New CFC membership fees:

[Steve Karpik]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding some of what transpired at the CFC AGM to be as clear as mud.:)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding some of what transpired at the CFC AGM to be as clear as mud.:)

Hi Steve:

Having a great time at the CO - too bad you couldn't make it this year.

As to the junior rating fees, it is definitely a cash grab. But the CFC is desperately in need of more revenue. Time will tell whether parents will accept organizers not making junior tournaments CFC-rated. Parents are often more anxious about their child's rating than the child him/herself. And kid's generally like to see their progress compared to their peer group. Parents may not be happy ( for $ 4.50 ) to see their kids get CMA or ChessExpress ratings, and not CFC-rated. If the number of CFC-rated junior tournaments drops like a stone, then maybe the CFC will end up having to revisit this, revenue starved or not. The parents do get a partially rebate in that the annual junior membership went down $ 4 from $ 24 to $ 20 ( as I understand it ).

As to the adult rating fee increase of $ 2, it is partially offset by the annual membership dropping $ 6 from $ 36 to $ 30 ( by the way Steve, I had previous to the CFC AGM, calculated that the rating fee could be doubled to $ 6, and the membership fee dropped by 50 % to only $ 18. But the mover of the fees motion wanted a revenue generating motion, not a revenue neutral one, and so didn't consider it a friendly amendment. So I didn't fight about it ). Also, I think organizers could show the rating fee as a separate item on their publicity flyers, along with the registration fee and the CFC membership fee ( still tournament or annual - until the grassroots campaign gets a motion in to eliminate tournament memberships, as passed in the straw vote at the incoming governors AGM ). This way they won't have to decrease their prize fund, and I think that players will get used to the fact that the user pays - play in a tournament, and want it rated, and want a national organization that maintains the ratings ( and does all kinds of other stuff for chess ), you pay the rating fee each tournament you play.

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Gary, the problems with doing this are manyfold. Most juniors who are decent chess players no longer play in "junior" events. They play in normal, adult events, whether it is the local club (such as Scarborough which has around 20 juniors) or weekend tournaments. Those players are at the top of a very wide pyramid. It is the large group of improving players below that will play in "junior" events.

That group is likely going to balk at the increased fee for no increased service. They will take their business elsewhere. Why pay $20 to play in a "CFC" event when they can pay $15 to play in a CMA event? This group of players/parents is the very group that Larry has been targetting quite successfully for years now. The only thing that the CFC offers to compete with CMA events is that they're rating is more "official" (something most kids won't care about until they are in their late teens or have reached a CMA rating of over 1000-1200), and that the CFC via the CYCC provides a gateway to the WYCC with good prizes and support except when other interest groups try to use the CYCC to subsidize adult events.

So the question is: of that group that may balk at the increased fee, how many are presently playing in CFC junior events? If it is very small then this change will have very little impact on the CFC. In other words, revenue won't go up. If it is large, then it could have a larger negative impact: revenue will go down, and another opportunity for the CFC to become relevant in Canadian junior chess will have been wasted.

Steve

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Gary, the problems with doing this are manyfold. Most juniors who are decent chess players no longer play in "junior" events. They play in normal, adult events, whether it is the local club (such as Scarborough which has around 20 juniors) or weekend tournaments. Those players are at the top of a very wide pyramid. It is the large group of improving players below that will play in "junior" events.

That group is likely going to balk at the increased fee for no increased service. They will take their business elsewhere. Why pay $20 to play in a "CFC" event when they can pay $15 to play in a CMA event? This group of players/parents is the very group that Larry has been targetting quite successfully for years now. The only thing that the CFC offers to compete with CMA events is that they're rating is more "official" (something most kids won't care about until they are in their late teens or have reached a CMA rating of over 1000-1200), and that the CFC via the CYCC provides a gateway to the WYCC with good prizes and support except when other interest groups try to use the CYCC to subsidize adult events.

So the question is: of that group that may balk at the increased fee, how many are presently playing in CFC junior events? If it is very small then this change will have very little impact on the CFC. In other words, revenue won't go up. If it is large, then it could have a larger negative impact: revenue will go down, and another opportunity for the CFC to become relevant in Canadian junior chess will have been wasted.

Steve

Steve, I left off a zero in my previous reply to you. It should have read the CFC needs to increase the membership by around 1,000 rather than the 100 I typed. That would bring it back to what it was earlier in the decade.

If the value of a CFC rating is 50 cents plus the work and time that goes into the upkeep of the rating then you are right. The youngsters should play in CMA events. Eventually they will grow out of those events and have to decide if they want to carry on in the adult grouping or drop out. Of course, the parents aspire to more. On a personal note, my grandkids are into gymnastics. I can tell you that's not chump change like 5 bucks. The parents are required to fund raise. Work charity Bingos and that sort of thing. That's for the 8 year old in competitive gymnastics. For the 4 year old they don't have to do that yet.

Did you notice this year there was no bid from the province holding the 2009 CO to hold the CYCC? When the bid is in the same province and city just before the CO then a child can more easily play in both. I don't think there was any bid for the CYCC next year. Do you have any idea why that is?

I think the CFC should charge enough to ensure they survive. They aren't a welfare office. I feel more than certain if they could balance the books without some increases to bring in more revenue they would do it. Nobody likes to raise fees but the organization has to stay alive.

You haven't really given any alternatives methods of raising funds. What would you suggest?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

Hi Steve:

As to the junior rating fees, it is definitely a cash grab. But the CFC is desperately in need of more revenue. Time will tell whether parents will accept organizers not making junior tournaments CFC-rated. Parents are often more anxious about their child's rating than the child him/herself. And kid's generally like to see their progress compared to their peer group. Parents may not be happy ( for $ 4.50 ) to see their kids get CMA or ChessExpress ratings, and not CFC-rated. If the number of CFC-rated junior tournaments drops like a stone, then maybe the CFC will end up having to revisit this, revenue starved or not. The parents do get a partially rebate in that the annual junior membership went down $ 4 from $ 24 to $ 20 ( as I understand it ).

Bob

Hi Bob,

I see you're having a nice tournament.

How many months of cash flow does the CFC have without implementing increases before they have to start burning more furniture to heat the building? That's basically what borrowing money from the chess foundation is.

Did anyone indicate where the 2009 CYCC will take place? Maybe The Kap would be interested. :)

[Roger Patterson]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

....."( and does all kinds of other stuff for chess )"....

Actually, isn't the problem that the CFC doesn't do much more than maintain the ratings? Let see, no magazine, they don't pay for the national championships and/or Canadian Open, they don't pay for the the Olympiad team. Just what expensive activity is there that the CFC does that justifies the size of the annual membership fee? Fact is, having 1 full time person costs roughly $15 per member per year and what you get for your $15 is that person writing your name down on a membership list.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

....."( and does all kinds of other stuff for chess )"....

Actually, isn't the problem that the CFC doesn't do much more than maintain the ratings? Let see, no magazine, they don't pay for the national championships and/or Canadian Open, they don't pay for the the Olympiad team. Just what expensive activity is there that the CFC does that justifies the size of the annual membership fee? Fact is, having 1 full time person costs roughly $15 per member per year and what you get for your $15 is that person writing your name down on a membership list.

That's a pretty picture and I know you believe it. Why would you write it if you didn't believe it?

They maintain the FIDE affiliation and pay the fees. Submit events for FIDE ratings. Apply for titles. Pay for and process the player transfers (have you seen what it costs to have an IM and GM transferred to the Canadian Federation)? I suppose there are other things many of which are labour intensive such as updating what passes for a web site, filling orders (I guess they still sell what they can), answering mail, etc.

When I was directing the ICCF higher class events and a section of the regular mail jubilee it was a bit over 300 players I was administering. I averaged a couple of hours a day writing letters, replying to emails, writing reports for the ICCF and Fernschach and so forth. There were several problem players who generated a lot of work. There was no payment for the time. Doing chess administration properly takes a lot of time.

The CFC might very well be at the stage where it would benefit them if they could lose half the membership and administer the remainder strictly on a volunteer basis. Like before the current model came into existence in the early 70's. It's not like they are doing anything to entice the majority of players who can be found on the internet.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

That's a pretty picture and I know you believe it. Why would you write it if you didn't believe it?

They maintain the FIDE affiliation and pay the fees. Submit events for FIDE ratings. Apply for titles. Pay for and process the player transfers (have you seen what it costs to have an I'M and GM transferred to the Canadian Federation)? I suppose there are other things many of which are labour intensive such as updating what passes for a web site, filling orders (I guess they still sell what they can), answering mail, etc.

All and good for the elite players in Canada... but what about the MAJORITY of players in Canada? The CFC offers NOTHING for the vast majority of Canadian Chess players. How can you expect an average chess player to get nothing for the membership fee? I use to expect a magazine, but no longer, so all incentive for me to rejoin the CFC is gone.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

Hi Jason:

I think that chessplayers are going to have to start thinking about the fact that we need a national chess organization. It handles tournaments etc. for the elite players, and the rating system for all players ( it is not the case that the " majority of players...get nothing for the membership fee " ). The CFC requests, begs, threatens, etc. trying to get bids in for the main nationsl tournaments, including the Canadian Open all members can play in. It's the CFC that beats the bushes trying to drumb up bids. The office fields questions from members and deals with communications within the organization. It promotes chess to the public ( or is supposed to be trying to ). All these things chess in Canada needs.

So I think we have to start thinking of our membership as supporting the national organization, not just looking at it as what we can wring from the CFC for the least $$. The organization has no other source of income ( other than rating fees ), and so the membership fees must help it to survive.

We as players have to see ourselves as contributing to the CFC's survival.

Bob

[John Erickson]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Yes Bob but how can you bring in members when you have no program to atract them, no magazine now to attract casual players, no promotion of clubs in malls so really do you think that David Lavin public speakers can drum up CFC meberships??? Better to get a pair of sunglasses and a can of pencils and sit on Yonge street maybe you'll get some donations.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

I think that chessplayers are going to have to start thinking about the fact that we need a national chess organization. It handles tournaments etc. for the elite players, and the rating system for all players ( it is not the case that the " majority of players...get nothing for the membership fee " ). The CFC requests, begs, threatens, etc. trying to get bids in for the main nationsl tournaments, including the Canadian Open all members can play in. It's the CFC that beats the bushes trying to drumb up bids. The office fields questions from members and deals with communications within the organization. It promotes chess to the public ( or is supposed to be trying to ). All these things chess in Canada needs.

So I think we have to start thinking of our membership as supporting the national organization, not just looking at it as what we can wring from the CFC for the least $$. The organization has no other source of income ( other than rating fees ), and so the membership fees must help it to survive.

We as players have to see ourselves as contributing to the CFC's survival.

Bob

I guess what I am saying is that the vast majority of canadian chess players don't need the CFC. I don't need a national organization. I can get a rating from many different chess servers online. Ive never played in the Canadian open ( and probably won't unless it is closer to home). Ive never seen the CFC promote chess in Canada (the CMA does a far better job at this). Im just an 'average' chess enthusiast. If the membership was considered a 'donation' (which is what it really amounts to now) then I can see people donating money to the CFC but right now the vast majority of people who play chess in Canada have no reason to join the CFC. Quite honestly I don't mind paying the BCCF fee because I use the services of their webpage for finding out when the next tournament is run and I like the emailed newsletter. The BCCF provides a service that I want, the CFC doesn't. I'm not renewing my membership this year unless I feel that it is doing some good and just providing for the elite players doesn't count. You can't be serious when you say that you want to increase memberships when the CFC doesn't provide services that the average player wants.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

I think that chessplayers are going to have to start thinking about the fact that we need a national chess organization.

We? You might. I don't.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: New CFC membership/rating fees ( Junior/Adult )

We? You might. I don't.

After reading all the testimonials, such as they are, if there were an easy way to short the CFC I would. :D

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

It's justified because the CFC needs income to break even. Your provincial federation squeezes 12 dollar per member on top of the CFC charges for what amounts to nothing. Of course, that's different because it BC that's getting the money and not the CFC.

They pay an entry fee and the money comes out of that. Maybe it will squeeze the provincial and local margins a bit, but that's too bad.

I don't care. It has nothing to do with the rating fee increase. Stick to the topic.

Maybe you didn't get the memo. This is my time. You once told me the least I could do is renew my membership to support the CFC. Well, I think the least the members and parents can do is pay enough of a user fee (that's what a rating fee is) to give the CFC a chance to break even. Surely you can count well enough to know that a few more losing years and the CFC will be reduced to ZERO.

1. If an organization needs income to break even, IT MUST improve good services to atract customers. Increasing the costs hoping the customers won't have other alternate solutions is more of a socialistic way of dealing with it. I lived that for 30 years and my parents quite a few before that. IT IS NOT the answer and WILL NEVER be!

2. BC offers way more than CFC does for the portion of the membership fee. One of the other posters in this thread has already explained what that is!

3. Well, you SHOULD care since it is very much related to the topic. I pay my membership fees to CFC for about 12 years now (that's why I mentioned a while back you did not...), regardless of what they offer in return. When we needed to be protected by CFC from the WYCC 2005 organizers, we were (and still are) left out in the cold; just for that reason alone I should never rate another tournament with CFC. It is possible the yearly ratings fees I pay (ALWAYS on time) would add up to income lost from others doing like me. What will you preach then, eh?!...

4. No, this is not your time. Your time has passed! Agree you've done the best you knew and could. Now it is our time if you like it or not! So far CFC has used up all the income gathered from different sources and it still is in shambles. I am sure there are enough successful, well educated and strongly motivated people in this country to stop this horrible slide and put us on a different course.

This is not your era anymore! There's huge competition form several side organizations, the internet and chess engines. You either adapt to these challenges or die; so far it looks like those in charge have chosen to die. However don't make juniors and their parents scapegoats! All they wanted/ want is to play chess, get a rating and see it yo-yo, plus get the money they deserve if they finish 1st. This is how it is in any civilized country. We must be able to do that!

I have no idea how it was in your time. Back in Europe I grew up in a different chess system. You never see me argue your experience even if you repeat it over and over again. Why do you think you know what juniors want TODAY? When was the last time you were in a junior club to see the reality. If you wish I will pay for a return ticket so you could come and visit us here in Vancouver; at least this way you will talk based on today's facts, not from 30 years ago!...

[Steve Douglas]

Re: New CFC membership fees:

Hi Gary:

Don't worry, I had assumed the extra 0.

My concern here is that this motion if it holds up, will have the very obvious effect of taking the CFC out of the junior chess market. If that is the going-forward strategy, then fine, but there does not appear to be any strategy here. THAT's what my issue is. Nobody seems to have considered that the motion will effectively take the CFC out of that market, and nobody has apparently done much research into just how many junior events there are.

I understand what you are saying about the fact that if it costs $x per player to maintain a rating system then charging less than that turns a profit-centre into a loss centre. But the cost of maintaining a rating system *isn't* as simple as that. There is a basic overhead that must be maintained whether you have 1,000 adults or 2,000 adults. The issue is what is the marginal cost for each additional player or tournament entry?

We can go around and around on this all day. My main view is that nobody seems to have fully considered the ramifications of this, and they should have been considered and debated before a motion was passed. Also, from what I read here and in other dubious places, there were huge procedure issues with passing it.

I want to make it clear that I am not one of the parents who have all sorts of delusions regarding funding. I've seen numerous calls for the CFC to be providing a national training program for juniors. Subidies for "promising" juniors. And so on. That's all well and good, but where does the money come from? The people demanding those things never seem to understand that the paying adult members may not want to subsidize things to that degree, or perhaps not even at all ("but the kids are out future!" I hear them cry).

On the flip side I've seen the CYCC shamefully used to financially prop up the Canadian Open (2002), and motions trying to set a rating floor for sending kids to the WYCC without thinking about the fact that the airfares are supposed to come from the entry fees for the tournament and if you declare that players below a given rating aren't eligible to win the prize (even if they win the tournament!) then those below those ratings won't participate.

Off-hand I don't know why there is no bid for the 2009 CYCC, but I'm sure one will appear in time. The CYCC and CO were de-coupled (I believe) a couple of years ago because they really are two different events appealing to different audiences with different needs. They will usually take place at two different sites (the Open begins on a Saturday and the CYCC will be done by noon Thursday). At present there appear to be some political issues surrounding entry fees, and section groupings for the CYCC. Also, some sort of solution needs to be found for full funding for the girls sections since the number of players for those sections don't justify the prizes handed out in them.

As for solutions, I don't have any firm proposals. But if the CFC is deciding to withdraw from any meaningful role in junior chess then I would certainly hope that proper debate takes place on that matter. And the problem with that sort of debate is that many people involved will have no direct experience with junior chess and others will have *only* that experience and a consequent pro-junior agenda.

Personally I feel that the CFC needs to be very involved in junior chess. But it also needs to develop credibility. It needs to grow junior events, not cobble them together. Right now anybody with enough cash can enter the CYCC. That's not the way it was supposed to be. There were supposed to be feeder tournaments similar to what the CMA does with its Chess Challenges. When my kid first played I thought he had to play in a qualifier only to find out a few months later that, umm, he could have just paid the fee. Again, the CFC ignored its own rules and then just discarded those rules. People like John Coleman, John Rutherford, (and a few years ago) and Blake Paton have all tried in different ways to get that system going. Patrick McDonald also put in a huge effort to turn the OYCC into a meaningful event. But while Larry Bevand has built a huge "pyramid" of tournaments feeding to the Chess Challenge, the CFC has essentially fostered a sparsely populated cloud of dust.

Steve