[tournament-org] [Board-private] Consultation on the BGA Levy
Toby Manning
ptm at tobymanning.co.uk
Tue Sep 26 18:31:05 BST 2023
Well, I read the article on the website to which Gerry referrred...
and it gives rise to two problems.
1) The article talks about using badges, certificates etc. as a
recognition of *achievement*. The only achievement associated with a
membership card is that of having an income sufficient to be able to
afford the BGA membership fee.
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.
Toby
On 26/09/2023 15:31, Gerry Gavigan via Board-private wrote:
>> 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 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Matt Marsh*
>>>> 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
>> 07795 297779 <tel:+44-7795-297779> / +44 7795 297779
>> <tel:+44-7795-297779>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board-private mailing list
> Board-private at britgo.org
> https://lists.britgo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board-private
--
Toby Manning
26 Groby Lane
Newtown Linford
LE6 0HH
01530 245298 (best)
07798 825299
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.britgo.org/pipermail/tournament-org/attachments/20230926/5cc883f8/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/20230926/5cc883f8/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the tournament-org
mailing list