Chess Scotland Noticeboard

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Just when you think it can get no sillier, the ECF have confirmed today that they intend to press on with their £6 charge for any non members from the end of August next year

"(b) GRADED CONGRESSES
There will be a fee of £6 payable for each non-member or Bronze member taking part. In the case of Bronze members, the £6 will be deemed to be the fee required to upgrade to Silver membership and the individual’s membership category will be adjusted accordingly."

So anyone playing in a tournament who is not a member of the ECF will be charged to take part in the congresses from 31st August, 2012.

I really feel for the organisors of Blackpool and Scarborough who will be hit by this!

HughBrechin · Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:26 pm Post subject:

Do you know if this levy will apply to players who are members of other national associations? (As in, particularly Chess Scotland members making trips south).

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject:

What's the idea of all the changes? I think charging more to play Chess, in general, risks polarising the Chess community. The die-hard Chess players will probably pay up and keep playing, those who are not too fussed might go elsewhere.

I presume the idea is to make more money, with the intention of pumping that money back into Chess in order to improve the game in England? Is it working? Despite the negative publicity it has received, maybe it is actually working... or maybe it's a total failure?

AMcHarg · Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject:

All I know is; if I was going to go down South to play in a tournament, I doubt paying £6 extra for entry would make me decide not to. That's probably different for a lot of other people though. Principally I disagree with it, but if I wanted to play enough then I'd probably just pay it.

=\

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

I think we need to avoid jumping to conclusions. This announcement refers to ECF Funding Proposals and seems to be a reaction to withdrawal of Government funding/support.

As proposals, presumably there is scope for clarification. What Andy has quoted refers specifically to Graded Congresses, but immediately thereafter is another section relating specifically to FIDE-rated events. This addresses 'three important exceptions'. At least two of these refer to 'players registered with a federation other than the ECF'. The third relates to the 4NCL, which is beyond me.

If the two sections (Graded Congresses/FIDE-related events) clash or contradict each other, then there will need to to be some resolution to bring them into line.

Presumably, CS - and perhaps other non-ECF Federations - will need to consult with ECF to clarify matters. But, until that has been done, let's not rush our fences.

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

George,

Adam has confirmed for a FIDE tournament it is the £1.50 fee for the CS (or other national members). For graded tournaments it is £6.00 for non-members of the ECF

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

We should be looking at this as an opportunity to encourage more non-ECF members to come up here to Scotland where they will be welcomed with open arms if they wish to play and support our congresses. There are of course loads of excellent English tournaments, my personal favourite being the South Lakes congress at Grange-over-Sands, but I don't see how I will be able to support them with this seemingly very unfair extra fee thrown in. I am genuinely sorry for English congress organisers who will have to deal with this but their loss may, hopefully, be our gain. The one group of players I was wondering about is new or beginner players. Would you enter your first congress if you had to pay an extra £6 just to see how you got on? There is a Scottish tournament in May next year that is going to financially actively encourage novices, infrequent congress players and first timers to join the fray, not penalise them for wanting to play.

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

Andy

I’m not wholly reassured.

I assume Adam is Adam Raoof, Home Director of ECF, and therefore well informed on this matter. But, the language of the two Sections is so framed as to suggest that ECF is mindful of the need to ameliorate fees in relation to non-ECF members in one case (FIDE-related events) but not in the other (Graded Congresses). The two profiles are essentially different: in the one context we are talking players who are members of non-ECF Federations (such as CS) while in the other we (i.e. ECF) are targetting English residents/players, who have chosen not to sign up to ECF membership. So, in the latter context, sweeping up visiting CS members who ‘go South’ is incidental to achieving compulsory membership of ECF via the back door.

I do not know how many Scots ‘go South’, but the numbers may be too few to have a significant enough impact for ECF to make allowances - in contrast to FIDE-related events.

In my own circumstances, I would not be deterred from paying an additional £12.00 (2 x £6.00) if I wanted to play in both Blackpool and Scarborough. But, if I wanted to play in a third Graded Congress, I might well calculate that on the basis of cost alone it would be worth my while taking out a Silver ECF membership (cost £18.00), particularly if there were a discount/rebate in the entry fee conditional on being an ECF member. Thereafter, I would be able to play in as many Graded Congresses as I wished without having to pay the additional £6.00 levy.

So far so good. But, if my name were MacScrooge, I might go further and decide that CS is so hospitable towards English residents who enter Chess tournaments in Scotland that I might as well stick at ECF membership and give up my CS membership! Canny, turncoat, or just plain paranoid?

Well, what about a member of a non-ECF Federation whose company transfers him to work in England. Will he/she be forced to become a member of ECF in addition to his native/indigenous/adopted Federation so as to play in Graded Congresses when - contrariwise - he doesn’t need to in order to play in FIDE-related events in England (or even in the 4NCL?).

All this, of course, is hypothetical and not intended to impugn anyone. But, how does this scenario stand in relation to the law of unintended consequences? And remember, we are talking about what are so far proposals yet to be enacted. Might non-ECF Federations look askance at what might be thought to border on unintentional ‘poaching’? Too far-fetched, perhaps. Or might ECF achieve its main objective by adjusting the way the fee is levied so as not overtly to penalise ‘outsiders’ such as CS members?

aka Devil’s Advocate

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

George, David, Andy,

Let them make up their rules as they go along as they are clearly doing. If they wish to isolate themselelves from the standard national much-loved county annual congresses then so be it, let them get on with it but don't vindicate them in any shape or form by lending your support. We need your support right here at home in Scotland, all are welcome to play here including our friends from south of the border (without penalty).

Adam Raoof · Knight Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

DGCongalton · Queen Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Posts: 113

My understanding of the ECF proposal, from an earlier update on the ECF website, is that the implementation of a membership scheme would mean that the ECF no longer charged game fees.

"It should be stressed that, under a Membership scheme, no Game Fee will be payable, so league fees should be significantly reduced or even eliminated entirely, depending on local circumstances. Similarly, congress organisers will no longer need to include an element in their entry fees to cover Game Fee (i.e. about £3 for a typical weekend congress)."

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Letter-re-Funding-22-Jun-2011.doc

Consequently, the additional cost to non-members participating in English congresses would effectively be £3.10 per weekend, assuming congress organisers reduced the basic entry fee by the amount previously built in to cover gane fees.

The document also contained some interesting proposals on the division of Chess in England along the lines of professional and amateur bodies to oversee the respective body of players participating in the game South of the border.

I sympathise with our friends in England. The loss of central government funding is a painful blow and the actions the ECF have to take must be radical in order to sustain chess in England at its current levels.

Personally, I think the imposition of compulsory anything is never a good idea and conjures in my mind Orwellian spectres of conformity and sameness.

The current method of funding in England, which I believe is broadly similar to what we have in Scotland, may no longer be the best option for our cross border neighbours to meet their goals and objectives but I would opine that whilst the mixture of grading fees and membership subscriptions currently operated by CS may not be ideal, it is the most suitable option for us at the present time, with chess in its present state here.

Those who play more effectively pay more. Those just starting out or returning or who do not have the financial resources or resources of time are not detered from playing by disproportionate costs to what they can put in and take out.

As far as splitting the body in two is concerned, such a proposal is not without its merits. Those who choose to pursue chess as a career can do so without being shackled by the interests of those who treat the game as just that. This may open up new sponsorship and funding opportunities currently unavailable. Those who do not have the ability or inclination to reach such levels would perhaps feel more affinity with the amateur body administrating the game on their behalf.

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

Andy, Robin, David C

I had read the proposals cited by Mr Raoof before responding to Andy’s original post - having been alerted by that post this afternoon. So far as I was aware, the proposals were only put up on the ECF site today.

The latest contributions from Mr Raoof and David Congalton suggest there is more involved here than meets the eye.

As CS members we need to be careful not to intrude on the internal affairs of another Federation.

May I advise that as CS members we should not respond individually to Mr Raoof’s offer to field any questions we may have. That way leads to possible misunderstanding and confusion. Instead, we should channel any queries/concerns through our national CS Federation and let them take up on our behalf so that we speak with one voice. This is not to be discourteous to Mr Raoof, who I am sure appreciates our need to respect ECF.

Adam Raoof · Knight Joined: 06 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

George Murphy · Knight Joined: 14 Aug 2007 Posts: 19 Location: Cardross

Adam Raoof wrote:

<In cases like this it's useful to consider what you would do in a similar situation and, sadly, with this government that might not be so far away from reality.>

You are 100% right, Adam. It’s not ECF’s fault that they find themselves in this difficult situation. As you point out, a similar dilemma may be just round the corner for us. That’s why we need to be sympathetic whilst looking out for own interests - as any responsible organisation should. Our responses need to be circumspect and focussed, not emotional and random.

What would I do in a similar situation? As a manager, I would deal with the situation as best I could, having first taken stock and then consulted as widely as possible. Not very different from what ECF appear to be doing. But watch out for unintended consequences.

As for the English Chess Forum, there appear to be an awful lot of cooks who want a hand in brewing this particular ‘broth’. That’s fine up to a point, but finally ‘chef’ has to make a decision.

It’s not at all easy for people like yourself and Mr Farthing. So, I wish you well, but as a CS member will subordinate my views to the organisation’s.

Best Wishes

George Murphy