some comments about CFC meeting

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

  • some comments about CFC meeting

    From finance file:

    What is "Adjustment to deferred revenue" in Membership revenue?

    Magazine - is only 8 k in 2017 year vs 15 k in 2016. What is it deliberately not produced to save monies and be in black?

    2019 Open bid
    Looks interesting from tourism point but lack details on chess side:

    Schedule for Open (9 rounds) and CYCC (7 rounds)? Rounds during day time or in evening? Any double round days?
    Sections in Open (4) - how split? CYCC only 6? No girls anymore?
    Time control 40/90+SD/30 + 30 s inc - better to remove 40 moves and use like 120 min + 30 sec. The organizer will not provide equipment 100% thus there will be mix of clocks, settings will be not properly supervised if players will bring own; some clocks will be banged several time back and forth, and move counter not corrected.
    While tie breaks might be not used in Open; they are critical in CYCC. What kind?
    Prize fund - only in the budget without splitting in sections.

    It is not clear how many players they expect creating a budget.

  • #2
    Re: some comments about CFC meeting

    Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    From finance file:

    What is "Adjustment to deferred revenue" in Membership revenue?

    Magazine - is only 8 k in 2017 year vs 15 k in 2016. What is it deliberately not produced to save monies and be in black?

    2019 Open bid
    Looks interesting from tourism point but lack details on chess side:

    Schedule for Open (9 rounds) and CYCC (7 rounds)? Rounds during day time or in evening? Any double round days?
    Sections in Open (4) - how split? CYCC only 6? No girls anymore?
    I have already mentioned this last to them. Assuming they are the only bid it will go to the executive and we will work out these details before accepting.


    Time control 40/90+SD/30 + 30 s inc - better to remove 40 moves and use like 120 min + 30 sec. The organizer will not provide equipment 100% thus there will be mix of clocks, settings will be not properly supervised if players will bring own; some clocks will be banged several time back and forth, and move counter not corrected.
    While tie breaks might be not used in Open; they are critical in CYCC. What kind?
    Prize fund - only in the budget without splitting in sections.

    It is not clear how many players they expect creating a budget.
    I would infer that they are expecting 200 (contribution to youth fund) to 250 (rating fees) for CYCC and unclear on CO as it looks like 220 by the rating fee.
    Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Tuesday, 22nd August, 2017, 12:04 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: some comments about CFC meeting

      Hi Egis,

      I answered your first 2 questions at the AGM.

      Bob

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: some comments about CFC meeting

        Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
        From finance file:

        Time control 40/90+SD/30 + 30 s inc - better to remove 40 moves and use like 120 min + 30 sec. The organizer will not provide equipment 100% thus there will be mix of clocks, settings will be not properly supervised if players will bring own; some clocks will be banged several time back and forth, and move counter not corrected.
        The time control that they listed is a more common one than 120+30, as for equipment if they would like I am sure Alberta can assist with some equipment during tournament time.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: some comments about CFC meeting

          Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
          I answered your first 2 questions at the AGM.
          From there:
          Adjustment to deferred revenue - Each year we calculate the amount of unexpired membership dues, and that amount appears on the Balance Sheet as "Deferred Revenue". For instance, if your membership expires August 1, then your have 3 months left on your membership as of April 30, so 25% of your dues (3/12) is included in "deferred revenue" and included in revenue next year.
          In 2014 & 2015 those numbers were without () and they added towards reported revenue. What that means?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: some comments about CFC meeting

            There is $2000 in "credit card charges". Is this (1) payment of credit card bills past the due date? Or (2) The 3% or so that credit card companies take per transaction - "transactions" being mostly (if not all) for memberships.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: some comments about CFC meeting

              Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post
              There is $2000 in "credit card charges". Is this (1) payment of credit card bills past the due date? Or (2) The 3% or so that credit card companies take per transaction - "transactions" being mostly (if not all) for memberships.
              I'm pretty sure it's #2. Also transactions for youth chess. Parents pay us, we pay organizers.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                Is it too late to propose a k-factor of 48 for Quick ratings under 1800?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                  Originally posted by Tony Li View Post
                  Is it too late to propose a k-factor of 48 for Quick ratings under 1800?
                  Changes to the rating system can happen at any time, Tony. A formal request would go to Paul LeBlanc, Rating Auditor.

                  Just to be clear, you are suggesting that for players under 1800 they would get 24 points for beating a player with same rating instead of the 16 they get now. To me this would have no net effect if your tournament demographic consisted of players mostly rated Under 1800.

                  What are the observations from your rating pool ?

                  As you no doubt know most of the problems with ratings come from rapidly improving junior players. Also if your Regular rating tournaments are more numerous than your Quick chess events, this could cause for even more rapid deflation (with juniors).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                    Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post
                    There is $2000 in "credit card charges". Is this (1) payment of credit card bills past the due date? Or (2) The 3% or so that credit card companies take per transaction - "transactions" being mostly (if not all) for memberships.
                    I believe that this is the latter plus the 3% that paypal takes as many of our payments are processed through paypal. The CFC does not have a credit card so it can't be the former.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                      Years ago the CFC used to have a credit card that doubled as their membership card, I think.
                      Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
                      Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                        Originally posted by Tony Li View Post
                        Is it too late to propose a k-factor of 48 for Quick ratings under 1800?
                        Tony, I think the best way to tackle the under rated juniors problem is thru the bonus rating system.
                        It is working, but I think we need to be more aggressive.
                        One suggestion I made recently: Bonus system (B2) gives 20 additional rating points for those achieving a new high rating. For a kid who maybe is rising thru the ranks of the U1200 group, 20 points is nothing. Make it 100 or even 200 bonus points (for those U1200).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                          Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
                          Tony, I think the best way to tackle the under rated juniors problem is thru the bonus rating system.
                          It is working, but I think we need to be more aggressive.
                          One suggestion I made recently: Bonus system (B2) gives 20 additional rating points for those achieving a new high rating. For a kid who maybe is rising thru the ranks of the U1200 group, 20 points is nothing. Make it 100 or even 200 bonus points (for those U1200).
                          Paul might be willing to try something like this for Quick Chess Ratings, as an experiment.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                            How do I contact Paul?

                            Currently certain geographies have so few Quick tournaments that many juniors are 500+ underrated vs Regular. It would be good to have a regular floor adjustment for juniors e.g. within 200-300 points of Regular. Also having a higher k-factor has no net impact on ratings but brings juniors closer faster.

                            I personally believe 1-day tournaments will be what is required to expand CFC membership, and addressing quick ratings is important. Although there is currently significant tailwind from juniors entering the system, it will eventually reach equilibrium with a large number existing in the teenage/university years when full weekend commitments no longer possible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: some comments about CFC meeting

                              Regarding finances:

                              Contribution to Olympic team (note 10), however the note 10 is somehow general.
                              "10. Notice to Reader
                              These financial statements have been prepared by management from the books and records of the organization. They have not been auditied or reviewed by independent accountants"

                              FQE is mentioned once - "Add: contributions (FQE) -". Has FQE contributed over 2016/17? Is a contract over?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X