Wrong! -It is intuitive to expect any benefit or condition of being a member of ECF to apply throughout the period of membership, and this used to be so – until ECF introduced ‘rolling membership‘, causing much confusion. So, if you’re not already aware why there can be a liability for some of the games you play whilst a member, I hope the following explanation can help clarify.

How so? – Traditionally, when you joined ECF (or renewed) membership applied to the whole of the current playing season regardless of when you paid. Membership included free grading of all games played throughout that season. Prior to 2011 new grades were calculated annually, at the end of each season, then twice yearly (Jan and July) until 2020 when grades started to be revised monthly. Any grading fees (also called game fees) were invoiced to the league shortly after the end of each playing season with clubs sorting their share with their players.

|<=================== playing season =======================>|
|<================= membership period ======================>|
|<================ free grading period =======================>|

If you were not an ECF member, your club would encourage you to join (or renew a previous membership) if likely to play more than 3 graded games in the season (a quota, freely graded regardless of membership). Paying a membership subscription up front is preferable to later having to cover invoiced grading fees (equal to a bronze membership) for each player exceeding quota. Clubs can’t guarantee a non-member will join/renew, but could delay inclusion in teams until ECF membership is assured. If an application was shown to be in process it’s completion was taken on trust, otherwise any occasional delays on this tended to be only a SHORT period of uncertainty before everyone knew where they stood. This was the situation for many years so it was only natural to continue to expect no grading fee for games played while you’re a member.

Under ‘Rolling Membership‘, Introduced in 2023, you are called a ‘member’ for 12 months from when you join/renew (actually 12 months from from the beginning of the month in which you join/renew) which can now generally span more than one playing season. ECF regarded this as fairer because it allowed players to get “a full year membership”, though that was already the case for grading purposes (just not for ‘benefits’ such as discounts on goods from partnering sites, so was business value the driver of change?). However, ECF considered it inconvenient to shift the grading period in line with the new period of membership – so they stayed with the traditional system of free grading of all games played in the season of joining/renew!

|<======= playing season 1 ======>||<======= playing season 2 =======>|
………………|<===== membership period 1 =====>|
|<===== free grading period 1 =====>||<== ?? grading period 2 ?? …..

Membership period 1 above covers games played in the free grading period 1 – but does NOT cover ANY graded games played in playing season 2. This is where the issue begins! LONGER periods of uncertainty now arise with players who join/renew mid-to-late-season. It also means more uncertainties and hence more liabilities, likely to arise at certain times during a season.

Liability for potential game fees starts from the beginning of playing season 2, until the start of membership period 2 (if that takes place). Some ‘liable members’ find this hard to accept. I use the term ‘liable members’ for players in playing season 2 still in membership period 1. Their memberships expire on or before 30th June of season 2. For game fee purposes, we have to regard them the same as non-members during playing season 2, so their game counts are also shown on the website to help clubs track this, until they renew.

Impact? – Now we have longer periods of uncertainty. If a player doesn’t eventually renew, who should fund payment of the invoice for grading period 2? ECF clearly hold the league responsible. Item 2 of their invoicing policy says:-
“By submitting game results to the rating server, organisations accept liability for any pay to play or game fee that is incurred.”
This ‘liability’ is questionable when a league can no longer ensure a player will be a membership at a future date (30th June of season 2). Somehow, the league has to secure invoice funding when neither league, club nor player can absolutely guarantee a future renewal – and expiry of a current membership may be several months away. Clubs no longer have the former leverage as it is no longer practical to await renewal before picking liable members for team matches. Also, players would not expect to be asked to pay for membership period 2 in advance, to cover fees for the period 2 games they are now playing. Even if they did want to assure certainty of covering this, ECF currently do not even allow it, insisting that
“Membership can be renewed on the existing level from 28 days before the membership expires“.
In a scenario of say 50 non-renewals @£21 the league would be liable for £1050.
Measures became needed to limit league liability, requiring extra work.

The league treasurer now has to manage a grading fee reserve fund, made up of transfers-in from club treasurers. The webmaster facilitate this in the on-line accounts as well as the means to easily identify liable members for monitoring by club and league treasurers.
A list of players at-or-over quota in league or club games is shown here, which also shows the status of any league reserve fund payments. If/when players renew, their reserve is transferred back to their club account.
Club agreement was formalised at NECL AGM with rule 22b rule amended by appending:-
…. “Any players incurring a pending fee to ECF via NECL will be ineligible whilst
their club has insufficient credit to cover all of such players’ fees.“
The rule was meant as a deterrent, but when clubs overlook this and game points are lost due to the ineligible player, the played game is still graded, so it doesn’t change any liability.

How could ECF help?
1. Revert to previous system – unlikely now the step has been made?
2. Redefine free grading period to be in line with each players membership period to restore a) the status quo to what players intuitively expect! and b) previous club leverage – implies invoice process change from annual to monthly? – also unlikely?
3. Provide a means to pay part/extended renewals to help players to synchronise to an early-season cycle – which would help reduce periods of uncertainty and ease the required size of club floats at no extra long-term expense to players. I have asked ECF but they will not allow this – so it is destined to perpetuate!! Not a positive influence on league chess?

What else could NECL do? – failing any ECF actions, NECL could consider;
1. Ring-fence a set amount (or defined proportion of the league balance?), to be used as a general grading fee reserve float and just recover any end of season liabilities from clubs? – avoids many in-season dialogs and ‘toeing-and-froing’ of pending reserves.
2. Delay submission for grading of results for all games that involve a new or liable-member player who has already reached quota – until such date that membership status as of 30th June of the current season is verified. This is because the stated assertion of league liability by ECF seems based on the action of the league making the grading submission – so no submission – no liability!
This would of course delay the normal grading process for opponent-players, who may have got used to expecting to see grade details change on a monthly basis (and due to previously clarifying with ECF that ‘events’ be submitted in entirety or not at all, the full match result should possibly be delayed?) – with a knock-on effect of causing small differences in published grades during the season, compared to there being no delay. This would dispense with the need for a grading reserve fund, though tracking is still needed.
3. A more drastic measure is to not submit games for ECF grading at all and instead use a local equivalent calculation. Again, no submission – no liability! – but contentious – as it depends on what value club members place on having an ECF authenticated grade? No doubt some would consider it essential (and be members anyway) whilst others may appreciate not needing to pay an ECF membership. This has happened in the past, e.g. Yorkshire had it’s own system until 2018 (despite issues raised as to formula being patentable or data it produced being copyrighted, with the BCF attempting to charge local leagues for this). About 185 players are registered to play NECL league – worth about £4k annual revenue to ECF – typically about a dozen may have a potential game fee liability at any one time.
4… Other suggestions?