Possible future CFC goal: foster mega-clubs

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

  • #76
    Re: Possible future CFC goal: foster mega-clubs

    Originally posted by David Ottosen View Post
    My look at the statement shows:

    Other programs is a +59078, and a -59078 so basically irrelevant bookkeeping. Sales is a +15532 and a -12604, so overall a net +2928. Foundation is +2718 and a -1170 so net +1548. Combine with rating fees, memberships, donation, and other revenue, the CFC had basically $62,883 in revenue to use last year.

    From this, you see:

    Salaries: 1801
    Admin services: 31726
    Office: 7190
    Webzine: 3600
    International: 6747
    Clubs: 2239

    So, lets talk about the two major sources of revenue for the CFC: memberships + ratings (comprising 88% of the unallocated funds). When you have an organization, you should be pushing to increase your revenue sources. However, they are contributing a very impressive 3.5% of their annual available funds towards club support, and nothing towards direct tournament support. What exactly this "admin services" section includes should be a source of great interest to the CFC governers and executive.

    Has the CFC ever done any sort of analysis of their player base, the value of a new signup on average, and the cost to maintain an existing player?
    Just to follow up on this old post, in an old thread, I would note that for 2011, a year later, "admin services" still took up about half of CFC expenses (i.e. coming from CFC revenues). That plus "Office" made for a full 60% of expenses. The newsletter took up another 19%, i.e. significantly more proportionally than the failed webzine, in its short lifespan. "International" and "Clubs" stayed at about the same percentages as in 2010. A further 3% of revenue went to the Foundation. That left only 6% that was spent on various chess events (elite player or otherwise), not counting 3% that was not spent (i.e. net revenue). Someone volunteered to work out these percentages long ago, on the Governors forum, from the 2011 CFC Income statement.

    This distribution of expenditures in 2011 is not so much a surprise, given the quoted post regarding the previous year. Even so, these (or 2010) expenditures might not make for a pretty picture, e.g. in chart form.
    Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Saturday, 11th May, 2013, 10:27 AM. Reason: Correction (forgot 3% of revenue went to Foundation, thus only 6% for various events)
    Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
    Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

    Comment

    Working...
    X