Tweet
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
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
. Seems more logical to have one, bigger fee.
Comment