Change to UMS Fees Structure
YCBA Response To UMS Change Proposal
David Guild guildbridge1@gmail.com
Attachments
9:48 PM (25 minutes ago)
to patrick
Hi Patrick
At our Away Day last week, our YCBA Board considered the explanation of possible EBU Board adjustment to UMS calculation - as set out in the Updates from Aylesbury dated 6 March.
We raised a number of matters and asked me (DG) to write back to you and broaden our reply to our Yorkshire clubs who have already been contacted by you and to additionally place this response on the County to County Forum for wider discussion.
DG started by saying that he would have much preferred that County Chairs/Boards had received prior notification of UMS new methodology approach being considered. This is because UMS is a highly sensitive topic that needs careful change management and should not be a stone thrown into a still pond by a general news item. To issue in this manner may very well be misinterpretted as intent rather than a possibility. We seem to have not yet learnt the lessons of the last major change to funding method in 2010/11.
DG further said that it is very difficult for any club to give an opinion as to the efficacy of the "flat fee + xpence/Board" approach without a charging framework. (Rather like being asked to comment on ordering decision for home underfloor heating without knowing costs and efficiencies).
It certainly is not a consultation document without this financial framework.
Fortunately, the EBU Competitions Committee did make an explicit proposal to the EBU Board in January 2024 and this was agreed to be pushed out for consultation. The UMS proposal is for a flat rate of 23p plus a linear rate of 1p/board per person/session.
Based on this precise figure, DG calculated the financial impact as attached sheet 1.
The YCBA considered first the overall concept. Comments were:
1. This sounds complex and overkill. From a club and player perspective the player fees are fixed across a wide range of regular play boards so why have one part of the table money fee so convoluted.
2.There is no known "pain" being signalled by the clubs, so why amend the process entirely? What is the overriding objective? To make black pointed competitions cheaper? If overall EBU revenue remains neutral is more money to be taken from regular club play?
2. At present UMS, TD Fees, Green and Blue Point licenses et al do not have a consistent charging thread. TD Fees for example, increase in 4-board steps and colour coded competitions are on a per table fee rate. If a major change is envisaged, should all fee types be synchronised at this time? Perhaps a common multi-step approach in 4 or 6 board ranges may have merit but it is unproven.
The Board considered then considered the figures in Sheet 1.
From April 24, the UMS is 45p. The Board first considered this against the proposed new method. The Board concluded the new model logic to be flawed as there is not a plateau distribution to boards played; instead there are distinct peaks and troughs and these need to be weghted in a financial model.
The majority of regular club play is around the 24 to 27 range and here the UMS fees will move up sustantially. Some clubs, particularly smaller clubs already under pressure, operate entirely in this range and would be penalised.
The Board eventually decided that the fee rate cannot be meant to apply to 2024-25 as there would be a substantial £000's windfall to the EBU, so estimated a 47p UMS rate for 2025- 26 and applied it there. This looked more financially palatable (and may reduce EBU income?) but has fundamental structure issues.
These being:
1. Clusters of play - see Sheet2 - Analysis of Feb 24 Sessions at Olicana BC. The clusters are: low number of boards for beginners/early players (8 to 16), less boards (18 to 20) for online play as 2 hours/session is usually the limit, a regular higher range for standard club F2F play (22 to 27). It seems overcomplex to differentiate within each cluster
The future will see the ultra-low board count for lower duration games offered daily, such a one hour games and DIDO. A new fee structure would need to accommodate these without penalty.
2. Far Greater Complexity
Current UMS is based on sessions rate 2/3, 1 or 2 times usually at 1 times rate. The difference between Boards in play and the count of those played is not usually a problem as both are usually in the same fee band.
Treasurers get simple statements showing the number of sessions in each charging band and this is based on Boards in play.
However...
As Sheet 2 shows the boards in play can be substantially different from number played. If there is an uneven number of pairs,not all players reach the same number of played boards in the session. Also, if not all the boards are played by every pair in a movement, the diifference can be great (eg 30 in play with 16 played by each pair).
For this reason, sessions will need to be broken down into pairs charging.
Club charge statements will have to radically change and it is difficult to envisage how a Treasurer will be able to validate any fee invoice.
Also, there is a software development cost and delay to create such a radically new financial charging system.
It is for these reasons that the YCBA Board reject this new approach to "flat fee and per board rate" for UMS charging.
Regards
David Guild
For the YCBA Board Response
Comments
UMS Change Proposal Impacts Sheet1
UMS Boards 23p+1p /board Present Change year 25/26
Played 44p Now 47p est'd Change
one third 4 27 29.3 -2.3 31.3 -4.3
one third 8 31 29.3 1.7 31.3 -0.3
one third 12 35 29.3 5.7 31.3 3.7
1* 15 38 44 -6.0 47 -9.0
1* 16 39 44 -5.0 47 -8.0
1* 18 41 44 -3.0 47 -6.0
1* 20 43 44 -1.0 47 -4.0
1* 24 47 44 -3.0 47 0.0
1* 27 50 44 6.0 47 3.0
1* 28 51 44 7.0 47 4.0
1* 32 55 44 11.0 47 8.0
2* 36 59 88 -29.0 94 -35.0
2* 40 63 88 -25.0 94 -31.0
2* 50 73 88 -15.0 94 -21.0
2* 60 83 88 -5.0 94 -11.0
2* 70 93 88 5.0 94 -1.0
3* 72 95 132 -37.0 141 -46.0
3* 75 98 132 -34.0 141 -43.0
3* 100 123 132 -9.0 141 -18.0
3* 120 143 132 11.0 141 2.0
Analysis Of Olicana Sessions Feb 2024 Sheet2
Each session was analysed as Boards In Play – Boards Played.
So, 28-24 is 28 Boards in play of which 24 were played by a player.
Sessions were also coded as F – F2F, O- Online, B – Beginner, G – Guided slow
Sessions were :
27F-24, 25F-20, 20O-20.18G-14,24F-24, 28F-24, 30G-16, 21O-18,24F-24, 14B-8,24F-21,
20O-20,28F-20, 22G-16,24F-24,24F21,24F-24,20O-20,24G-16,24F-24,20F-18,27F-26,22G-14,
25F20,27F-24,25F-20,20O-20,26G-14,24F-24,27F-27,26G-14, 18O-16,24F-24,24F-24,25F-25, 22O-20
Differences between hands in play and those actually played can be substantial . See Guided play.
The hands played break down as:
Cluster 1 Beginners & Guided Play 8boards x1, 14 x4, 16 x4
Cluster 2 Online play 18 x2, 20 x9
Cluster 3 Regular F2F play 21 x2, 24 x11, 25 x1, 26 x1, 27 x1
Two quick points: 30 boards in play of which 16 are played by each pair does not meet the 70% rule. The proposal is that the payment per board is for the number of boards played by each pair, not the number in the movement. Yes, it would charge for 24 boards if some players sat out for two of them, but not for 32 boards if no-one played more than 24.
Hi Gordon
Apologies if the movement contravenes the rules. This was the most extreme example I had of the difference that can occur between actual hands in a one club for one month snapshot. The session was for guided play aimed at recently graduated students and I don't think that Master points and NGS would have been front of mind.
Best regards
David
The important point is that they would not be charged for 30 boards but for 16, which would be less than at present.
Thanks Gordon for clarification but at present, whether they play 30 or 16 boards, they get charged the same under our present method. It is simple and does not have the complexity of analysing played board counts of each individual pairing.
Has the method of charging when robots are used been considered yet?
I'm not sure why it is desirable for 16 board games to be charged the same as 30 board games, and for 36 board games to be charged twice the amount of 35 board games. It is certainly the case that at present some clubs will run a special game as 35 boards rather than 36 to avoid doubling the UMS charge, even if the 36 board format would be more convenient.
It's also misleading to talk of "the complexity of analysing played board counts of each individual pairing": clubs would just make their UMS submissions as at present and all that aspect would be worked out automatically.
Hi David
Thank you to you and the board of YCBA for taking the time to make your report. Most of which I understand and frankly agree with. I got lost on the schedule of stats but I think that may be because I couldn't fathom the format or column headings.
To The EBU Board
I note that the first time that anything about changes to the structure of the calculation of "UMS" is in the unagreed minutes of the EBU Board on 18th January 2024.
Para 8.2 UMS Fees.
"We have a UMS fee set by the shareholders at the AGM (currently 44p to rise to 45p in April) and for
some time we have had a policy of charging 36-72 boards at double rate and giving a 1/3 discount
for sessions of 14 boards or fewer. Currently a club submitting for a session is paying from
2.75p/board to just under 0.8p/board. Being able to charge fractional pence per board is an issue for
some of our processing systems, but an alternative which works easily is charging a flat rate (say
23p) plus 1p/board.
The Board discussed the issues with the current arrangements, and the potential alternatives. It was
agreed that while the alternative mentioned above was “fairer”, on any change there would be
some losers and some winners. The Board agreed to make the County Associations and clubs aware
that we were looking at this, and to invite their thoughts."
So the questions are. What are the issues with the current system? How did they come to light? What were the other "potential alternatives"? Why was the selected change considered "fairer". David mentions that the "Competitions committee" did make an explicit proposal to the EBU Board in January 2024 and this was agreed to be pushed out for consultation. I have been unable to find any Competition committee meeting minutes (either agree or waiting agreement). So like David and YCBA feel a little in the dark as to what and where we are going with this change. Are we resolving a problem with the change or are we merely solving a symptom of the problem and ignoring the problem completely.
If there are difficulties in the current processing systems in dealing with fractions of a penny how will we deal with any furture increase? Who will agree the increase?
Frankly, discussions on the number of boards played/in circulation seems pretty meaningless and a diversion from the discussion that is needed.
At the end of all discussion any changes have to be "sold" to the playing members. Asking for thoughts without making the facts availble is almost like saying "this will happen, we just need to give you time to get used to it".
I am all for positive and reasoned change, so let's have a structured debate in the appropriate place at the appropriate time.
This is my opinion and has not been discussed with any committee.
CMOT
Sorry - I've been very slow in getting around to answer this. Seems to be lots to do sometimes and I have been playing too much bridge (I am told).
The background to the question was not explained in the brief notes given. The background is that with the current options there is a cliff-edge on session size which is believed can unnecessarily distort the planning for a competition, and arguments are being put forward to change the thresholds. Some clubs are running shorter sessions than before, and some charge less to members for shorter sessions. In this context, it seems only right to consider more flexible schemes for setting UMS rates, and the idea of an amount changing with the number of boards played is a natural extension of the current arrangement whereby the UMS amount paid by an individual rises as they play more sessions. The idea is being postulated rather than planned.
A question was raised about "the efficacy of the approach". I welcome thoughts as to how the efficacy would be measured. In my mind there are two aspects - one is the practicality (that the calculation and payment collection are easy) and the other is fairness (who benefits most pays most). Are there others? As indicated in the original, the intent is to collect the same amount of membership fees from the players - and some players/clubs will end up paying more and some less than currently. That is true for any change, and cannot be a reason to treat the current position as set in stone.
In terms of the practicalities - as every session is submitted to the EBU, the number of boards played by each player is known and calculating that player's UMS charge is straightforward, and the total charge for the session would be set against the club or county account exactly as at present. No action would be needed by a club were this to be implemented, except for the treasurer who needs to check that the charges are correct - and to help with that a table can be provided where a simple look-up provides the required check.
In terms of fairness, it is surely unfair that a session which runs to 15 boards rather than 14 sees an increase of 50% in the UMS charge, and a change from 35 to 36 boards doubles the charge? These anomalies disappear with the new proposal.
Be assured that nothing is yet settled, and any change would need to be ratified at the November 2024 AGM and would not come into effect until April 2025.
BTW - there was no Competitions Committee involved in this thinking.
Patrick
Hi Patrick
Thank you for your clarifications.
I must say that when I originally raised the YCBA response on this matter, it was to the original draft minute from the January Board meeting. This included mention that the Board considered the proposal to reset UMS at 23p plus 1p per board and the Board agreed to push this out for consultation.
I now see that this minute has changed. There was now no proposal made and the Board reached the flat rate option of 23p+1p per Board by a process of osmosis. Also, the intent is now not to “consult” but to “advise that the Board are looking at this area and to invite thoughts”. A process lower on the decision inclusion scale.
Although this muddies the water, I recognise that these are draft minutes and the Board are within their rights to amend any minute’s wording and intent until it is finalised.
That being said, a lot has already been written and your clarification re-iterates one side of the argument. Certainly, Gordon is concerned that some clubs manipulate their competition board count to avoid a UMS hike.
My main concern is that whilst UMS technically can be totally flexed, clubs are unlikely to have such variability on their overall table money. Clubs that have regular 24/27 sessions will feel the pinch and there may be a considerable backlash (Possible exit of some clubs, particularly mainly smaller clubs with already fragile finances)
My second concern is that this seems a very complex solution to a problem that is not proven or at least does not seem to be major.
If we started from day one with this flexed system and the EBU charged all players directly, then it would be a “fair” system and concerns raised on this Forum would vanish as it would be “fairer”. But this is not the reality. To reach this position disrupts the current Club processes and needs careful change management.
This of course assumes that the technical changes necessary to install flat rate plus per board fee would be light. If they are not, then it is a non-starter or as the Americans say, “The juice is not worth the squeeze”.
Assuming, that software development is minimal, then there is nothing to stop parallel running of the last month’s UMS data under the current and proposed charging system before any commitment decision is made to change. The impact on individual Clubs and Counties could be shared and a fully informed discussion actioned before a point of irreversible implementation is reached.
To me, that seems to be the next step forward.
Regards
David
I don't see it as manipulation. Clubs are entitled to make decisions in their own interests. What I am concerned about is to have a system that doesn't put them in this position, so they can decide on the format that suits them and pay an appropriate amount for it.
This would tell us nothing, since it would be based on the formats used under the current UMS arrangements, not on the formats that might be adopted under a changed system.
Hi Gordon
Surely pre-commitment parallel running would provide a better picture than no data at all.
It would only be massively out from true if the change to charging resulted in a wholesale clubs adoption of different board played numbers per session.
I doubt this would be the outcome.
Club Board numbers per session depend on the time available and the speed of players, not the charging method.
Club open competitions having more boards played are a far lower number and they can be isolated from the regular play stats.
It would be risky if not foolhardy to adopt such a radical charging system without a steer on outcome.
Regards
David
Following on from Davids' final comment April16th
1) It would appear that most years the UM is increased by a penny (there are some moans but usually the increase is voted through). If the manner of charging is going to be a set figure (say 23 pence, plus 1P per board played) then adding a penny to that 23 pence each year does not produce a level playing field with the extra income that would be required to meet a 46 pence charge. How are you going to sell a 2 pence increase (that is likely to produce more income than the normal penny) to the playing public?
2) As David says for a set number of tables there are several movements that result in different numbers of boards being played. Isn't it likely that many smaller clubs (or even the bigger clubs) will start playing movements that fit the time allowed and involve people playing a lesser number of boards. Then slow play is no longer a worry to the club or director, it just means reducing the number of rounds played. After all most people want the social aspect as well as playing bridge. Time could be taken up with longer breaks for tea/coffee/wine.
As I have asked before , what problem is being solved? Is this sugestion just dealing with the symptom of a problem and leaving the problem to develop more symptoms on its own? Saying it will be income neutral for the EBU might actually be counterproductive in future years, Bridge players have long memories.
Has the NGS run its course just like it was thought that masterpoints were no longer the "thing" prior to 2010? Will players want the same process for the county subscriptions? What knock on effect will there be to the Green Point (and Blue point) Licencing fee income?