Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

[Garland Best]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

The CFC is not the only national organization that has an issue of perceived value. Look at Scouts Canada.

To have your son join scouts you have to pay $165/year. Of that, only FIFTEEN DOLLARS stays with your local troop. The rest goes to the Scouts Canada head office.

When you has what Scouts Canada actually does with that money, at best you will get a shrug from the local scout leaders. it's not for the badges, clothing and so on. You have to buy those.

Meanwhile you have to raise money for the local troops with apple day, dinners, etc.

Yet parents pony up every year, including me.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

I hear what you're saying but if you can afford to travel to Europe to play in FIDE events does an extra $38.00 a year for an adult CFC membership really hurt that much?

Prices go up. I wouldn't mind replacing Beware for under $1,000. but it's not gonna happen. Costs go up.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

Kerry, don't forget FIDE ratings. CFC has the FIDE lemonade stand.

Ah yes, the FIDE aspect ... and IllusionOf keeps changing the playbook. Some tournaments are FIDE rated (or perhaps some sections are FIDE rated) provided the tournament is registered well in advance with the mother ship and the arbiter/TD has paid his fee to FIDE etc. Too much BS in my opinion. But, I'll grant you that point: if you want to play in FIDE rated events in Canada you need a CFC membership to get that.

Edit: I put that "in Canada" part at first, but then I wondered: if I wanted to play in a tournament in Europe (say), is it required that I be a member of my home federation?? Is that a FIDE requirement?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

Kerry, don't forget FIDE ratings. CFC has the FIDE lemonade stand.

I don't know a single adult who would go to a church, as an example, 10 times a year and only leave a total of $38. on the collection plate. That amount is insignificant.

One thing I found with doubling the membership fee with CCCA was the dropout rate fell. There were less people joining and doing silent withdrawals which tended to ruin the event for the other players. To be clear, the decision wasn't mine alone. The executive had to agree.

If the CFC feels the current rates are enough to run their programs and carry out their mandate to promote chess chess that's great. Otherwise they should do the right thing and increase the fees and also the life membership fees so they do have enough money.

It's OK to run an organization conservatively. However, it's necessary to set membership fees prudently and look to the future.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

...
The CFC adult membership fee of $38. a year plus provincial dues is a joke. One chess lesson probably cost almost that much if not more.

Determining the price point of a CFC membership is tricky. It all depends on perceived value.
Prospective members always ask the question 'what do I get for my CFC membership fee?'

At the moment, there are two items I can think of:

1. the potential to get tournament games rated by the CFC
2. the CFC newsletter

Other more intangible points like 'good karma from being in an association of chess players' and the like are non-starters in my opinion.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

Doubling the membership fees without increasing services in a way that is meaningful to the average member would be a suicidal course of action in my opinion. Doubling the membership fees could cut in half the number of people willing to join the CFC if the demand follows a normal downward sloping demand curve. This in turn would cut rating fees in half so you might even see a decrease in net income as a result depending on the slope of the demand curve.

When the CCCA did it we lost maybe 5 per cent of the members. Over the next few years the membership grew considerably. The CFC's part of the membership (without the provincial tack on) would mostly make the membership increase less than double.

If the organization doesn't need an increase in revenue then maintain the current fee status.

When I see an organization which is changing the president almost every year it looks to me like there's a problem. In this case my guess is there isn't enough money to fund the programs.

The CFC adult membership fee of $38. a year plus provincial dues is a joke. One chess lesson probably cost almost that much if not more.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

The CFC doesn't need charitable status to be viable.

You are correct. We do need charitable status or some equivalent such as sporting federation status in order to be able to receive corporate donations for certain activities that we engage in such as sending teams to an olympiad or kids to WYCC or World Junior events. Small corporate donations in the $500 to $1500 range are relatively easy to come by if you are a charitable group.

Some time ago I suggested doubling the membership fees and overhauling the life membership fee to reflect the higher life expectancies. It hasn't been done.

Doubling the membership fees without increasing services in a way that is meaningful to the average member would be a suicidal course of action in my opinion. Doubling the membership fees could cut in half the number of people willing to join the CFC if the demand follows a normal downward sloping demand curve. This in turn would cut rating fees in half so you might even see a decrease in net income as a result depending on the slope of the demand curve.

Life membership fees are a bargain for individuals who wish to play tournament chess for a lifetime. They are also a bargain for the CFC because we get players to commit to a lifetime of being a member.

A national organization can not be properly run on chump change, in my opinion of course.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

The CFC doesn't need charitable status to be viable. Some time ago I suggested doubling the membership fees and overhauling the life membership fee to reflect the higher life expectancies. It hasn't been done.

A national organization can not be properly run on chump change, in my opinion of course.

[Larry Bevand]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

Hi Steve,

We incorporated the Chess'n Math Association as a not-for profit organization in 1985 in Quebec. If I had known what I know today (in otherwords I never expected the organization to grow to this extent) I would have done things differently. So basically CMA is a not-for-profit that can do business in Quebec and Ontario...with affiliates in other provinces. We can not issue tax receipts...however I guarantee you that if you donate to our organization, your money will be used wisely as per your request...as long as I am in charge. We receive about $5,000 a year in private donations (NO TAX RECEIPTS) while the rest of our revenues come from our programs and our retail sales. We are doing extremely well these days thanks to the incredible work done by our Toronto Director, Francis Rodrigues, his family (Clara, Gary and Kirk) and his team of staff and teachers.

I did see a lawyer on getting a National charitable status. Essentially (if my memory is still good)...we would have to wind down the CMA and re-incorporate Nationally as a charity. All I remember is that is was very complicated and there were no guarantees. Gary Gladstone (AN AWESOME GUY!) has been very helpful (and patient with me! :) on this matter.

I will speak with him this week and see what I misunderstood on this :).

My dream today: The Chess'n Math Association be recognized as a Canadian Charity with the objective of bringing the game of chess to Canadian youngsters. Is this possible? From what I understand it is more complicated than it sounds :)

Larry

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

Hi Vlad:

I wasn't involved with the CFC issue and IANAL and I don't claim expertise or direct knowledge.

However, to become a charity an entity has to have a stated "purpose" (i.e. research for cancer cures). The CFC (and CMA I believe) had "education" as one of their stated purposes, along with "promoting chess". While "promoting chess" may or may not be something that the Canadian government approves of (apparently not right now), they have almost always approved of education.

Education charities have become a kind-of industry in recent years. Very fashionable. You can hear their ads on 680News dealing with Math skills, Phonics, etc. There has also been a huge growth in private schools all of which have applied to be "charities". The CFC got swept up in what was a larger review of all charities, particularly those claiming "education" as a purpose.

Bob Armstrong is very right to point out that the CFC did not "get its license revoked" because of fraudulent receipts. They were "delisted" along with all sorts of other organizations because couldn't demonstrate that they were (still) a legitimate charity.

If the CFC had issued the tax receipt for a targeted $15K donation so they would have been complicit in a fraud on the Canadian taxpayers for roughly $7.5K and there is NO QUESTION that would have been caught. Last I saw that would have been a sizable chunk of the CFC's entire operating budget. As Patrick Kirby said, there was nothing stopping the sponsor from giving either the whole amount or the after-tax amount directly.

Steve

(BTW Bob A., this would have happened regardless of which government was in power--this issue had been building for some time.)

(Vlad, it would have made a LOT of sense if the loss of charitable status was inevitable to stop fighting and hang onto what was already donated.)

(I don't know what the situation is with CMA, but there is no question they provide education, whereas the CFC would be hard-pressed to explain it. I don't know whether CMA was reviewed. Larry B. probably knows the most about any of this stuff.)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

And for those that will criticize the CFC for not staying on top of various stuff...the officers are volunteers, and not really answerable to all you perfectionists as to what or not they have to spend their life doing. I'm not sure what more you all expect, but until the money starts flowing into the CFC from the members, you get what you get!

My understanding is that the decision to not fight the loss of charitable status came down to the fear that if they fought the decision too hard that they might lose the Foundation assets that had been built up. Not fighting might have been a reasonable decision based on the assets which finance a portion of the CFC budget versus the likely cost in charitable donations which were not particularly significant in recent years. I wish that they had continued the fight as the loss of those assets was an unlikely outcome in my opinion but like you say the people doing the fighting were volunteers with a limited amount of time and energy.

It takes a significant amount of time and energy just to maintain the status quo and fight entropy.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

It seems that some posters on here don't know what happened a few years ago. This is when a few parents of kids going to the WYCC asked the CFC to give them tax receipts for their expenses in funding their kids costs to attend the CYCC. The CFC obliged, and then found that Revenue Canada correctly took a very dim view of this finagling, and ultimately rescinded their charitable status.

It was a very bad scene, and the president at the time abruptly resigned mid term, for fear of possible legal entanglements. Surprised he is still in organized chess?

And for those that will criticize the CFC for not staying on top of various stuff...the officers are volunteers, and not really answerable to all you perfectionists as to what or not they have to spend their life doing. I'm not sure what more you all expect, but until the money starts flowing into the CFC from the members, you get what you get!

Hi Fred:

What you have said is not quite accurate, though the popular belief. It is true that Revenue Canada was investigating CFC transactions. But our pro bono lawyer was putting up a stiff battle that the CFC was OK. It had turned into a Mexican standoff for many years. RC did nothing.

Then the PC Government went hunting generally for charities they felt should never have gotten charitable status in the first place initially...that at that time they didn't qualify, and should never have received charitable status. CFC came on the radar on this second ground, while the first ground was still deadlocked.

CFC fought to show its "educational" elements, but RC ruled that CFC's purpose had to be "totally educational" to qualify. Clearly CFC is not this. CFC has no successful legal argument to entitle it to keep its charitable status.

Ergo, CFC's Charitable Status was rescinded, not on the ground of wrong issuing of tax receipts in the case you mentioned, but because CFC never was a "Charity" under the strict definition, and should never have qualified when it first applied for charitable status.

It was never charged that CFC did anything wrong (there was just an investigation, and then ongoing negotiations). And there was nothing CFC could have done not to lose its charitable status. It fought the good fight, but was destined to lose.

Bob Armstrong, CFC Public Relations Coordinator.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

It seems that some posters on here don't know what happened a few years ago. This is when a few parents of kids going to the WYCC asked the CFC to give them tax receipts for their expenses in funding their kids costs to attend the CYCC. The CFC obliged, and then found that Revenue Canada correctly took a very dim view of this finagling, and ultimately rescinded their charitable status.

It was a very bad scene, and the president at the time abruptly resigned mid term, for fear of possible legal entanglements. Surprised he is still in organized chess?

And for those that will criticize the CFC for not staying on top of various stuff...the officers are volunteers, and not really answerable to all you perfectionists as to what or not they have to spend their life doing. I'm not sure what more you all expect, but until the money starts flowing into the CFC from the members, you get what you get!

[Ed Zator]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

The whole story doesn't make much sense to me. If they give $15,000 and receive a donation credit worth $x, their effective donation is $15,000 - $x.

If the CFC declined to issue them a tax receipt what would be stopping them from just donating the after tax amount?

Because the X here is the $15,000! Sponsors that want a tax credit to cover their donation, want taxpayers to foot the bill.

But it is unfortunate that the rules can't allow sponsoring individuals. The government is worried about kickback schemes
by companies to dodge paying their taxes.

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Anton Kovalyov in an article on "Spraggett on Chess" website

The whole story looks self-serving and fishy to me. Patrick is dead on. This alleged sponsor could simply have given the money without a receipt or if he was really picky give the after-tax amount as Kirby suggests. Particularly given the pitiful sums involved.