|
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 7.00 pm 32 MINUTES Present Michael
Hill (MH, Chairman), Chris Duckworth (CD), Peter O’ Connell (PC), Richard Fleet
(RF), Andrew Macalister (AM), Ned Paul (NP), James Smith (JS), Nigel Freake
(NF), Steve Eginton (SE), Simon Cocheme (SC), David Muller (DM), Roger Morton
(RM), Stefanie Rohan (SR) and Sati McKenzie (SM) 1
Registration
of proxies Fergus
Davison, Roger Fellows, Charles Moore, Diego Pinto, Aline Aldride, Toby Naish,
Kit Jackson, Paul Martin, Paul Lamford, Brian Callaghan, Adrian Scheps, Helen
Erichsen, Liz Wright, Ryan Stephenson, Liz Clery, Gordon Rainsford, Marilyn
Nathan, Janet de Botton, David Burn, Robert Brinig, Artur Malinowski and Brian
Jackson 2
Apologies
for absence Chris
Gidden, David Martin, Kit Jackson, Cecil Leighton. 3
Minutes
of the AGM of There
were no issues of accuracy. 4
Matters
arising from these minutes None. 5
Chairman’s
Report Copy
attached at the end of these minutes. It was pointed out that, whilst Thomas
Bessis is the youngest male player to win the Lederer Memorial Trophy, there
has been a younger female winner. Nicola Smith (nee 6
Treasurer’s
Report SR
provided a provisional profit & loss statement covering the year 2006. She
needs another meeting with SE to clarify some points before the accounts can be
finalised. The accounts currently show a profit of approximately £2000, chiefly
owing to the Anniversary event. The newsletter production costs are down owing
to a reduction in the number of copies printed, though there may be an
outstanding bill as well. When final, the accounts will be published on the
LMBA website and an e-mail will be sent to all members. 7
Adoption
of accounts for 2006 Deferred. 8
Subscriptions
for 2008-2009 The
chairman requested the membership to authorise the Committee to increase the
LMBA subscription by up to £1 if necessary. This was proposed by MH, seconded
by CD and adopted nem con. Ned Paul asked if the new proposals from the EBU
regarding membership regulations would affect the LMBA subscription. The
chairman assured him that the matter would be kept under review. (Full
discussion of the EBU’s proposals can be found in section 11). 9
Elections
to the Executive Committee NF,
KJ, DGM and MH stood down in rotation but offered themselves for re-election
and were duly elected. 10 Appointment of honorary auditor Mike
Scoltock was re-appointed subject to his agreement (proposed by NF, seconded by
SM, carried nem con). 11 EBU delegates’ Report The
chairman summarised the EBU’s latest proposals (June 2007) on membership and
put them in the context of the current decline of bridge in the http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Official%20Documents/ShareholdersStrategyDocument.pdf Bridge in In response to a question, MH explained that
‘shareholder’ is simply a new name for EBU delegates. Each county has typically
1-3 shareholders who vote on behalf of the county at shareholders’ meetings. In response to concerns raised by Peter O’Connell, MH
also explained that the LMBA committee will consult with all A lively discussion followed. A summary of the main
points is given below, not necessarily in chronological order. Opinion was
divided between those who thought the proposed scheme was seriously flawed and
deserved no further consideration and others who felt the basic idea was sound,
but the details needed thrashing out. On the question of EBU membership as well,
opinion was divided between those who felt that the EBU provides a regulatory
framework and an infrastructure + services which benefit all players and others
who felt that the EBU does very little for the average player who can continue
playing bridge quite happily without membership of the EBU. Richard Fleet made the following points about the
proposed scheme: Ø Wrong
in principle; club players should not be forced to join the EBU. English people
tended to react against compulsion. Ø Will
not work. Many clubs will dis-affiliate and members will be lost to
non-affiliated clubs or on-line bridge sites. MH pointed out that such clubs
might rejoin later if their scepticism is overcome with better services and
there is no coercion to join. Ø Not
fair. The extra table money will penalise pensioners and children and other
poorer players for whom bridge may be the only affordable recreation. Ø Not
cheap. Others spent £170000 in implementing a similar system,
though it is not clear whether this was the total amount or the average
individual amount. Of the quoted “successful” countries, Ø Have
any other strategies been considered? MH said some had, e.g. multi-tiered
membership which was considered and then rejected as impractical and costly to
administer. Ø The
proposals assume an unrealistically low rate of inflation. Ø Allocation
of members to counties is flawed – it is based on the location of the club,
which works to the disadvantage of metropolitan areas. Ø Dual
membership is not discussed. MH replied that this is a detail which will be
addressed in due course but is actually solely a matter for counties and
nothing to do with the EBU. Ø Tournament
entries are falling. This is due to the poor service provided to players.
Improving service may be a better option. Ø The
BFA initiative does not seem to have done very well – only a small minority go
on to become full members of the EBU. Ø A
flat fee approach like that adopted by golf clubs may be more successful.
(Comparisons - golf clubs £4, chess £46) It was pointed out (CD) that while the proposals may
be good for EBU, it does not necessarily follow that they must be good for
bridge. NP suggested that the EBU should downsize to reduce costs and rely more
on volunteers to carry out some of its functions. However, that may damage the
future growth prospects of bridge in the event of a recovery. RF pointed out
that EBU evolved to its present state from a greater dependence on volunteers
in the past. The over reliance on volunteers for day-to-day running can cause
problems with the level of service. However, the reduction in services if
accompanied by a reduction in costs and subscriptions may lead to more members.
MH suggested that it is not the cost of membership
that is critical but the effort of joining and the cost of collection - record
keeping, reminders. Not all members pay by direct debit. Various reasons were suggested for the decline of
bridge and the fall in EBU membership, and some shortcomings of the proposed
strategy were pointed out: Causes for decline: Ø
Choice of players in
representative events should be more democratic. Selecting the same players
every year has a detrimental effect (NP). Ø
On line play is far more
convenient. The magazine ( Ø
The number of events has
increased over the years, reducing the number of entries for each (SC). Ø
The cost of BFA is a
deterrent, as is the length of the learning process (NP); we need to get
players into clubs more cheaply/quickly not requiring that they study for 2-3
years. Moving away from rubber bridge to club
duplicate has exacerbated the problem. Ø
Lapsed members do not get
reminders of competitions (AM). CD pointed out that past entrants do. Ø
Diary is a poor
substitute for previous competition brochure (and does not contain entry forms) Shortcomings of the proposed strategy (in addition to RF’s
points above): Ø
Players may not perceive
that they get more benefits from playing more (eg.
only one copy of the magazine irrespective of how many times they play) (DM). Ø
Some club players
(particularly those new to club bridge) prefer to
receive paper copies of master points rather than direct credit. They could of
course be given a paper record of points credited electronically to them. Ø
Some players/clubs feel that
the proposal is a violation of their privacy (NP). Ø
The national rating
system may not be relevant to the average player. However, prizes at
tournaments could be awarded according to rank.
NP pointed out that what is being proposed is a rating system, not a
ranking system and explained the distinction. Ø
It is not clear if the
benefits to clubs of EBU affiliation justify the cost. SR and RM agreed that
clubs got very little for their money. List of benefits felt to be “less than
compelling”. Ø
Not clear how proposals
will actually attract members to clubs. Ø
Finances more subject to
club’s administration. What happens if clubs do not pay their EBU invoices
promptly? Ø
Not clear how EBU will
identify members who’ve died (if they’re not club players or the club doesn’t
know or doesn’t tell the EBU). Could be embarrassing. Ø
The £5 joining fee will
cause hassle and is not worth it. Alternative suggestions for improvement: Ø
Make tournaments more friendly. The host system being introduced may improve
player satisfaction. Ø
EBU and LMBA should
connect more with members, bridge teachers etc. (RM). As a teacher, he has
never had an e-mail from the EBU! EBU should also e-mail the membership about
each competition. Communication with members is lacking at national and county
level. Supported by NP who suggested more newsletters and offered to stuff
envelopes if necessary. Ø
There is a need to raise
the profile of bridge and bridge players on TV, in the press. Results of
competitions should be reported in the sports pages of papers. International
success should be reported. (NB Some felt bridge does
not lend itself to televising). Ø
Perhaps county
associations are no longer necessary – clubs and EBU should suffice. Ø
Help clubs to be more
responsive to new members (learners in particular). Ø
Improve EBU on-line
competition entry process. Not user friendly at present. MH
then brought the discussions to a close after suggesting that any further
comments be made directly to the EBU (website, Peter Stocken or Sally Bugden). 12 Any other business: There
being no other business, the meeting closed at 9: |