LE2 3AD
Tel: 01162109374
Dear John
Following consultations with members of the club I am writing on behalf of the Committee to let you have the views of Blaby Bridge Club on the EBU Membership Strategy Proposals.
It is not clear to us why the EBU needs to generate such a significant additional amount of revenue. Nor is it clear how this will benefit the game of bridge in line with the EBU’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, although it will clearly enhance the EBU’s reserves. I don’t think anyone has any objections to the principle of pay2play; this is the basis on which they currently pay table money. And club members are, in our experience, prepared to pay increased table money if they know the club faces an increase in rent. But they are unlikely to perceive any additional benefits arising from the increase they are likely to pay unless the EBU is much more forthcoming about the steps it proposes to take to benefit the game. There may be a slight financial benefit for those who play bridge once per week, but this is a minority of our members. There is nothing in the proposals for our members in terms of how the EBU intends to use the additional revenue it hopes to generate to put something back into the game. We would have liked to see the Membership Strategy linked to a strategy to attract new players, particularly young people, into the game and backed up with a business plan based on the additional revenue the EBU anticipates it will generate.
Blaby has 18 members (out of 90) who are currently non-EBU members, of whom 13 would see Blaby as their primary club of allegiance. They would face significant additional costs in continuing to play at Blaby, unless they joined the EBU. We fear that they would simply leave Blaby and go and play at a non-EBU club (or play socially and be lost to bridge clubs). This would obviously have an impact on our finances as well.
Some non-EBU members expressed resentment at the attempt to bring them into the EBU by the back door. Compulsion is likely to alienate non-EBU members rather than encourage them to play more. And some EBU members are opposed to the principle of coerced EBU membership although they would be personally unaffected by it.
The additional administrative burden on clubs would in many cases be onerous. The EBU appears to have forgotten that most clubs are run by volunteers. On one level, collecting additional table money from non-EBU members is likely to prove impractical. Other clubs that score manually will be required to buy computer equipment before they can take advantage of the EBU’s scoring package. This would not be a problem at Blaby, but that is because volunteers use their own equipment to operate the EBU’s system. Not every club is so fortunate.
The EBU is offering a range of additional services as part of the package. However, at Blaby we already use those we need and we would not be interested in the others.
One of the key issues for members is the continuation of the teams of eight league. It is the single most popular county-organised competition. It is not clear what charges would be made under the EBU’s proposals and whether the clubs currently not affiliated to the EBU would find them (or the cost of affiliating to the EBU) prohibitive. We are concerned that these proposals would lead to a further reduction in the size of the league, possibly to the point at which its viability is called into question. If they were forced to choose, many members would prioritise the retention of the league in its current form (presumably without master points) over continuing association with the EBU. We think the LCBA’s position should depend on the EBU guaranteeing a workable solution to the continuation of teams of eight league bridge in Leicestershire.
The concept of grading on current results would work well for duplicate. However, it would not work well for teams competitions (try to remember which pair you played boards 19-24 against). We doubt whether this has been properly thought through.
The notion that the pool of players available for county events would be enlarged is unsupported by any evidence. In our experience, those who wish to play in these events already do so.
In summary, we believe that the EBU’s proposals would be more likely to reduce membership and participation in the game than increase it. And we see no reason why Blaby members should pay more for the privilege of losing some of the club’s autonomy to the EBU. In the last analysis it should be the club’s decision who it accepts as members, whether they wish to belong to the EBU or not.
I am sorry that we have not felt able to respond more positively to the proposed Membership Strategy but I hope that you find our views helpful when you meet representatives of the EBU. I am happy for you to show them this letter if you wish.
Yours sincerely
Dave Pollard (Chair of