<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Well, I read the article on the website to which Gerry
referrred...</p>
<p>and it gives rise to two problems.</p>
<p>1) The article talks about using badges, certificates etc. as a
recognition of <b>achievement</b>. The only achievement
associated with a membership card is that of having an income
sufficient to be able to afford the BGA membership fee.</p>
<p>2). The demography of BGA members is a long way away from any
average - applying any sort of research based on "3,000 website
users" to BGA membership is unlikely to be valid.</p>
<p>Toby <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/09/2023 15:31, Gerry Gavigan via
Board-private wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:49089189.999455.1695738672733@email.ionos.co.uk">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> On 26/09/2023 13:38 BST Matt Marsh
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:matt@crazedbytes.net"><matt@crazedbytes.net></a> wrote: </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Gerry, </div>
<div> </div>
<div> 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. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> It's also a benefit - people like badges and symbols. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> <a
href="https://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.psychologyofgames.com/2016/07/why-do-achievements-trophies-and-badges-work/</a>
</div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div> However - whenever organising tournaments I've always
wanted to reduce the amount of admin to do during registration
to a minimum. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 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. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> If the BGA rating list were changed to list only current BGA
members that would solve one of your problems. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> An early bird registration scheme
reduces the number of unknown people turning up on the day. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> All electronic schemes suffer from the
"last updated 4th January 1872" problem </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> "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. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div> 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? </div>
</blockquote>
<div> I think there was a general consensus that the no-function
cruddy bit of paper wasn't worth the stamp. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div> 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. </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> Also, see above </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> Gerry </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<div class="default-style"> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div> Matt </div>
<div> </div>
<div> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, at 11:45, Gerry Gavigan wrote: </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> Matt, </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> My thoughts in response to
yours. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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). </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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.
</div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> I suggest a nice shiny
membership (not some rubbish bit of paper) would improve the
connection between members and BGA. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> Also as my comment to Richard,
you can't beat a physical token. You have either got one or
you haven't: </div>
<ul>
<li class="qt-default-style">if I fail to bring it to Italy,
tough, join FIGG</li>
<li class="qt-default-style">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).</li>
</ul>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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). </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> You rightly worry about the
looseness of the current levy system. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> If a per membership levy is
seen as discriminatory to smaller less well-off NAs, better
off NAs might consider an EU-like subvention. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> 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. </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> (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) </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> Gerry </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> *e.g., Motown recognised the
need for a finishing school for its artists who were mostly
a bit rough and ready when "discovered" </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<div class="qt-default-style"> </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> On 26/09/2023 09:53 BST Matt Marsh via tournament-org
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tournament-org@lists.britgo.org"><tournament-org@lists.britgo.org></a> wrote: </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> Hi Colin, </div>
<div> </div>
<div> A few of my thoughts: </div>
<ul>
<li>
<div> 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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> 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. </div>
</li>
<li>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</li>
<li>
<div> 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? </div>
<div> </div>
<div> 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 </div>
</li>
<li>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. </li>
<li>Even new players could be asked to register for an EGD
PIN prior to entering a tournament. This way we can ask
that <strong>all</strong> 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.</li>
<li>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...</li>
</ul>
<div> Matt </div>
<div> </div>
<div> On Mon, 25 Sep 2023, at 16:21, <a
href="mailto:secretary@britgo.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">secretary@britgo.org</a>
wrote: </div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="qt-qt-WordSection1">
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Hi,</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">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 …</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Background:</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">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.</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Proposed Fee Structure:</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">From 2025 the EGF
membership fee for each country will consist of two
components</p>
<ol style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="a" start="1">
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
54pt;">A set annual amount per member from that
country, plus</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:
54pt;">For each tournament played in that country
which is submitted to the EGD, a small participation
fee for each player in the tournament <em>which
will vary according to the status of the player</em>.
Players who are members of a national association
which is in the EGF will incur a much smaller fee
than non-members.</li>
</ol>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">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, <em>regardless
of which country the players are from.</em> 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.</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">An example:</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">Please
note these numbers are from my head and are very much
<strong>indicative only</strong> and the final figures
will be set as part of the debate with the EGF. The
scheme may look like:</p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">The BGA pays 2 or 3
euro annually to the EGF for every member we have.</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">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.</li>
</ul>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Some immediate implications:</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">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.</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt;">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</p>
<ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc">
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">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?</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">What about
first-time tournament players where typically we
don’t charge? Will the EGF do the same?</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">What about
concessions? Will the charges for juniors etc be
lower, and if so how will the EGF know who qualifies
for a concession?</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">Will online
tournaments/events be charged?</li>
<li class="qt-qt-MsoListParagraph">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?</li>
</ul>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">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?</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Thanks in advance.</p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><strong><span class="size"
style="font-size: 12pt;">Colin Williams</span></strong></p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt;">BGA
Secretary mail: <a
href="mailto:secretary@britgo.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">secretary@britgo.org</a></p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><img
id="qt-qt-Picture_x0020_1" style="width: 2.8645in;
height: 0.9895in;"
src="cid:part1.70Otz7rb.7GYO8EZ2@tobymanning.co.uk"
class="" width="275" height="95" border="0"></p>
<p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div id="qt-sig18623274">
<div class="qt-signature"> -- </div>
<div class="qt-signature"> <strong>Matt Marsh</strong> </div>
<div class="qt-signature"> <a
href="mailto:matt@crazedbytes.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">matt@crazedbytes.net</a>
</div>
<div class="qt-signature"> <a href="tel:+44-7795-297779"
moz-do-not-send="true">07795 297779</a> / <a
href="tel:+44-7795-297779" moz-do-not-send="true">+44
7795 297779</a> </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div> _______________________________________________
tournament-org mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tournament-org@lists.britgo.org">tournament-org@lists.britgo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tournament-org">https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tournament-org</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div id="sig18623274">
<div class="signature"> -- </div>
<div class="signature"> <strong>Matt Marsh</strong> </div>
<div class="signature"> <a href="mailto:matt@crazedbytes.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">matt@crazedbytes.net</a>
</div>
<div class="signature"> <a href="tel:+44-7795-297779"
moz-do-not-send="true">07795 297779</a> / <a
href="tel:+44-7795-297779" moz-do-not-send="true">+44 7795
297779</a> </div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board-private mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board-private@britgo.org">Board-private@britgo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board-private">https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board-private</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Toby Manning
26 Groby Lane
Newtown Linford
LE6 0HH
01530 245298 (best)
07798 825299</pre>
</body>
</html>