New CFC membership fees:

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Income is going to be lost WITH this proposal.

[Aris Marghetis]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

How could it be Les? Or in other words, how could something so dramatic not have come from someone who would be in charge of implementing it successfully? I cannot see how Les, a successful responsible lawyer, would push something so dramatic through, but not go for election to a major post in order to attempt to implement it, adjust it, etc.

If it was Les, then I apologize, and admit that I have no idea what's happening ... :(

[Steve Douglas]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Gary, I don't think your comment is very fair to Chris. He's been quite open with his criticisms of procedure and the motion itself. To say that less than a week into something he should already be blaring his trumpet and getting the rabble to grab their nearest pitchfork is a bit much.

BTW, has David Lavin posted here recently? Have any of the governors who voted in this motion? How about the one who moved it? How about the one who seconded it?

Steve

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Income is going to be lost WITH this proposal.

If that's the case, and I'm not sure it will be, then make a proposal that will gain income.

We have to get real about this. They want trips to places all over the world, Olympics, World Junior, pay the entry for the events, apply for their titles, pay for their titles, pay to change their federations, pay pocket money, give honourary memberships, weekly ratings, etc. Who should pay for all this stuff? If they don't want to play and get CFC rated they might as well be playing tic tac toe.

Most rating fee money likely comes out of tournament entry fees. Most juniors never get any of that and those who do will simply get a little less.

I think you are trying to convice me the parents who paid those large entry fees for the CYCC care if the CFC charges 50 cents or 5 dollars to rate the games. That dog doesn't hunt.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

The CYCC is a very small part .. in fact a miniscule part of the overall body of rated youth chess in Canada. So while I agree the CYCC could absorb these increases, I highly doubt most of the rest will even try given a ready alternative in the CMA.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Gary, I don't think your comment is very fair to Chris. He's been quite open with his criticisms of procedure and the motion itself. To say that less than a week into something he should already be blaring his trumpet and getting the rabble to grab their nearest pitchfork is a bit much.

BTW, has David Lavin posted here recently? Have any of the governors who voted in this motion? How about the one who moved it? How about the one who seconded it?

Steve

Chris only became treasurer yesterday and today he's already criticising the policy that was passed at the meeting. That without any alternate plan and the reason appears to be the fee is more than it used to be.

Let's look at it. There are around 1800 members. There were 375 junior and participating junior members. I figure if the juniors who don't want to pay for the work they create and is done on their behalf, then too bad, so sad.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

The CYCC is a very small part .. in fact a miniscule part of the overall body of rated youth chess in Canada. So while I agree the CYCC could absorb these increases, I highly doubt most of the rest will even try given a ready alternative in the CMA.

The numbers of juniors on the CFC web membership page isn't that high. Now if you're telling us there are so many more who are being rated, then explain why the CFC is doing all the work for them and losing money?

Why pay someone to do ratings at 50 cents per junior when it probably doesn't even pay for his time?

The CMA ratings are really nice and for those players who have no ambition on the national or international scale it's all that is needed. Still the thought of a parent paying for chess tutoring and not wanting the CFC and national scene is laughable. They pay hundreds for a couple of days tutoring with a GM but 5 dollars rating fee for an entire event, now way.

I don't beleive it.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

You refer to the policy that was improperly and possibly illegally passed at the meeting, without consulting me (the new treasurer) or 90% of the other Governors?

I've already proposed an alternative plan before the AGM even happened. Sell off remaining inventory, sell the rights to be the CFC's official books and equipment seller (whether it be to CMA or whomever) for a fixed monthly fee, and then get an office that's of reasonable size for what remains. You don't have to downsize all the way as others have proposed; that (combined with new technology like a modern website and ratings system) would allow you to reduce most office-related expenses, especially salary. You also don't have the trouble of a store and the skillset required of the office becomes more focussed, doable by one full time person.

This would also be a much more stable environment for the CFC - get out of one business we're doing poorly in (sales), don't get into another like some want (being a landlord which you know someone down the road will screw up) ...

Obviously it would still need fleshing out with full details. But I think you would find that model sustainable and not subject to the ups and downs of retail. I'm pretty sure overall we took a LOSS on retail last year, for that matter.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

I never said 50 cents was the ideal price. I have said that a person shouldn't be doing the ratings at all and that they should be automated. And I will say $5 is DEFINITELY not the right price.

I've done lots of volunteering in schools, including running chess programs. A lot of events are run on a $2 per player budget which parents don't mind. If you have to increase that to $7 per player that's going to become a really tough sell if you want to go to events on a regular basis! In the past I've also a few times paid out of my own pocket to rate a youth event, obviously I won't be able to afford that anymore.

The reason you don't see many youth members is because they don't require memberships to play in the all-youth events.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

I never said 50 cents was the ideal price. I have said that a person shouldn't be doing the ratings at all and that they should be automated. And I will say $5 is DEFINITELY not the right price.

I've done lots of volunteering in schools, including running chess programs. A lot of events are run on a $2 per player budget which parents don't mind. If you have to increase that to $7 per player that's going to become a really tough sell if you want to go to events on a regular basis! In the past I've also a few times paid out of my own pocket to rate a youth event, obviously I won't be able to afford that anymore.

The reason you don't see many youth members is because they don't require memberships to play in the all-youth events.

You've identified events which would better be rated by CMA. Allowing players to qualify for the Olympic Team from high school events is absolutely ridiculous. Then to argue such events, which give such important status to players, is only worth 50 cent a player to rate is mind boggling.

The CFC ratings give those events status and without that status they likely wouldn't be as well attended. 5 dollars per event is not excessive.

Automated ratings at this stage look like pie in the sky. The CFC doesn't appear to have the software and is unlikely to get it.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

It would appear the people who attended the meeting and voted the proxies decided to go in a different direction.

How was your proxy voted in this matter if you didn't attend? Do you know?

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Now come on and be serious, when was the last time a high school event was seriously responsible for someone making or not making the team?

Plus I was actually referring to elementary tournaments.

So basically, you feel the CFC would do itself a favour to throw away a large number of paying customers. Sure they don't pay much now, in the future they might though. Not everyone quits as they grow up.

It seems we'll just have to disagree on this.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Now come on and be serious, when was the last time a high school event was seriously responsible for someone making or not making the team?

This upcoming Olympic. Women's team. Didn't you know? The 2008 OHSCC Championship for the games to qualify.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

The OHSCC is a decently strong event, roughly comparable to a U2200 section at say a Guelph Pro-am. A few weaker sub1800 players but the odd person above 2200 as well. I should know I finished way near the bottom, twice. Again like with the CYCC you are picking the major examples that are exceptions. I was speaking of the more regular events such as a county championship or league. There are always exceptions.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

The OHSCC is a decently strong event, roughly comparable to a U2200 section at say a Guelph Pro-am. A few weaker sub1800 players but the odd person above 2200 as well. I should know I finished way near the bottom, twice. Again like with the CYCC you are picking the major examples that are exceptions. I was speaking of the more regular events such as a county championship or league. There are always exceptions.

You asked me and I told you. Now you are trying to justify it and are arguing a school event that turned into an Olympic qualifier isn't worth a 5 dollar per player rating fee.

That OHSCC being a decently strong event is nonsense. The strongest player was the one who qualified. After that there were 2 1900 players and an assortment of 1100 to 1800 players. OOOOOWWWWW. STRONG!

Anyhow, that you consider it as strong as the Guelph Pro-am (which I consider to be a joke you are making) then you are also making the case for it to have a 5 dollar per player rating fee.