[tournament-org] Consultation on the BGA Levy

[Gerry Gavigan]

> On 26/09/2023 13:38 BST Matt Marsh <matt at crazedbytes.net> wrote:
>  
>  
> Gerry,
>  
> A "nice shiny BGA membership card" may have some benefits - if players are needing to show these at tournaments then it becomes more visible as to who are members and who are not, and perhaps that encourages some people to join.
> 
It's also a benefit - people like badges and symbols.
 
https://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/
 

>  
> However - whenever organising tournaments I've always wanted to reduce the amount of admin to do during registration to a minimum.
> 

> Checking players' membership status would be something I would much rather have done in advance where possible. I really wouldn't want to be dealing with the "oh I forgot my membership card" problem whilst trying to get a first round running. I would therefore much rather an electronic way to check membership status in advance than checking physical cards.
> 
If the BGA rating list were changed to list only current BGA members that would solve one of your problems.
 
An early bird registration scheme reduces the number of unknown people turning up on the day.
 
All electronic schemes suffer from the "last updated 4th January 1872" problem
 
"I forgot my card" ex-post either they were a BGA member or they were not.  If they were not then they were being dishonest and sanctions might follow. 
 

>  
> There may be some outlying benefits in order to prove membership status at foreign events etc - but the cost of producing cards, mailing them out to people (something we recently stopped doing with the paper cards to save hundreds of pounds a year) etc feels like it may be disproportionate to the benefits in this case?
> 
I think there was a general consensus that the no-function cruddy bit of paper wasn't worth the stamp.
 
However a shiny membership card with a number would be more of a symbol and while now it would be pretty specialist for use as an EGF passport for tournaments, things might change and if a system similar to my suggestions were implemented it would have use at EGC.
 
Also, see above
 
Gerry
 
 

>  
> Matt
>  
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, at 11:45, Gerry Gavigan wrote:
> 
> > Matt,
> >  
> > My thoughts in response to yours.
> >  
> > Driving the system with the EGF PIN (rather than using it as a connector) creates the hazard of loosening the relationship between the player and the national association (NA). 
> >  
> > I believe those with a certain pedigree might see the analogies between this and weakening the role of clubs arising from the BGA decision to disintermediate club secretaries and issue the BGJ directly.
> >  
> > I'd like my passport to be a nice shiny BGA membership card with number, recognised by other NAs and obviating a need, e.g., to join FIGG.
> >  
> > I suggest a nice shiny membership (not some rubbish bit of paper) would improve the connection between members and BGA.
> >  
> > Also as my comment to Richard, you can't beat a physical token. You have either got one or you haven't:
> > * if I fail to bring it to Italy, tough, join FIGG
> > * if I fail to bring it to the Welsh Open I can pray-in-aid to the BGA (e.g., if I am on the ratings list I am a BGA member, perhaps one should only be on the ratings list if one is a BGA member rather than resident in the UK, as now).
> >  
> > The BGA exemption for "first time in Europe" should become an EGF thing.  Once they have got an EGF PIN we know they are not first timers and they would need to join an NA. 
> >  
> > Using openGotha or McMahon would automatically identify an EGF PIN. I'm sure GoDraw could be adapted to work similarly. As with the FIGG example above, no membership card, tough, join the NA or pay the non-membership EGF levy.
> >  
> > Thus two of the three south Koreans who played in last year's LOGC would not have to join an NA, but the one who played in the EGC would (or the EGF could create a separate system for the small number of people this would affect).
> >  
> > You rightly worry about the looseness of the current levy system.
> >  
> > A requirement to be a member of an EGF NA would enable would enable an accurate per member levy to be collected and would certainly widen the revenue base.
> >  
> > I do not think it would solve the Russia problem (should it ever re-become a problem) as before the EGF cast them adrift, they were threatening to leave if asked to pay more to the EGF.
> >  
> > I do question whether a member of an NA should also create a formal incidence of a tournament levy regardless of its effective incidence. I have already suggested a slightly higher than proposed membership levy as an alternative.
> >  
> > If a per membership levy is seen as discriminatory to smaller less well-off NAs, better off NAs might consider an EU-like subvention.
> >  
> > If less well off NAs are associated with less well off countries this further counsels against a per tournament levy except for those that choose not to join an NA.  
> >  
> > If EGF want to increase revenue I do think it needs to spend more time showing love to the rest of us and less time banging on about the need to pay EGF pros a salary. 
> >  
> > (As a lemma, in the main EGF pros are an indolent bunch when it comes to promoting Go, and as someone else said, they could do looking presentable when appearing as the face of the EGF, e.g., on Twitch. Image* is one way to increase take-up of the game, thus creating revenue)
> >  
> > Gerry
> >  
> > *e.g., Motown recognised the need for a finishing school for its artists who were mostly a bit rough and ready when "discovered"
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > > On 26/09/2023 09:53 BST Matt Marsh via tournament-org <tournament-org at lists.britgo.org> wrote:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Hi Colin,
> > >  
> > > A few of my thoughts:
> > > * In my experience, management of the BGA's levy system has always been quite loose. It relies a lot on trust - tournament organisers generally rely on players declaring whether they are a member or not, whether it's their first tournament etc. The BGA relies on tournament organisers submitting the correct levy payments.
> > >  
> > > Some organisers will check such things more than others, but the overall looseness of the mechanisms will have led to significant margin of error in payments taken I suspect.
> > > * If the EGF is to have a similar levy system they need to decide if they are happy with a loose system like ours - and accept the margin of error that will undoubtedly result - or whether they want a more formal mechanism which might have a greater admin overhead
> > > * Players in the EGD already have a unique identifier (EGD PIN) and presumably this would be the basis for checking whether a player is a member of an EGF affiliated organisation or not. To me, this is really the basis of the 'EGF Passport' that Gerry suggests, I think?
> > >  
> > > I'd expect that, as an organiser, I should be able to go to some online tool and enter the EGD PINs for all the players entered into my tournament and it should tell me which are members and which are not. It doesn't need to divulge anything else
> > > * For the above to be useful it would help for tournament organisers to be more consistent in collecting player EGD PINs on tournament entry. Currently some organisers do this, others do not. There would be other benefits of this too since often post-tournament there are queries when we're trying to understand whether a given player is a new player or in fact someone already in the EGD. 
> > > * Even new players could be asked to register for an EGD PIN prior to entering a tournament. This way we can ask that all players provide an EGD PIN on tournament entry. This would remove ambiguities that we get at present, whilst also providing a framework for identifying the correct levy charge to apply to any player.
> > > * The EGF could even choose, if they wished, to charge all players an annual fee to keep their PIN active. It is obviously a different scheme, but this would remove the complication of the EGF having to receive fees from each member organisation and some of the overheads involved...
> > > Matt
> > >  
> > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, at 16:21, secretary at britgo.org mailto:secretary at britgo.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > I am looking for some input on lessons learned from running the BGA Levy system on tournaments. In fact this is to help the EGF, but will indirectly help ourselves as well. I have circulated this to the tournament organisers list, and a few others who will have relevant experience. I need to explain the background to this request first …
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Background:
> > > > 
> > > > The EGF is proposing to change the way it charges membership fees to its member countries. If it gets agreement (possibly a big if) this will be applicable from 2025. The details are as yet undecided, and I did expect there to be a formal consultation exercise, but it now looks like they will just bring their proposal to the 2024 AGM and vote on it. However, as we already run a system which is similar to their proposal (the levy system) they are keen to hear from us about what works well and what doesn’t. Hence we may have some ability to shape the debate before next year’s AGM.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Proposed Fee Structure:
> > > > 
> > > > From 2025 the EGF membership fee for each country will consist of two components
> > > > 
> > > > 1. A set annual amount per member from that country, plus
> > > > 2. For each tournament played in that country which is submitted to the EGD, a small participation fee for each player in the tournament which will vary according to the status of the player. Players who are members of a national association which is in the EGF will incur a much smaller fee than non-members.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > The first part requires each country to maintain a list of its members. The second part means that the BGA will be charged based on UK tournament participation, regardless of which country the players are from. Whilst we have still to discuss this it is likely that the BGA will expect Tournament Directors to pay that component to the BGA, who will then pay the EGF. How the TD’s set the price for their events will of course be down to them, but the EGF fees will apply to all events submitted to the EGD.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > An example:
> > > > 
> > > > Please note these numbers are from my head and are very much indicative only and the final figures will be set as part of the debate with the EGF. The scheme may look like:
> > > > 
> > > > * The BGA pays 2 or 3 euro annually to the EGF for every member we have.
> > > > * For each tournament held in the UK, the EGF will charge the BGA 0.5 euro for every participant who is already a national member of an EGF country, and 2 euro for every non-member.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Some immediate implications:
> > > > 
> > > > The EGF have already realised that TDs will want to charge non-members more than members, given that non-members will cost them more. This means that that TDs will need easy access to a Europe-wide membership database, so they can quickly check for each entrant whether or not they are a paid up member of an EGF country. The EGF know they have to build this database, and then persuade all member countries to keep it up to date. Without this the system is unworkable as TDs won’t be able to do differential charging.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Just a little thought raises a whole slew of questions on the detail of this, none of which we have answers to yet. Some that I can think of are
> > > > 
> > > > * What about multi-day tournaments, is the charge per day? If so how would the EGF know which rounds were on which days to raise the correct bill?
> > > > * What about first-time tournament players where typically we don’t charge? Will the EGF do the same?
> > > > * What about concessions? Will the charges for juniors etc be lower, and if so how will the EGF know who qualifies for a concession?
> > > > * Will online tournaments/events be charged?
> > > > * Will the membership database say when the person’s membership starts and ends, and will that be used by the EGF in their billing calculations?
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the length of this, but what I would like from you please are your experiences of handling our current levy system, what problems it has caused you, and how you got round them. Also given the proposed structure above, what would be needed to make it workable for you?
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > I will collate all the responses and create a document to send in to the EGF. It will ostensibly be  a ‘lessons learned’ document, but if there is a strong view on any topic I can use it to put the case for the things we want to see.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks in advance.
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > Colin Williams
> > > > 
> > > > BGA Secretary      mail:  secretary at britgo.org mailto:secretary at britgo.org
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > >  
> > > -- 
> > > Matt Marsh
> > > matt at crazedbytes.net mailto:matt at crazedbytes.net
> > > 07795 297779 tel:+44-7795-297779 / +44 7795 297779 tel:+44-7795-297779
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________ tournament-org mailing list tournament-org at lists.britgo.org https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tournament-org
> > > 
> > 
>  
> -- 
> Matt Marsh
> matt at crazedbytes.net mailto:matt at crazedbytes.net
> 07795 297779 tel:+44-7795-297779 / +44 7795 297779 tel:+44-7795-297779
>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.britgo.org/pipermail/tournament-org/attachments/20230926/ce9a9919/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 55085 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.britgo.org/pipermail/tournament-org/attachments/20230926/ce9a9919/attachment-0001.jpg>