible alternative exists

‘Flat-rate’ fees are best applied where individual commitments & expectations are similar

‘Graduated’ (tiered) fees are best applied where individual commitments and expectations diverge/vary

In general, you should not lay charges on behaviour you wish to encourage

Membership organisations raise finance from members, not from their behaviour, where non-rivalrous consumption applies

‘User-pays’ schemes hold individuals to account for the consumption of communal resources. Membership schemes hold organisations to account for the supply of communal services

The policy-making arrangements of an organisation should be consistent with its revenue-raising arrangements. Representation should reflect ‘taxation’. Accountability to members should be paramount.

CONSEQUENCES

ECF has no business charging for things it does not supply. ECF does not supply chess nor permissions to play chess; hence, it should not lay charges against such things. ECF does supply a trustable grade; it should properly charge for that.

The latest proposal mixes up schemes inappropriately. ECF should charge only where it is the competent authority, not for matters outside its competence.

Members of ECF want different levels of engagement with the organisation; hence, tiers of membership should reflect members’ commitments & expectations - and nothing else.

Members should individually and freely select the tier to suit their needs, irrespective of playing strength, title, age, experience, or tournament.

The ECF should define each tier by reference to the organisational rights of participation and service entitlements applying there. By way of example:

Bronze/Gamma - entitled to a grade
Silver/Beta - as with Bronze/Gamma; but also to vote for President & Board members; to elect Council members
Gold/Alpha - as with Silver/Beta; but also to stand for Board or Council; to approve Budget & Strat Plan; to represent England at chess

[Mike Truran]

That should put the cat among the pigeons! Two questions:

1. Doesn't that in practice take us back to a single tier membership scheme on the basis that nobody is going to want to pay extra to elect ECF officers?

2. Doesn't the ECF also provide other things, such as website, year book, calendar etc? I guess though that this just falls into the category of items, like a grade, for which the ECF has a right to charge.

I take your point though. I made a related (although much narrower) point when I asked earlier by what right the ECF thinks it can charge extra for premium events when it does nothing to generate that premium.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

The idea of paying more to vote sounds sensible and is certainly a different approach, though who knows what percentage of members would pay extra for that?

I'm not so sure that asking for more money for people who want to stand for the board is such a good idea, in fact I'd more inclined to give them free gold/alpha membership!

How many players actually represent England in any given season?

[IM Jack Rudd]

How many players actually represent England in any given season?

That depends crucially on the definition of the term "represent England". I'm assuming your definition is somewhat narrower than "play in a FIDE rated event under the ENG flag".

[David Robertson]

AMPLIFICATION No. 1

On membership tiering

My thinking here reflects my assessment of conversations/discussions over the past few years. In short, of 12,000 registered players, the vast majority (say, 10,000) are likely to be content with a grade from ECF and not much else, at least as things stand. They are likely to be, in the main, club players of modest ability who enjoy competitive chess socially. Then there are roughly 1000 players who would define themselves as strong players, and/or ambitious, and/or highly committed to the game in one way or another. And a notional 1000 'in-between' these two groups.

It might be thought that herein lies a 'natural' tiering of members. Perhaps that's so. But it must not automatically be assumed that this is how an individual wishes to declare their engagement with the ECF. The average club member should have as much right to elect for Gold/Alpha, attracted by the rights attached, as a GM to choose Bronze/Gamma if that is what they wish.

The pricing of the tiers should be sensible too. Say, £12, £18, & £25 or whatever a modelling exercise would advise. In other words, Gold/Alpha should not be pitched so high that it would discourage the average club player from considering it.

Under such a tiered model, the ECF supplies what it is competent to supply, leaving the supply of chess untaxed. The ECF would also have an incentive to increase membership if it wished to increase revenue. And members have a direct relationship with the ECF according to the rights they are willing to buy. No one, I think, gets a free ride.

[David Robertson]

That should put the cat among the pigeons? Two questions:

1. Doesn't that in practice take us back to a single tier membership scheme on the basis that nobody is going to want to pay extra to elect ECF officers?

2. Doesn't the ECF also provide other things, such as website, year book, calendar etc? I guess though that this just falls into the category of items, like a grade, for which the ECF has a right to charge.

I take your point though. I made a related (although much narrower) point when I asked earlier by what right the ECF thinks it can charge extra for premium events when it does nothing to generate that premium.

My membership model is 'brutal' in one significant respect: the members get the ECF they'll pay for. No more sleight-of-hand revenue-raising; no more complaining about unaccountable expenditure. Direct accountability.

So if all 12,000 vote for Bronze, and Bronze were priced at £12, then £144,000 yields a budget undershoot of £16,000. But the members willed that! OK, kick off at £14 if you think that likely. Moreover, if practically no one cares about the policy direction of ECF, or no one seeks to influence it, then again we get what we deserve. I just don't see this happening. I personally will pay a premium to have my voice heard. It's a huge frustration to me that I have no voice in the ECF currently. Nor do many people.

Second, yes, the ECF has other things it can charge for. Personally, I have as much use for a Yearbook as for a chocolate tea-pot. But if it comes bundled with other stuff - like voice - then fine. I definitely think ECF should quickly monopolise Dave Clayton, and hire back to tournaments the online capacity.

Charging a premium for grading premium events is, I regret to say, breathtakingly cynical. It's quite wrong in principle.

[David Robertson]

How many players actually represent England in any given season?

That depends crucially on the definition of the term "represent England". I'm assuming your definition is somewhat narrower than "play in a FIDE rated event under the ENG flag".

I've not thought this through completely by any means. What I'm trying to prevent is an element of free-riding that could arise by a few people gaming the tiers. By way of dramatic example, let's say Mickey Adams opted for Bronze - as he has the right under my proposals. That would seem to act against the spirit, if not the letter, of the membership model. So I'm suggesting that only Alpha/Gold members would form a pool from which representative teams were chosen. Put another way: if you opt for less, you won't be picked. A fair limitation? Yes, I think so. Representative national teams consume plenty of communal resources. A modest investment in membership might reasonably be expected. There may be other limitations that I've not thought of. It's early days here.

[Roger de Coverly]

By way of dramatic example, let's say Mickey Adams opted for Bronze - as he has the right under my proposals.

I've long though it small minded and petty to ask GMs to pay an annual membership fee. The Indians allegedly used to give new GMs a free house, surely the ECF could run to awarding free life membership?

[David Pardoe]

I see that 3 tiers of membership have been mentioned for this `model`.
I`m actually wondering whether there is room for a 4th or even 5th tier.
Certainly one that covers as `associate member` status for dormant or players who only play a very few games, or maybe play lots of `web` chess, but want to `belong` to the ECF and simply contribute something to its running. This might attract quite good levels of interest. Maybe such players might receive email communications from the ECF about events of interest.
The notion that we are paying for grading is wide of the mark in my view...we are paying to support the operation of a national body, with all that that stands for. So we dont need to justify this by delivering 2, 3 or more grade updates per year. These simply dont seem necessary, given all the other player stats around these days....in my view. But thats covered in another thread.
I`d like a bulk junior membership to cover whole groups of juniors who might only play in (and reach) the Mega Finals, or other main junior events, and could be allocated an estimated grading, which would put them on the chess map & might encourage them to go further. Maybe this would be based on board number & any notable results, and be incremented (for those with no previous grading).
Some of the perceptions of the ECF and its purpose I think are mis judged and understated.
It should be the focal point for UK chess. The situation is that there are a whole series of loosely connected bodies that run chess under the ECF `Umbrella`. This automatically creates a good deal of disfunctionality, not least because the various bodies hold differing views, and dont necessarily communicate very effectively.

[David Robertson]

By way of dramatic example, let's say Mickey Adams opted for Bronze - as he has the right under my proposals.

I've long though it small minded and petty to ask GMs to pay an annual membership fee. The Indians allegedly used to give new GMs a free house, surely the ECF could run to awarding free life membership?

I wouldn't have the remotest problem with this. I'm merely trying to think of ways to protect the spirit of the proposal from cynical behaviour. That may not be possible in every respect. But I concede my belief that, in general, the stronger the player, the more commitment and leadership I'd expect towards the national body - albeit within a voluntary framework.

And ideally, I'd prefer to see a general drift upwards in the membership tiers. A better engaged membership, the healthier our game over the long-term

[Roger de Coverly]

12,000 registered players,

To be pedantic, there haven't been registered players since the start of Game Fee in the early nineties. Organisations join the ECF and pay a membership fee which awards them votes. Their membership fee is calculated from the number of games played under their auspices. Amongst the benefits of their ECF membership, all the games played in their events are graded. One of the changes brought in by Game Fee was an extension of the BCF voting franchise to include Congresses and non-territorial leagues. It also widened the collection base, so that the local counties and the club members were not exclusively financing the balance of BCF's expenditures.

In terms of headcount on the standard play grading list it's nearer 10000 than 12000 and many of them play only a relative handful of games. Some of them are foreign. One of the points against any flat rate proposal is that it charges far, far more than the equivalent pay to play for those playing a small number of games. By why confuse the two? WHY is it that membership is always assumed to mean exclusively pay by head?

The table tennis scheme has been mentioned a few times, not least by ECF directors. That is both a licence to play scheme (which in my mind is what the ECF have been trying to introduce for years) coupled with a relatively small per head charge PLUS a per competition charge.

[Mike Truran]

I would have thought that David has given enough of an outline of his thinking for Andrew to come back with a reply as to why the idea shouldn't at least be considered. As David implies, it does have the big advantage of being considerably more transparent and above board than the existing proposals in decoupling the charge from the service (or lack of it).

[Roger de Coverly]

ECF does not supply chess nor permissions to play chess;

But it does and has done ever since it applied creative reasoning to a FIDE statute to demand that all players taking part in internationally rated events should be ECF members. Quite rightly this was satirised as "your money or your rating". Everyone who plays in the UK has been compelled to sign up. It's trying to extend the exercise. There are players on the international rating list as ENG who are no longer resident in the UK. Quite possibly they are offshore for tax purposes as well. They will have joined their local Federations and will be playing rated chess, but not in the UK.

The ECF now propose to strip them of their ratings unless they pay its annual membership fee. I think that's supplying a "permission to play chess". The BCF with its Game Fee model was not trying to supply permissions. Once it started to demand individual membership, then it was.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I've just thought of another entitlement which might encourage more players to pay for a higher tier of membership, though it would involve the re-coupling of this forum with the ECF.

Bronze membership: Posts to this forum are displayed with 10 point font and member is limited to one post per day.
Silver membership: 12 point, bold font, unlimited posts.
Gold membership: 32 point, flashing font. Any number of posts (in fact a minimum of ten per day should be expected of a Gold member), all posts are simultaneously emailed to all registered members.