Draft Minutes of a Meeting of the North Eastern Bridge Association Council held at Newcastle Bridge Club on Friday, 14 September 2007 at 7.30pm

Present: P Durie (Chairman) K Spragg (Vice Chairman, & representing Hartlepool & Middlesborough) S Caygill (Treasurer) I Rankin (Chief Tournament Secretary, & representing Stockton)) I Spoors (NEBA rep to the EBU) A Caygill (MP Secretary) M Baker (Secretary), A Kemp (Morpeth) J Finney (Darlington) D Bryson (Whitley Bay & Tynemouth) J Harrison (Castle Morpeth) R Green (Brunton) G Grant (Parsons) A Bainbridge & D Latner (B Auckland) C Longley (Wearside) A Hauxwell & E Purvis (Tournament Secs) B Shepherd (Newcastle) N Durie (Hurworth) J Gordon (Hexham) D Lambert (Ryton)

Apologies: M Owen, C Owen, B Godfrey, and J McCourt

Chairman’s Opening Remarks The Chairman said it was good to see so many at a Council meeting. Now that her professional workload has reduced, she intends visiting all the clubs not previously visited, and will advise secretaries of her planned date.

1.  Minutes of the previous meeting (St Georges, 21 June). Proposed by D Bryson and seconded by J Gordon, the minutes were unanimously accepted as a true record.

2.  Matters arising from the Minutes.
a. Item 11c. Anne Hauxwell said she had been unaware of the increase in entry fees to NEBA events, and asked that Tournament secretaries should be informed directly of changes to rules, costs etc, as it affected their preparation for events. She also queried the need to move the Gazette cup to later in the year. The Chairman said she had received some adverse comments on the move. It was pointed out that the changed costs had been announced at the AGM, and recorded in the Minutes. I Spoors said that there was no particular reason for the Gazettes to be at any specific time, other than custom. Changes to the calendar had been unavoidable because of other factors, and the draft had been circulated well before it went to print, and with a few notable exceptions no one had responded to the request for comment. Communication is a two way process. The executive will look into programming before next year, and Tournament secretaries will be notified of changes as early as possible.

b. Item 6. Only two clubs had left NEBA, and the reasons had already been documented.

c. Item 11e. One club had responded to the request as to why more clubs did not participate fully in the John Clarke  Salver qualifying events, and that club did participate fully!

3. EBU Strategy Document. The views of the 17 clubs represented were stated and varied considerably. Some clubs had prepared a questionnaire for their members, some had voted on the proposals, and others had left the decisions to the committee. The views of the clubs are at Annex A. I Spoors was able to clarify a number of points on which there was misunderstanding. He summarised NEBA’s position as being that there is no consensus, except that the dropping of the proposed £5 one-off joining fee for non-members was a bad idea; that it appears “frequent players” will be penalised; and that clarification of County funding is required. NEBA will await developments. It was agreed that this should be the tenor of I Spoors report to the EBU at the AGM in October.

4. Any Other Business.

 a. Clive Owen’s achievement on becoming the North East’s first Premier Grand Master was noted, and received a warm response. It was unanimously agreed that the Secretary should write to Clive, conveying Council’s congratulations.

b. NBL Results. S Caygill asked why recent NBL results were not on the website. I Rankin explained that as a result of unavailability and lack of interest it had been possible to field only a “B” team for the last round.  A Hauxwell said that 2 pairs she had included in her response to I Rankin’s requests at the onset of the league had received no feedback. I Rankin undertook to look into the matter.

5.  Date of next meeting. The next meeting of Council is at St Georges on Friday 11 Jan 08 at 7.30pm

There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.15pm                              (M J Baker)       Hon Sec

Annex A

Views of Clubs and Council Members           Annex A to NEBA Council Minutes 14 Sept 07

 Club views on the EBU Strategy Document

The following is a summary of the views expressed

Morpeth. 110 members, 75% EBU members. 80% of members against, and the committee were unanimously opposed. The 30 “social” (i.e. non-EBU) members would gain nothing, and the EBU infrastructure gives nothing for free.

Darlington. Agree with general idea of increasing membership, but sees the scheme as a cash raising exercise. EBU members should still pay a membership fee, with non-members paying extra table money.

Whitley Bay/Tynemouth. 98% EBU membership. No support for scheme as “frequent” players will be penalised which appears unfair. A mixture of membership fee and P2P would be fine.

Castle Morpeth. Too many contradictions in the plan, which is manipulative and insufficiently detailed. 80% of members are EBU members, and in the first 5 years of playing. The 20% who are not, have no interest in NEBA/EBU events. The scheme seems to be aimed at financing a growing EBU bureaucracy and weakening the clubs.

Brunton. 100% EBU membership. The Committee is broadly supportive although a significant minority of members are opposed. Their concerns are centred on the weakening of clubs, rising of table money, and the fear that members will go and play at non-EBU clubs. The Representative expressed a personal view that the complete funding of the EBU through Pay to Play (P2P) is wrong, and there should be a balance between a membership fee and the P2P levy. The concept received considerable support. He also pointed out that the EBU membership fees were the highest in Europe, and the presentation of the package is poor.

Parsons. 40 members, 66% EBU. Some of the non-members would leave if forced to join the EBU.

BH Auckland. Generally not against the proposals, but object to the frequent players contributing a larger portion of the EBU revenue.

Wearside. The Committee is against the plan as frequent players are penalised.

Newcastle 95% EBU. 70% against the scheme because of the increased cost to those who play several times a week. In favour of maintaining the status quo.

Cramlington. Highlighted that the strategy document has not been well marketed. 171 members were circulated with a questionnaire and 64 returned them. 50 were against, and preferred the present system.

Hurworth. 80% EBU. Committee unanimously in favour, although disappointed that MPs still seem to be an extra cost. The scheme was poorly marketed, and the committee realise there are a few dissenters among the membership.

Stockton. The 43p levy was to establish financial parity with the present on the estimated number of tables from a five-year-old census. That information is being updated, and the levy may well be significantly lower that 43p. It will certainly not be above.

Hexham. 70 members, two-thirds EBU. Committee agrees with the proposals in general, and no member has expressed dissent. Doubling the affiliation fee seems steep. Tony Bell enthusiastically in favour.

Ryton. Canvassed the membership (87% EBU) with a summary of the points in the strategy document. Received a substantial response. Those against were concerned that the document was flawed, and the increased cost.

Hartlepool. 100% EBU. No opposition to the proposals.

Middlesborough. 20% EBU. Proposals put to a vote, and the scheme was agreed provided that the P2P levy is not above that projected.

Stockton. Polled membership, and 2 or 3 strongly against. Overall agreed on the basis that “what will be, will be” The extra 30p or whatever is far less that members pay on petrol to reach the venue! The club do not want to lose members, so will absorb any extra cost for as long as practical. The Dutch experience was that after going to Universal membership, numbers initially reduced, but recovered after 3 years, and are now higher than ever.

NEBA Treasurer. The treasurer was concerned as to how NEBA would receive the County funding from the EBU. She and the Masterpoint secretary had calculated the P2P levy at 22p for NEBA in August rather than the EBU figure of 25p. She felt the scheme was unprofessional, in that changes had been made to the document half way through the consultative period. The EBU had stated, “Counties will not lose out”. She had calculated that the average County fee was £4, and NEBA’s was £2 at the time the calculations (by the EBU) were done. If we were reimbursed at £2 per member when the average is £4, NEBA would be subsidising other Counties. The original idea of a one-off £5 joining fee for non members would generate some revenue, which now needed to be replaced – from where? 

Rep to the EBU. Our Rep corrected several misunderstandings apparent from the earlier comments. He stressed that the scheme was intended to be revenue neutral. In response to claims of a growing EBU bureaucracy he pointed out that the EBU staff has reduced from 22.5 to 17.5 under the new general manager. He said that the document is a Strategy document, and not firm proposals that need to be accepted or rejected. The points will change in response to feedback – the skeleton will be fleshed out with our help, and if the principles are sound we should support it. He did not believe NEBA would be heavily penalised, but accepted that there would be some winners and losers in the first year or so. NEBA must decide what it wants – not the EBU deciding for us. The EBU intend paying some of the P2P levy back to clubs/Counties but need to gather more information on the mount of bridge played. For those who do not wish their details to be held on the EBU database, they are able to play under a pseudonym Perhaps Donald Duck will be our second Premier Grand Master!