Present: Cornwall Mike Booth, Geoff Warren, Devon John Lankshear, Keith Ponsford, Dorset Ron Heath, Claire Hillyard, Somerset Anne Harris, Mike Whittaker, MDAG (Membership Development Action Group) John Carter, Michael Hill

The meeting took place at the Exeter Golf & Country Club. It started at 1.00 pm and finished at 4.00 pm, although there was a subsequent discussion with some attendees on education matters.

Introduction

Michael Hill and John Carter outlined the purpose of the meeting – to receive feedback on the proposals, which were for discussion and not yet final. Much constructive feedback had already been received (there had been eight consultation meetings before this one) and, as a result, it had already been stated that the £5 registration fee for new members would be removed (so all affiliated club members would automatically become EBU members) and the club affiliation fees would be reviewed (probably changed to a standard “up front” fee for all clubs, reduced progressively via a rebate against P2P to a net fee at a similar level to now). It was clarified that the pay-to-play figure of 43p quoted in the strategy paper was purely indicative. The intention was to set the fee to maintain EBU income (allowing for inflation) and research work was continuing during the consultation period (and any subsequent implementation period) so that more accurate data could be collected from clubs to determine the actual fee needed to achieve this. Based on feedback so far received from clubs, it was expected that the final fee would be lower. Finally, some of the benefits of universal membership were outlined – in particular that representing a larger membership would enable the EBU to exercise more influence with Government, local authorities (e.g. to get bridge re-introduced to their adult education programmes) and potential sponsors.

Opinions and Concerns

1) Club surveys had been carried out in the four counties but the responses were incomplete. Some clubs were in favour of the proposed strategy but concerned about the views (and possible actions) of their non-EBU members (and, in most clubs, EBU members were very much in the minority). Smaller clubs tended to be opposed and might well dis-affiliate.

2) Many clubs (perhaps 50%) were essentially social bridge clubs and did not issue master points. These would be thus harder hit by P2P and saw less reason to remain affiliated. However, these were the clubs which were growing; traditional bridge clubs were in decline.

3) EBU communications were felt to be poor. Perhaps as a consequence, many EBU members had a negative view of the EBU. Many people still thought that the re-financing was to raise more money – they had not appreciated that it was revenue neutral to the EBU and that the actual P2P fee would be set accordingly. (They also needed ongoing clear and simple information about how the EBU spends its money). Need clear presentations of what the EBU is about (and what more it is now proposing to do) for clubs to give to their members. This should be brief and highlight the revenue neutral aspect. Perhaps regular bullet points could be sent to clubs for them to put on their notice boards (highlights of the strategy and any consultation-led changes, starting with one stating that the proposal is not intended to raise more money for the EBU and that the actual P2P fee will be set at a level to achieve that and following with one telling everyone that counties have provided input, passing on members views).

1) A further point on communication was that the EBU should remind clubs that they wouldn’t ever have existed without EBU teachers, directors, etc – i.e. provide them with as much as possible to convince the non-EBU members just how much they have got “for free” in the past

2) There was concern about a perceived lack of practical invigoration of grass-roots bridge in the proposals. Teaching was seen as the main way forward. (Note – several attendees stayed on for a discussion on education/teaching after the end of the main consultation session).

3) The possibility of multi-tier membership was raised but it was pointed out that (a) this had been tried several times on a pilot basis in the last twenty years and had failed, (b) that it would not reduce the cost of the lower tiers as much as envisaged because a significant number of existing members would downgrade and (c) it would be expensive for the EBU to administer – when some members were already claiming that overheads were too high.

4) There was a view that, whilst some clubs would dis-affiliate, many of them would return in 1-2 years. The EBU was urged not to wash its hands of them - and the MDAG representatives confirmed that the EBU was seeking to bring in non-affiliated clubs over time, so would hardly cut itself off from those most likely to join (or re-join).

5) Given that the adverse reactions have often been the “normal” opposition on principle to being forced into something, the EBU, having wielded the stick, now needs to ensure it has the “carrot” ready to follow. There was a general statement that, at least for traditional bridge clubs, it was the principle rather than the money that was the problem. Money might be more of an issue for the social bridge clubs.

6) The question of the cost to people who play many times a week was raised and the possibility of capping the P2P fee. Those present were told that this was being reviewed – the likelihood being some form of a rebate above a certain number of plays per annum (possibly via a loyalty card). When the question was asked, preference was expressed for 50 % or 100% rebate after 150 or 200 sessions a year rather then a smaller percentage rebate starting at 50 sessions. One further suggestion was that, if we did provide 100% discount after, say, 150 sessions, the players concerned could be given a card which showed the date of issue and that they were entitled to free plays until the end of the year. It was felt that not having to pay from that point would have a significant positive impact compared with promising a rebate. It was not clear how easy this would be to administer, either for the clubs or the EBU. It was also pointed out that, if cash rebates were made, there would have to be a “no rebates below a specified amount” rule – the idea of the EBU issuing cheques for 43p was worrying.

7) There was a general statement that the EBU should encourage and facilitate more exchanging of ideas/experiences between counties and/or clubs on different competitions to run to attract participants.

8) The funding of counties was raised and the possible methods of doing this explained (either a lump sum based on current county subscription income or the removal of county funding from the EBU P2P amount with each county then allowed to add its own element on top. The latter seemed to be preferred by those present (county autonomy leading to more member support). It was noted that, whichever approach was used, counties would still need to charge subscriptions to dual members.

9) It was suggested that the EBU promise not to increase the level of P2P for several years (or reduce it if growing membership permitted) as a way of demonstrating their integrity.

10) The general view at the end of the meeting was significantly more positive about the proposals (with their likely amendments from the various consultations). It was still felt that more needed to be said about teaching and longer-term development of membership, together with the proposed regular “bullet points” in order to continue (and help the counties continue) the process of clearing away the scepticism. The tide was starting to return now, after being pushed out by the bad parts of the original EBU proposal/presentation.

John Carter and Mike Hill thanked everybody for attending. They informed those present that the views and opinions will be taken in to account along with the views of other counties that will be expressed through the consultation process. It is hoped that the amendments that will be made to the proposals will be circulated to shareholders after the final county consultation meeting, which is in the middle of September.

Top