There seems to be a problem around CFC rating fees.
Some posters have noted that the rating fee for kids' games at the CFC is higher than the CMA fee, and complain about how high the CFC fee is. Others say that the cost of adult rating is nothing, or near nothing ( or should be nothing, if there was a CFC website that could accept direct TD submissions ), and that the rating fee should be lowered.
On other threads dealing with membership/ getting rid of tournament memberships/ CFC finances, a number of posters suggested raising the rating fees for CFC ( either to eliminate membership fees entirely, or to allow a reduction in the annual adult membership fee ). So some do say it isn't a matter of what it costs to do the ratings. It's what's the least objectionable and painful way for CFC to get the $$ it needs to run the organization - and some see raising rating fees as the answer.
On the Old ChessTalk, Aris Marghetis replied:
" Hi Bob, offhand, if the CFC replaced annual membership fees with a per-event fee or per-game fee, then I would prefer that. Of course, I am open to changing my mind if someone does an analysis that indicates that would be a bad idea.
Note though that it should be called a per-event or per-game fee, not a rating fee. In a related way, I have trouble with the current $3 fee being called a rating fee, as it seems that the actual cost of doing the ratings is way less than that. So, to answer your question, unless it is a dramatically incorrect strategic shift, I would probably be more comfortable with a higher per-use fee and no fixed annual fee.
However, I am just one TD, and I admit that I feel more impacted by the CFC-FQE chasm than the vast majority of TDs may be. Therefore, I would accept whatever most key chess people voted in. "
Which side are you on?
Bob
Some posters have noted that the rating fee for kids' games at the CFC is higher than the CMA fee, and complain about how high the CFC fee is. Others say that the cost of adult rating is nothing, or near nothing ( or should be nothing, if there was a CFC website that could accept direct TD submissions ), and that the rating fee should be lowered.
On other threads dealing with membership/ getting rid of tournament memberships/ CFC finances, a number of posters suggested raising the rating fees for CFC ( either to eliminate membership fees entirely, or to allow a reduction in the annual adult membership fee ). So some do say it isn't a matter of what it costs to do the ratings. It's what's the least objectionable and painful way for CFC to get the $$ it needs to run the organization - and some see raising rating fees as the answer.
On the Old ChessTalk, Aris Marghetis replied:
" Hi Bob, offhand, if the CFC replaced annual membership fees with a per-event fee or per-game fee, then I would prefer that. Of course, I am open to changing my mind if someone does an analysis that indicates that would be a bad idea.
Note though that it should be called a per-event or per-game fee, not a rating fee. In a related way, I have trouble with the current $3 fee being called a rating fee, as it seems that the actual cost of doing the ratings is way less than that. So, to answer your question, unless it is a dramatically incorrect strategic shift, I would probably be more comfortable with a higher per-use fee and no fixed annual fee.
However, I am just one TD, and I admit that I feel more impacted by the CFC-FQE chasm than the vast majority of TDs may be. Therefore, I would accept whatever most key chess people voted in. "
Which side are you on?
Bob
Comment