T his is the view of one individual from the Southern Counties who has circulated it to most clubs. It is a long document difficult To follow You can see the full version by clicking FULL VERSION. Here is an edited extract which omits about 40%.
It's a bit of a rambling document but worth browsing to read individual points

"We want people to join the English Bridge Union not because they have to, but because they want to" Peter Stocken, Chairman, EBU, English Bridge December 2006

"If we, the EBU, adopt this strategy, in two years time we will have achieved the stated aim, namely 'Universal EBU Membership'." EBU April 2008

Duplicate Bridge in England is in decline. It is the job of the EBU to address this problem" We desperately need to develop this mad, wonderful, seductive, enthralling and consuming sport of ours.

But I do not see how the EBU strategy will do so, in any way whatsoever.
It seems to deal only with re-distribution of the national cake, rather than how to make it grow bigger. And it suggests taking two valuable years and spending £170,000 to set up.

We will have to deplete our cash reserves or more probably, we are told, mortgage our building to pay for it.

How much more will we get back in the future? Nothing. Not a penny! And it is by no means certain to succeed. There is very real risk it may fail. The consequences of this would be dire.

Following publication of the July 2007 strategy document, I wrote to our Chairman, Peter Stocken, expressing certain reservations I had regarding P2P and then enquiring whether it really provided a cogent and viable future for the EBU.


I presume he was taking advice from the promulgating committee, MDAG (which was formed during his time away from the Board and on which he has never sat), when he wrote to me,
"…These proposals, Peter, are a coherent, well-researched and viable strategy to create a new and vibrant English Bridge Union...Be constructive"

I put it to you that we, the EBU, would be better off not to adopt these proposals and I trust these pages will help to explain why I reached this conclusion.

How reliable are the returns from our clubs? Did each club manager seek the view of each club member? Did each club diligently check their records for the past year or more? Or did each just estimate their weekly/monthly numbers and extrapolate out according to some factor or other and make an educated guess as to the views of the club members?

Were the clubs asked all the relevant questions? It would have been most helpful if we were told how many clubs do not issue master points at all, and how they voted.
And of course it would have been the most helpful if the clubs had been asked whether they wished to maintain the status quo (perhaps even with a moderate price increase) or progress to P2P.
Or perhaps, asked if they and their members would support a reasonably low rate flat fee universal membership system.

If the clubs over-estimated their numbers by as little as one table per week, the resulting swing would be about 200,000 player sessions a year overall.

59% of the 634 clubs surveyed would be likely to remain affiliated should P2P fee be reasonable, representing some 64% of activity of the survey sample.

Most of the remaining 316 clubs which would opt out are smaller and those indicating a likelihood of disaffiliating were predominantly smaller clubs, so the loss of 20% of these equated to a loss of only 15% of player-sessions'.

Having received returns from only 634 of 950 clubs, the EBU was left with the task of deciding how to extend the survey to the full population. The obvious way to do this was to simply factor the number of player sessions by 950/634 and this was the method adopted .

Any Statistician would have told them this method is flawed because there is a significant assumption in this namely that the remaining 316 clubs are statistically the same as the 634 that replied.'

Be that as it may, the EBU based their projections on there being some 2.77m player sessions a year in affiliated clubs, of which some 2.2m were master pointed.

Master Point (MP) revenue is approximately £255,000 p.a. from the clubs inclusive of VAT. MPs cost 38p (inc. VAT) per certificate and are awarded to the top third of the field, thus MPs cost 13.15p per person per session of duplicate pairs .

Revenue of £255,000 a year suggests there are around 1,932,000 master pointed sessions in our clubs each year.

To reach the figure for total club sessions, first one must add back an amount to account for clubs that take advantage of the system by not awarding sufficient MP certificates.

Let us assume this lost revenue represents 100 tables per week or some 20,800 player sessions p.a. This makes the approximate total number of master pointed sessions in our clubs 1,952,800. Then, assuming 80% of the sessions in our clubs are master pointed, it follows that there are a total of some 2,441,000 sessions in our clubs in total each year not 2,770,000.

If the proposed figure of 29p (excluding the additional 1p from county leagues, knock outs, etc) is applied to 2,441,000 sessions, it produces: Income Profit/Loss (£670,000 base)
100% affiliation £730,000 £60,000 profit
95% affiliation £695,000 £25,000 profit
90% affiliation £660,000 £10,000 loss
85% affiliation £620,000 £50,000 loss
80% affiliation £585,000 £85,000 loss
75% affiliation £550,000 £120,000 loss
70% affiliation £515,000 £155,000 loss
65% affiliation £475,000 £195,000 loss
60% affiliation £440,000 £230,000 loss (59% say they will affiliate)
55% affiliation £403,000 £267,000 loss
50% or less the end of the EBU as we know it!

Therefore a re-evaluation of the proposed P2P charge is necessary and I calculate this as follows :
100% affiliation 26p
95% affiliation 28p
90% affiliation 30p
85% affiliation 32p
80% affiliation 34p
75% affiliation 36p
70% affiliation 38p
65% affiliation 41p
60% affiliation 45p
55% affiliation 49p
50% affiliation 54p



Next, one must consider how much will it cost the EBU to service each of the 25,000 or so new members with six magazines, a diary & annual mailing and EBL/WBF subscriptions? Probably about £1.50-1.75, £0.75-£1.00p and £0.75 respectively or about£80,000 p.a. in total, equivalent to about 4p.

Incidentally WBF subs are set rise substantially in 2010. A further 1p is needed for capping and everything else. The scheme is not due to be launched until 2010 so it seems prudent to add a further 1p to cover inflation (+- equivalent of increasing annual membership by £1.00).

$64,000 question: What P2P price will the club players tolerate?
£670,000 question: How many clubs will join in and how many players will remain playing at those clubs?

The Board based their figures on a projected loss of 20% of clubs/members. However they stated, 'all the evidence suggests that the projected loss of 20% of clubs may be pessimistic

I am not in receipt of this evidence but am drawn to the conclusion there are two distinct types of affiliated clubs; those that issue MPs and those that do not and clearly they have different probabilities of remaining affiliated should P2P be implemented. It stands to reason that those clubs currently issuing MPs are quite likely sign up to P2P.

And likewise, I see no logical or emotive argument to suggest those clubs which choose not to pay just over 13p for MPs, will pay substantially more in the future for P2P.

I am inclined to suggest between 60% and 90% of those clubs issuing Master Points and between 0% and 30% of the balance would adopt P2P. This represents 1.15m to 1.9m player sessions per year and equates to a P2P charge, to be paid by all players in all EBU clubs from April 2010, of between 45p and 68p, together with county variations as necessary.

Whilst we may double the number of EBU members, the loss of so many clubs and their players would be hugely detrimental in the long term. How many clubs would we lose?

How many of the current 58,750 club members will remain in EBUland? And how many new people will become paid up members of the EBU?

An Alternative
If a universal membership plan is desirable then one that emulated the Scottish/Australian systems would be more attractive. In these cases their magazines are by subscription and the membership fee is kept to a minimum (£5/6).

A modest universal membership plan is something we could sell to our membership but let that be the clear objective. The magazine is very good and should stand alone finding a ready market among the 60,000 members one could hope to achieve. The simpler plan should be available for faster implementation.

Consider the following extract from the Minutes of Council of Warwickshire CBA held on 28th November 2007
Feedback from meeting with the EBU on 06 09 07 "…Sally's view is that "something must be done" to combat decline in membership. It was not explained in my view how this would be achieved by P2P. It (Universal membership via fixed rate membership subscription, Ed) was stated to be used successfully in some countries in Europe. However it was admitted that its introduction in Poland had caused problems for 5 years. Other concerns expressed were as to financial risks in adopting the scheme, and impact on Clubs, and members.

EBU finances must be seen to be brought under control!
Representatives repeatedly referred to this aspect in derogatory terms, in particular the absence of any business plan or 5 year forecast, the cost of employing more liaison officers, and the future of English Bridge magazine.

To many people, sadly, EBU membership is a tax on playing for which you get a quite interesting magazine. They would rather see the money go on better biscuits or a reduction in table money or to charity.

Any organisation that is sanguine about seeing 20% of its membership base walk away (on their figures) has its priorities all wrong.

I always defend the EBU strongly and I am sure they are doing their best. I know they are mostly well intentioned people with the good of bridge at heart. Sadly, that view is not widely shared and many think this is all an empire building exercise.

I think one of the problems is that traditionally, it has been run by the county elites and this has allowed a huge gulf to open up between the rank and file bridge players who play once a week or so in their local club and the county/ EBU.

Sorry to bend your ear like this and of course these views are purely personal. I am really rather worried about the future of the game I love and which has given me so much.

"Pay to Play" Scheme Implementation Plan
Start up 06/08 "Pay to Play" proposal put before EGM
07/08 Establish "Pay to Play" Implementation Group
10/08 Produce detailed project plan IT and Software
07/08 Produce IT project plan
07/08 Finalise agreement with suppliers
04/09 Develop software and systems
01/09 Define hardware and network requirements; Order servers and other hardware
04/09 Update Aylesbury hardware and networks
07/09 System test software
10/09 Beta test software
12/09 Update & finalise systems and software
04/10 Go live Finance & Administration
05/09 Finalise EBU/Club contract
07/09 Send contract to clubs for signature
09/09 All contracts returned to Aylesbury
NOTE Clubs are required to sign a 12 month contract before the P2P rate is established
10/09 Finalise 2010 "Pay to Play" fee (October AGM) National Rating Scheme (NRS)
07/08 Set up NRS sub-committee
09/08 Define NRS structure 03/09 Embed NRS in Software 06/09 Trial NRS and amend as necessary Governance 07/08 Define changes to Bye-Laws and Articles of Association 06/09 Shareholders asked to agree changes Sounds like an enormous amount of work, time, money, effort, meetings, obstacles, pitfalls and distractions! Our professional advisors will be rubbing their hands in glee!

Concerned about the delay in the formal Shareholder vote, I consulted with a politician. I was informed best practice suggested 'the principle' should be voted on first and if 75% agreement was reached, 'the detail' could then be dealt with later by a simple majority.

I conferred with a solicitor. He informed me that if he were a Shareholder, he would be minded to suggest to the Directors that adopting these proposals (in general) and incurring huge expenditure without guarantee they be approved (in particular), may well be deemed a breach of their responsibilities. He further suggested asking the Directors if they were aware that it is possible they could be held accountable, jointly and severally, for their actions and any financial loss that may arise.

An accountant advised we should not reduce the annual subscription below the marginal cost of each extra member. He also observed that what starts out as disruptive often evolves into destructive and it would not be prudent to reduce Membership and Master Point income into one revenue source.

I sent the Strategy document to a (bridge playing) management consultant. He replied: "The EBU document you sent me purports to deliver a strategy "to elevate and maintain the status and procure the advancement of the game of Bridge in England" but, in reality, does nothing of the sort.
1. There is little in the way of strategy.
2. It is unclear how P2P in itself delivers the elevation and maintenance of the status of Bridge, let alone the advancement of the game.
3. The proposed new services, such as the National Rating Scheme, are not in any way dependent on P2P.
4. If the EBU wants to increase the circulation of English Bridge, why not send it to those who request it (a la Mr Bridge's Bridge) or get the clubs to distribute it to non-EBU members.
5. It is very dangerous to extrapolate from the two-thirds of clubs that did respond to all clubs as the most likely reasons for non-response are lack of support for the EBU, lack of support for the proposals, smaller size of clubs, etc. As a consequence, it is very likely the EBU has over-estimated the support for and income from P2P.
6. I haven't seen any evidence, and none is provided, that other countries have adopted P2P and what the effects have been.
7. £170,000 is an enormous amount of money (both in absolute terms and most especially in relation to the EBU's assets) to spend to achieve no material reward whatsoever.
8. Two years is an enormous amount of time to spend to achieve no material reward whatsoever.
9. This strategy will not put one more bum on one more seat of any bridge club in England!

The most important question that the paper does not answer is why are there so many bridge players who do not belong to the EBU? Until we understand this, we cannot possibly devise a strategy to bring them into the fold, P2P or no P2P. In conclusion, I believe it is not in anybody's interests for these proposals to be pursued.

To my mind only more 'bums on seats' will revitalise our clubs. Easier said than done! One idea, copied from the ACBL, would be to pay 75% of all advertising costs made by our clubs to attract beginners to the game (ACBL limit this to US$1,000 per club per year). As with the ACBL, we could insist the EBU logo is used on all qualifying advertising. In time this will undoubtedly lead to an increased membership as well as more people playing in master pointed sessions.

It is interesting to note that for the year ending March 2007, the only one of our four main sources of revenue (Competitions, Master Points, Membership and Shop Sales) to show an increase was Membership! Over 10,000 people play in county, league and national events each year. Over 18,000 people registered master points last year. Around 60,000 people play in EBU clubs. Some members do not even play bridge anymore but have always been EBU members and probably always will be. From little acorns…

I believe we have been far too ambitious in our thinking and for far too long. We have witnessed a succession of questionable projects including 2003 Development Plan, Kettering, CASS, Educational CD, etc. Each incurred considerable resources; each was not a success. But none caused long term damage.

If this strategy is implemented and fails, the very future of the EBU, as we now know it, could be in doubt. The EBU has existed in its present format for many years. Annual membership income has increased by over £25,000 since 2001 whilst master point revenue has fallen. Whoever invented MPs was a genius as they provide a mechanism for raising substantial annual revenue from both members and non-members alike. I find it difficult to throw all this away when everyone is broadly content with the current arrangements.

In conclusion, and I am sorry to be a killjoy, but I believe the proposals put forward are specious and that our Chairman, Peter Stocken, has been misled into believing such 'radical change' is merited. I implore our chairman, Peter Stocken, to abandon these proposals and instead turn his and his fellow Director's attention and considerable energies towards improving the sales, performance and efficiencies of the EBU, reducing our costs and educating the masses.

"Dear County Secretary, On reading and analysing the Final EBU Proposals, five local Hampshire Club Committees and a District League have become convinced that, if they are endorsed at the EBU EGM by the Shareholding Counties, it will prove to be disastrous, not only to the EBU itself, but could also threaten the continued existence of many Counties and Clubs.

A simultaneous copy of this e-mail is being sent to the EBU Chairman and copies of the Recommendation Paper are also being sent to our own County (Hampshire and Isle of Wight) Chairman and to all Clubs affiliated to our County in a separate e-mail.