Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

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

  • Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

    Posted Sept. 17 on CFC Chess Forum ( http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/ ) :

    Today, on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign, the " gang of 4 " governors ( Barry Thorvardson, Gary Gladstone, Nikolay Noritsyn and Natalia Khoudgarian ) sent 3 " binding " motions on CFC fees to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, to be included in the next GL, and voted on by the Governors. These arise out of the original Grassroots' platform, for which only " straw vote " motions were initially brought, and which items are still outstanding.

    Here is the Motions/Backgrounder submitted:

    Backgrounder to 3 Governors’ CFC Fees Motions September 17, 2008

    ( motions submitted by Bob Armstrong, with permission of mover/seconder; commentary prepared by Bob Armstrong, Grassroots’ Campaign Coordinator )

    Motion # 1 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
    CFC Tournament Membership Elimination – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by deleting from the fourth sentence the words “ the tournament membership shall be $ 10 per tournament for adults, and $ 5 per tournament for juniors. “ and shall be replaced with “ CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership “.

    Commentary: From the minutes of the AGM, we reproduce for convenience the relevant motion:

    The following is moved by Les Bunning and seconded by Peter Stockhausen.

    Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
    The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
    discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
    effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, the tournament membership
    shall be $10 per tournament for adults and $5 per tournament for juniors. Players
    in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be
    members but shall be required to submit the CFC rating fee of $5 per player.
    Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC rating fee shall be $5 per player per
    tournament or match.

    Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Also, when tournament memberships were introduced, they were meant as a one-time only thing, to encourage first timers to play tournament chess – they were not meant to become a continuous use membership. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.

    Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen, did not eliminate tournament memberships, despite the prior straw vote.

    Motion # 2 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
    CFC Annual Membership Discount – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by adding after the third sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. “

    Commentary: See original motion above under Motion # 1. Organizers have advised that the annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( especially when tournament memberships have been eliminated ); so the 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty. Even with the discount, the CFC will be collecting more than it did on tournament membership. Also, this replaces the tournament membership, which originally when introduced was meant to be a one-time only option.

    Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen above, did not incorporate the annual member discount, despite the prior straw vote.

    Motion # 3 – Moved: Nikolay Noritsyn; Seconded: Natalia Khoudgarian –
    CFC Junior Rating Fee Reduction – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by:
    a) in the fifth sentence, the word “ junior “ shall be placed before the words “ rating fee “, and “ $ 1 “ shall replace “ $ 5 “;
    b) in the last sentence, adding before the words “ rating fee “ , the word “ adult “; and
    c) Adding at the end of the motion the sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match “.

    Commentary :

    In CFC’s 2007-8 financial year, CFC took in from rating fees approx. $ 25,000. It was originally proposed by the Grassroots’ campaign that this be doubled to $ 50,000 [ Junior rating fee would go to $ 1 ( from $0.50 ); regular rating fee would go to $ 6/ player/ event ( from $ 3 ) ],. This was to shift CFC’s general revenue burden from membership to rating fees, as a more acceptable way to get general revenue – basically, a more “ user-pay “ system. This would give CFC an extra $ 25,000 revenue.

    In the same year, CFC took in approx. $ 50,000 from membership fees of all kinds. With the extra $ 25,000 from increased rating fees, CFC would now have to raise only $ 25,000 from membership fees, or a reduction of 50 %. This meant annual membership fees could be decreased by 50% [ annual adult membership could go to $ 18 ( from $ 36 ) and annual junior membership could go to $ 12.50 ( from $ 25 ) ].

    What happened at the Incoming Governors AGM in July, was that the annual adult membership was reduced, but only to $ 30 and the annual junior membership to only $ 20 [ the reason was that the CFC wanted to increase the amount of revenue in redistributing the burden between membership and rating fee. It did not want the change to be revenue neutral ( what was gained by the rating fee increase, was lost by the membership reduction ) ]. Once restructuring is completed, if there is a surplus, the grassroots campaign will move to further reduce the annual membership.

    Junior organizers have clearly indicated that the huge 900% increase in junior rating fee ( from $ 0.50 to $ 5 ) will seriously damage their junior programs, and cast doubt on holding CFC-rated junior tournaments. Since juniors are so important to the future of chess in Canada, and CFC wants to encourage them to take up the game, we propose to increase the junior rating fee only 100%, from $ 0.50 to $ 1 ( note that the adult rating fee was increased only 66 2/3 % ). Our motion appears to increase the junior rating fee, but this is only due to the nature of the motion. We are amending an existing , passed motion. In fact we are lowering it from the proposed $ 5 to $ 1 ( a reduction of $ 4 ). A raise in rating fee is justified given the CFC’s financial situation, and the reduction in annual membership, but the 100% increase is more reasonable.

    [ Note : The CFC motion also did not quite double the adult rating fee. It increased it to $5 ( not $ 6 ). Given this increase, and the increase in revenue from the modest annual membership reduction, we feel that the adult rating fee can stay where the CFC motion placed it, and need not be increased to $ 6 ].

    General 3- motion note:

    The amended motion, if all three motions are passed, would then read:

    Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
    The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
    discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
    effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. Effective January 1, 2009, CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership. Players in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be members but shall be required to submit the CFC junior rating fee of $1 per player. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC adult rating fee shall be $5 per player per tournament or match. Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match


    Revision 3

  • #2
    Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

    goodbye CFC tournament chess...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

      I would be very surprised if this worked. I suspect more and more organizers will simply start running unrated tournaments, with no CFC memberships required.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

        Originally posted by Bruce Harper View Post
        I would be very surprised if this worked. I suspect more and more organizers will simply start running unrated tournaments, with no CFC memberships required.
        I am going to Ralph's tournament this weekend :) Non CFC rated and The only cost to me is Gas to get there. I am going to offer to help him run any future tournaments as long as they are not CFC rated.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

          I made this request once before: what were the CFC membership purchases at this years Canadian/Quebec Open in Montreal? I would say that many of them were tournament memberships (if any membership was purchased at all). Check the expiration dates of the memberships for many players near the bottom of the Section B crosstable - if they are correct, many didn't even buy membership cards (yet the event was rated).

          I'm sure this was part of an agreement between the CFC and FQE to allow members of one or the other federation to take part.

          What will happen in the future - e.g. FIDE-rated tournaments held in Quebec - with some/most players paying a tournament membership? There are USCF-rated events in Montreal - maybe have events FIDE-rated through the USCF? :-)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

            More and more I see the "membership fee" as simply a barrier to participation. This isn't just a reaction against the way the CFC has been run in the past 10 years or so. It's also because (for various reasons, at least some of them legitimate) the magazine could not continue publication, there is no website or e-zine to replace it, and there is no reason for people to purchase books and equipment from the CFC (there used to be a member discount).

            Organizers and players are increasingly willing to run and play in non-CFC rated tournaments. This avoids both the membership requirement and the rating fees. But is that their preference? Would people like to have tournaments rated by the CFC if they could do so without a membership requirement (and the accompanying fee)?

            Personally, I'm of two minds on this. I think the CFC could be a useful organization and rating fees are the most natural source of income for it, but on the other hand I think the rating system is counter-productive and causes many people not to play at all (quite apart from the fee).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

              Even bowling leagues have measurements of how people are doing (averages) and some of those are in fact more complex than chess ratings.

              Right now, the CFC has little to offer for the membership fee. IF there is a decent online presence I think the people who want to play rated games will continue to join the CFC (hopefully for a much reduced cost) and play rated tournaments (also for a modest fee). Gradually, services can be expanded and perhaps the fees can march along.

              The tournament membership fee always was a cop-out for people to join without joining. IF it had been used as it was allegedly intended - as a one-time enticement toward membership it might be viewed differently, but as someone who has paid my way, I was one of the many CFC members who didn't see why someone who paid $10 got to play...

              I don't see the tournament fee being policed as I described above: who is going to see to it that only 1 per person (per lifetime? per decade? what?)... so, the abolishment of it seems logical. As I said before, if we lose some people who played in one tournament a year, so be it.

              There are a lot of club players who do not join the CFC; they just play casual chess and don't bother with the rated tournaments. I don't see any reason for them to change their approach yet; maybe in the next year or so the CFC may have enough to offer those people and entice them to join.
              ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                Originally posted by Bruce Harper View Post
                More and more I see the "membership fee" as simply a barrier to participation. This isn't just a reaction against the way the CFC has been run in the past 10 years or so. It's also because (for various reasons, at least some of them legitimate) the magazine could not continue publication, there is no website or e-zine to replace it, and there is no reason for people to purchase books and equipment from the CFC (there used to be a member discount).

                Organizers and players are increasingly willing to run and play in non-CFC rated tournaments. This avoids both the membership requirement and the rating fees. But is that their preference? Would people like to have tournaments rated by the CFC if they could do so without a membership requirement (and the accompanying fee)?

                Personally, I'm of two minds on this. I think the CFC could be a useful organization and rating fees are the most natural source of income for it, but on the other hand I think the rating system is counter-productive and causes many people not to play at all (quite apart from the fee).
                Will those in the BC non rated events still have to pay the 12 dollar annual fee to the BC federation?

                It seems too good that no organization will pick the players pocket.

                I'd work it much different and use the FIDE formula. The CFC should only deal with provincial associations. Make them responsible for collecting the memberships and paying all fees for their players titles and so forth. The way FIDE works it with the nations of the world.

                Those provinces which are not affilated would not be eligible to nominate players for any international events where they have to be entered by the CFC.

                The CFC holds the Aces and they should not allow the Jokers to trump them.
                Gary Ruben
                CC - IA and SIM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                  Originally posted by Gary Ruben View Post
                  Will those in the BC non rated events still have to pay the 12 dollar annual fee to the BC federation?


                  The CFC holds the Aces and they should not allow the Jokers to trump them.
                  actually this next non CFC tournament is going to cost me exactly $0 to enter. The TD was going to collect $10 per person which would go to prize money, but I guess he decided against it. He has found a place to play for free (the only reason I would suspect he would charge).

                  This TD plays in exactly ONE CFC tournament a year. He was paying the extra $10 tournament fee. I asked him what he would do if they told him he had to buy a membership to play in the Keres open... he thanks but no thanks, he just wouldnt enter. Thanks CFC, you atleast got $10/year out of this person now you will get $0. Yet one less person in the dwindling pool of tournament players. This just shows me how much the CFC cares about average local club players. Personally, I am going to encourage him to have several of these Non CFC tournaments a year. Hopefully the CFC will wake up.

                  Looks to me as though the CFC is holding the jokers, but I guess they won't figure this one out until they go bankrupt. Good ridance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                    For a guy who is so intent on putting motions to the governers, why the hell didn't you become a governer?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                      Hi Roger:

                      I must admit it would make things easier - I'm now considering the option. Thanks for the encouragement ( if that's what it was??? ).

                      Bob

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                        I can't decide what's more idiotic: the first motion, or the fact that you continue to use mind-bogglingly lame terms such as "gang of four".
                        everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

                          Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                          For a guy who is so intent on putting motions to the governers, why the hell didn't you become a governer?
                          For what it is worth, Bob did offer to be a governor, but unfortunately his willingness to serve as a governor came too late since the OCA had already nominated their allotment. You can be sure that Bob is on the reserve list in case anyone steps down. Needless to say, he would receive MY full support as well. I am pretty sure his tireless work would mean that other governors would feel the same way.
                          ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Organizer/TD viewpoint

                            Hi Bob, Gang of Four, etc.

                            Whereas I believe you are sincerely trying to do what's best for the CFC, and hopefully by extension, chess in Canada, I have deep concerns that some of your proposals will not only be neutral, but will actually negatively impact CFC tournament chess. In my humble opinion:

                            - As long as Quebec is as little as a 20 minute drive from EOCA tournaments, I can see no advantage, and much disadvantage, in eliminating tournament memberships availability. Maybe the solution is to increase the ratio from about 1/3 to 1/2 of the annual fee?!
                            CONCLUSION: Keep tournament memberships, but perhaps increase ratio of annual fee?

                            - I fully support eliminating all memberships other than "regular annual" and "tournament membership". I am uncomfortable with the first-year discount, but I could live with it. Why not simplify it, and make it something like 1 free tournament membership for newbies?

                            - I do not recall ever meeting a player who wanted to play in one of our tournaments, but then changed his mind when he realized he had to renew his CFC membership. If they want to play, and they have the money, they will sign up for annual. If they don't have enough money on them, they will borrow $10 and take a temporary membership, and often come back the next day to top it up to an annual membership. In other words, it seems to me that players are attracted first to tournaments, and then accept there is membership to pay for on top of their tournament expenses. Therefore, it seems to me that it makes more sense to have lower rating fees (to advertize a higher prize fund, attractive, more keen players) to draw players in, and a higher annual membership (only as a necessary evil) fee. For anyone playing in a tournament, the CFC membership is their lowest expense, and then they know that they are good for the year. Again, in the 5 years or so that I have been a CFC Organizer/TD, no one who was already registering has withdrawn rather than pay for CFC membership, whether annual, or with the flexibility of the tournament membership.
                            CONCLUSION: Relative to each other, lower rating fees and increase membership fees.
                            [Note that, in my humble opinion, that more players will think this is a bad idea before it is implemented, but that more players will find it a good idea after it has been implemented!]
                            [Note also, that regardless of how much annual membership is lowered, it will still seem way too elevated for the bulk of CFC regulars who have been disappointed for years! On the other hand, people will be impressed by lower rating fees, so that's the way to go!]

                            - If the previous point is implemented, then there would be less stress over the higher junior rating fees, as a single rating fee amount (lowered as per the previous point) would be applied to all CFC Regular events. If the CFC loses rated junior chess to Larry, so be it.

                            - Has anyone considered having an even lower rating fee for Active games (vs. Regular)?

                            Finally, I also agree with Roger, please become a Governor, as these grassroot motions add churn to everyone. I am concerned about the squeeky wheel getting most of the grease! ;)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Organizer/TD viewpoint

                              "CONCLUSION: Relative to each other, lower rating fees and increase membership fees."

                              I guess you can just say "opinions vary" on this.

                              When someone goes to a tournament, they pay an entry fee. Most rational people accept this as necessary, because people pay for lots of things, and they realize that for a chess tournament it is necessary to cover:

                              - rental of the tournament site (sometimes there isn't any)
                              - paying the tournament director (although often there is no cost for this)
                              - rating fees (if the tournament is rated)
                              - prizes (if any, and these may be donated)
                              - other expenses

                              One component of the cost of the event is the rating fee, but this is hidden. Many players don't even know what it is, and in any case they don't notice it, because the overall entry fee has other components.

                              Memberships, on the other hand, are not hidden. They are separate, and so players notice them more.

                              So I think Aris has it completely backwards. A higher rating fee (which might or might not be a good idea) is buried in the entry fee, a membership (which represents a commitment many players do not wish to make, either because they are new and aren't sure if they will ever play in another competitive event, or because they know too much about the CFC) is up front and open.

                              That is why I advocate no CFC membership fees at all, and perhaps a small rating fee increase. Then you try to increase the number of rated games played.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X