Dear
A few days ago you received an email from Peter
Hasenson, outlining at length his reasons for opposing the Pay-to-Play scheme,
and asking you to circulate that email to your clubs. I would be very
grateful if you could circulate this to all those within your county who
received Peter’s email.
The Board’s proposals for the future of the English
Bridge Union are so important that we welcome all contributions. I would
stress, though, that the Board’s Strategy Document is the result of nearly two
and half years of research, data collection, analysis, extensive consultation
and, all in all, some very hard work by a group of people committed totally to
the service of the English Bridge Union. Whilst it would be foolish to
think we have got everything right, we do believe that our projections are
sufficiently sound to make the proposals viable and that the risks are
containable.
I do not intend to comment in detail on Peter’s
interpretations of our figures, leaving an assessment of their validity to you,
but I would like to make a few general points:
1. For
the EBU to survive there has to be
radical change. Indeed, radical change was required fifteen years ago when
the cracks in the organisation first started to become apparent. Those of
us in charge then knew that the foundations of the EBU were built on sand, but
it took the continuing freefall in membership from 2001 onwards for there to be
a general consensus that something had to be
done.
2.
An indication of an awareness of this
need for change was the almost unanimous support for Universal Membership by the
Shareholders at last year’s AGM, a concept totally rejected eight years earlier
at the AGM of 1999. The Board believes the best way of accomplishing Universal
Membership is through Pay-to-Play and that the fee for the first year should be
29p per player session.
3. The
Board accepts that there will be some clubs who will feel that is not in their
interests to affiliate and that we will lose some initially. However, the
Board is responsible for the state of the game nationally and feels that the
principle of Universal Membership is sufficiently important to accept
reluctantly these losses. When the scheme is operating successfully and the
services that we will be providing to the clubs are seen to be worthwhile, it is
hoped that many of these clubs will re-affiliate.
4.
Concerning the implementation of the scheme, much of the computer infrastructure
required is already in place and is well-proven, so it is neither high risk nor
high cost: the £170K assigned to it is an extremely prudent figure with a large
contingency built in.
The Board has the interests of this great game at heart
and believes Pay-to-Play to be a sensible and workable way of financing the
English Bridge Union, and one that will ensure a stable base for the game’s
future development.
Finally, whilst Peter is entitled to his own views on
the proposals, his suggestions in his Forward and later in the document that I,
as Chairman, somehow have been ‘misled into believing such radical change is
needed’ are as wrong as they are naïve. Those of you who have known me over the
years, and from my published and minuted statements, will know that I have
always been a determined – and often outspoken - advocate of change. For
me, Pay-to-Play is the catalyst for reconstruction that I have been waiting for
from the day I first joined the Board in 1988. Indeed, so convinced am I
of its merit that I believe that,
if it is implemented, in a few years time people will look back and ask why on
earth didn’t someone think of it
before.
I look forward to the Extraordinary
General Meeting on June 4th.
Best wishes,
Chairman,
2nd May 2008