CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

[Bob Armstrong]

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

[John Coleman]

Re: CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

I like the idea of a smaller (zero?) membership fee, and a rating fee.

I don't know how large the rating fee would have to be to equal the current membership fees, and I can't guess how that pricing structure would impact on tournament participation.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

Or - do like the CMA - minimal rating fee; no membership fee; and an optional magazine in either official language.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

At current membership/participation levels, the rating fee would have to increase by 2x to fully cover the shortfall from losing all membership fees. It's not clear in the financial statements if the 50k/yr figure for membership fees includes the provincial fees or not; perhaps Bob can chime in here if he reads this :)

Since it's a flat fee and can be worked directly into the entry fee however and there would no longer be anything "extra" you have to buy... I would personally expect participation to rise. Of course there's the question of whether or not you can get away with rating youth events at $1 per player.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

first -
reduce expenses to a bare minimum. A decent server where TD's could enter results would reduce the rating costs to a bare minimum. The CFC's main role is a rating service and a connection to FIDE everything else should be dropped.

second -
Keep the 'tournament membership'. Nothing will reduce the participation of a casual player than having to buy a yearly membership. Do you really think that a casual 1-2 tournaments/ year player will continue to play if they have to buy a full membership??? might as well stick your middle finger up at these players and say 'your not welcome here'. sure a 40% reduction for the FIRST year might get one membership but forget them when it comes to the second year. As a TD you how do you think the participation from Quebec players will drop if they are forced to buy a full membership? Personally, If the tournament membership is dropped I would be delighted if the BCCF went its own way like Quebec.

Ive never found the CFC rating fee to be too much, and the CFC membership seemed to be worth it when I actually got something for my money (the magazine). It seems that the CFC is doing everything it can to reduce its membership and participation, going into obscurity soon afterwords.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CFC Rating Fees and Membership Fees

Hi Chris:

I think the concept of membership is valid, and that it should cost something ( it will be seen as helping to run the CFC so it can do everything it does outside of rating tournaments ). How about something like $ 5.00.

Then we could raise the rating fee for playing in an event to $ 5.00 per player. It could be shown on tournament advertising, along with the CFC membership, as over and above a registration fee. That should not prove a barrier to participation.

Would these 2 amounts equal the total annual adult lmembership fees + rating fees the CFC received in 2007-8?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: CFC Rating Fees and Membership Fees

Roughly, yes. Again though, we need the clarification about the provincial fees, for some provinces (like Ontario at the moment) that is the sole source of income of the provincial affiliate.
You'd also have to decide if you want to continue offering life memberships or not, and at what price.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CFC Rating Fees and Membership Fees

Hi Chris:

I have now looked at the 2007-8 CFC financials. I think our calculations are off.

There was approx. $ 50,000 revenue from memberships and approx. $ 25,000 from rating fees, for a total of approximately $ 75,000.

If we doubled the current rating fee of $ 3/player/event to $ 6/player/event, then that would raise rating fee revenue to $ 50,000 approx.. Thus memberships would have to still generate $ 25,000. This would be a reduction of 50% allowed.

So the CFC membership could only drop from $ 36 to $ 18. Still this would be a substantial drop, and would lessen CFC membership as a barrier to participation, even with a new $ 6 rating fee. This seems doable, and will compensate for the loss of the tournament memberships, if this restructuring motion passes.

Do these new calculations seem right to you?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: CFC Rating Fees - Purpose?

The membership dues of approx 50k doesn't include provincial dues.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: CFC Rating Fees and Membership Fees

Hi Chris:

I have now looked at the 2007-8 CFC financials. I think our calculations are off.

There was approx. $ 50,000 revenue from memberships and approx. $ 25,000 from rating fees, for a total of approximately $ 75,000.

If we doubled the current rating fee of $ 3/player/event to $ 6/player/event, then that would raise rating fee revenue to $ 50,000 approx.. Thus memberships would have to still generate $ 25,000. This would be a reduction of 50% allowed.

So the CFC membership could only drop from $ 36 to $ 18. Still this would be a substantial drop, and would lessen CFC membership as a barrier to participation, even with a new $ 6 rating fee. This seems doable, and will compensate for the loss of the tournament memberships, if this restructuring motion passes.

Do these new calculations seem right to you?

Bob

Well then, changing the model might not be feasible. In my opinion, it is not the actual amount of the annual membership that poses the greatest barrier, but that there is an annual membership fee at all. This is especially true for intermediate Quebec players who live a few moments from Ottawa. I believe that it would be a public relations disaster to increase the curremt $3 fee, but not eliminate the annual fee (even despite reducing it).

Maybe the next step towards a solution is to determine what rating actually costs. I doubt it is as high as $3, but that amount as a starting point leads to high amounts down the line of calculations. Is there a mapping of where any revenue gets applied to?