Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

    Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

    The receipt of a recent e-mail regarding an upcoming increase in both the rating fee ($3 up to $5) and the tournament membership fee ($10 up to $20) served to give me a certain pause and worry...

    Many of our club members / attendees are players of decidedly casual nature, who, although they enjoy playing chess, either through a lack of time or of desire, do not play in many CFC rated events. It is my opinion, and I imagine the rest of the Hart House Chess executive will agree, that the increase in the tournament membership fee will be a great detriment to our efforts to encourage these players to come out and play in our events.

    While I recognize that the financial situation of the CFC likely requires such an increase fees, the idea that casual or new players (that is players who play three or less tournaments per year, such that under the current fee levels it is more economical for them to purchase three tournament memberships than a full years membership) should be the ones to provide the necessary revenue seems to me singularly ridiculous. While some may suggest that increasing the tournament fee will encourage people to buy full membership, it is quite clear to me that it will in fact encourage them to not play at all.

    Before offering an alternative, allow me to briefly preface my arguments;
    From my perspective, the only thing of marketable value provided to me by the CFC is the maintenance of the ratings lists, tournament records, cross tables and other historical and biographical information pertaining to members. While the webzine exists I must say that given the option of buying a membership for $40 without the webzine or $43 with it I would undoubtedly save the three dollars.

    Thus it is that I have never understood what it is my “membership fee” pays for--- one can only assume from the nomenclature that the $3 “rating fee” has already provided for my games to be rated.

    Since the only service for which I am inclined to provide the CFC any money for is that of maintaining the rating system, I have only been able to justify the $43 “membership fee” on the assumption that this in some way subsidizes the actual cost of maintaining the list. From this comment I do not intend anyone to think I in anyway begrudge the amount of the “membership fee”, I only feel that it is not clear what it purchases.

    With in mind I come to what I feel would be a far more economical and reasonable structuring of CFC fees:

    1.Remove the membership fees entirely, as what one is getting when it is paid is questionable at best and
    2.Increase the rating fee such that it is sufficient to cover the costs of the operation of CFC

    Of course the players must be made responsible for the rating fee, rather then it being secretly looked after by tournament directors.

    The old tournament membership fee of $10 seems an appropriate amount for a rating fee, though I have of course have not done any calculations to arrive at this figure, and it should be due from each player at each tournament. In this way each player could cover their own costs, rather than relatively inactive players subsidizing the costs of hyperactive players.

    I play in quite a few tournaments myself and would not at all mind paying $80 or $90 total throughout the year so long as it was clear what I was paying for. Also I would not mind paying eight or nine times as much as someone who only plays one tournament per year. It seems only fair after all.

    Hart House Chess Secretary
    Stuart Brammall

  • #2
    Re: Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

    well, the CFC does pay dues to FIDE. I understand they amount to perhaps $6 per member. Whatever one's opinions on FIDE may be, belonging to the international organization is a core function for the CFC. Still, one would hope that the CFC would aspire to more than being an inefficient tax collector for FIDE.

    Rating fees, hard to say what a fully loaded (including all overhead) cost is. One would hope it is less than $0.50 as that is what they charge junior tournaments.

    But, otherwise you are right. I have been a member of the CFC for ~35 years and have let my membership lapse. Like you, it's not the cost per se. The webzine is of no value to me and nothing has been put in place to justify the membership rate and the membership fee serves only to reduce the number of tournaments and people playing. Yes there have been financial difficulties but the organization has had a number of years to fix this. If you can't sell the membership to me, someone who places a high value on playing, you can't sell it to casual players. With these fees, the governers have declared that they are not interested in casual or occasional players as members.

    As an organizer, I know that the rates charged are punitive and sharply discourage casual and new players. In areas with a small population base and a small number of tournaments per year, building a chess community has been flattened by the higher tournament membership fee.

    Having said all that, the governers have made their decision. It is a democracy. But, your feet get a vote too.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

      Allo,


      Just want to echo my feelings on how this 100% increase in Tournament Membership fees will likely hurt our club's members significantly :(. Several of our members play in very few, usually internal events. As a university chess club, the membership base is constantly changing and getting new, fresh to CFC Tournament scene potential players all the time.

      On the other topic, I am honestly quite ignorant on how CFC and fees function.
      To me it seems like the biggest thing one gets from the $43 annual / $10 tournament membership is the rating maintenance and website records, or at least that this service is included in this membership. By paying $3 per player per tournament, generally passed along by the organizers, feels like players are paying twice for the same thing . Seems more logical to have one, bigger fee.

      It's also very important that CFC works with FIDE, and unfortunately this must be costly.


      Alex Ferreira
      Hart House Chess Club

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

        What I do at some of my tournaments is ask each participant to pay the rating fee as an extra. I always give back 100% of prize fund after rating fees.

        If you use the Swiss Sys 8 way of reporting then you save $2.00. As rating fees are only $3.00 from what I have read.

        I think the CFC is on the right track with increasing the Tournament fee as it encourages people who play more than 2 tournaments a year to save money.
        I'd assume the majority of players in Canada play more than 2 rated games a year
        so increasing the tournament fee is good for every one.
        And if you only play two rated games a year then you are still saving money.

        I do agree that students are sometimes tight for cash but hey if you know that you are going to play chess at Hart House or at other Toronto sites, would it not make it more practical to pay a yearly membership at the start and play in all tournaments than to limit your participation because you are short of funds.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

          I mentioned this before here, but Ill say it again anyways:

          I wont repeat what Stuart and Alex said, but I agree with all of their points. This will have the same effect at the Queen's university chess club. We have many members who would simply not play tournament chess if the tournament membership fee were increased or eliminated.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hart House Chess and an Opinion on the Fee Structure of the CFC—

            This another example of a mistake by the CFC. As in any business, the way to succeed is DON'T MAKE MISTAKES!

            Comment

            Working...
            X