I am not sure what to do

[Ben Purton]

In El Salvador if you did not have the right papers you would be shot.
In Cambodia if you had the right papers you got shot.
In Russia if you oppose you go to jail.

I am not sure how to approach the communistic ECF considering they truly feel they have such authority to think they own me.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I am not sure how to approach the communistic ECF considering they truly feel they have such authority to think they own me.

Well, you could make analogies on an Internet forum comparing the ECF to a despotic regime. That always works well and produces the desired effect.

[John McKenna]

Players who are not members have been paying indirectly to the ECF so they have always been 'owned' in part.
Liken it to old-time football when most supporters paid at the turnstile and a few had season tickets. All that's happening is the 'ground' is becoming all season ticket (except for a few who only want a handful of games).
It seems expensive and is imposed from above without consultation but that's the 'modern' way. If the ECF is no longer "fit for purpose" - like Rangers FC - we'll soon find out.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It seems expensive and is imposed from above without consultation but that's the 'modern' way.

There's been plenty of consultation, at least between the Board and Council - the relevant Council meetings had plenty of discussion about the best way to proceed. If members of Council haven't adequately consulted with the players they represent, this is unfortunate, but there's nothing the ECF could have done about that.

[John McKenna]

Having seen the response to Paul Cooksey's efforts to consult and conduct a straw poll regarding the matter here on the forum I must agree that wider consultation of players would probably have yielded little result.
However, what I wrote above never said grassroots consultation was mandatory and these days even when done it may not lead to anything radically different from what is proposed by 'management'.

[Roger de Coverly]

If members of Council haven't adequately consulted with the players they represent, this is unfortunate, but there's nothing the ECF could have done about that.

There's quite a lot it could have done, not least to schedule the changes over a longer period. If county and league AGMs feel bounced into acceptance it's because they have been. This time last year, you couldn't debate whether you wanted the changes because you didn't know what they were. Even as late as September, a county AGM debated the issues, only to find radical changes the very next day. Even now, the proposals have changed from a month ago.

We are still actually waiting for the ECF's marketing document explaining what, in the ECF's opinion, are the effects on club, county and Congress players ,why they should accept them and what changes will be needed to local rules.

I don't buy the issue that the ECF directors are constrained by Council. There are plentiful examples, some of them recent, where contrary opinions that Council might have expressed have just been bypassed. The FIDE legal case and the subsequent reaction of disapproval is just one example.

[John McKenna]

The least the ECF should have done is to have hired Roger as a consultant prior to the upheaval - better off all round. Goodnight.