challenge to the Governors.

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

  • #16
    Re: challenge to the Governors.

    Chess players as a class, as represented on online discussion groups, are one of the cheapest groups of individuals I have encountere. Are all chessplayers financially impoverished?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: challenge to the Governors.

      I consider being called cheap a compliment. Thanks! :D

      There are other groups that are even cheaper? Scandalous!
      "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: challenge to the Governors.

        I knew you would take it as a compliment Tom went I wrote. If we accept that chess players are frugal then the question arises how best to fund a national organization.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: challenge to the Governors.

          Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
          I knew you would take it as a compliment Tom went I wrote. If we accept that chess players are frugal then the question arises how best to fund a national organization.
          The correspondence chess association never had a problem (that I know of) funding the national organization. Why is the CFC having problems and the CCCA isn't?
          Gary Ruben
          CC - IA and SIM

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: challenge to the Governors.

            Less overhead?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: challenge to the Governors.

              Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
              Less overhead?
              That too.

              I don't see how anyone can run a business they way you guys are running the CFC. One thing at the annual meeting and then changing so many decisions in the following months.

              You set your price. Then stick by it. It's not like the price which was set is oppressive.

              Those who don't want to pay can leave. All that will happen is that over a period of time your members will become those who will pay CFC dues set by the organization. Getting rid of those who won't pay the set price or who are philosophically opposed to any authority symbols isn't a bad thing. It might be what's needed to rejuvenate chess.
              Gary Ruben
              CC - IA and SIM

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: challenge to the Governors.

                Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
                I knew you would take it as a compliment Tom went I wrote. If we accept that chess players are frugal then the question arises how best to fund a national organization.
                1) No membership dues.

                2) Rating fees set at $3/player per event maximum.

                3) No need to have CFC-rating for those events that are FIDE-rated. Only charge some administration fee for filing events to FIDE (enough to cover costs plus some percentage). So let's say Event X would cost $200 to submit to FIDE, then the CFC charges say $300 and pockets the difference.

                4) Run CFC BO as a minimal enterprise. One person, maybe part-time (depending upon the volume of events and FIDE interactions necessary). Download most of the decision-making authority to the provinces/regions.

                In these days of the internet, small regional organizations can easily stay in contact with its membership. No need for central bureaucracy.
                "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: challenge to the Governors.

                  Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                  1) No membership dues.

                  2) Rating fees set at $3/player per event maximum.
                  I second this idea. I think the bottom line is, we don't actually need a CFC to play chess. I can play hockey without NHL sanction, and I can golf apart from the PGA, and I can play chess without the CFC. For a tournament, I pay organizers for the venue, and for administration. And in the background there is a national association that sanctions, provides training, whatever. This doesn't concern nonprofessional part-time amateurs.

                  The service provided is publishing a number (rating). I think a 50 cent per game fee is about right. Maybe $1.

                  And the point is, if you remove the disincentives to join, more people will join. $40 (going to Ottawa) for somebody who only plays in 1 tourney (if no t-option) is a disincentive. $10 is a lesser disincentive. $3 is a no-brainer. People might come out of hiding and start playing in public again.

                  Last year I played 2 rated tournaments.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X