CFC Fees Review

[Bob Armstrong]

Grassroots' Campaign - Tentative CFC Fees Review Submission

In preparation for the expected full " CFC Fees Review ", to be held by the CFC Governors in early 2009 ( after the release of the May 1 - October 31, 2008, 6-month interim CFC Financial Statement; and after the CFC President, David Lavin, posts early in the new year, his " updated " CFC Business Plan ), the Grassroots' Campaign reviewed its tentative submission ( which was partly based on its 3 motions - 2009-07, -08, -09 [ see GL # 2 ] - which were subsequently withdrawn so submissions could be made to the CFC Executive ). Our reconsideration of our proposals tried to take into account in particular, the opinions put forward by some organizers on the elimination of the tournament playing fee ( = " tournament membership " ). The Grassroots' Campaign is still consulting on their platform, and are continuing dialogue with a number of individuals who want to see some amendments to the tentative proposals. We would be pleased to receive your input here on our " tentative " platform on CFC fees.

The Grassroots' Campaign " tentative " CFC Fees Submission now reads as follows ( and this version currently has the support of 18 of the original " Endorsers " of the original CFC Restructuring Platform ):

1. Annual Membership/Rating Fees:
that in general, CFC Annual Membership fees be reduced, and rating fees raised ( this arises out of our original restructuring platform position that if finances supported it, we would seek reductions in annual membership and/or rating fees ). Given CFC finances currently, it would seem that the CFC cannot afford to lose revenue on fee changes, so the reduction of any annual fees must be at least offset by raises in the rating fees ( a revenue neutral change ).

2. Junior Rating Fee:
that on no account shall the junior rating fee be increased more than 100% ( that is, at maximum a raise from $ 0.50 to $ 1 )

3. 50% Reduction in Annual Membership Fee:
that, specifically, the CFC Annual Fees should be reduced by 50% ( adult – from $ 36 to $ 18; junior – from $ 24 to $ 12 ). The Rating Fees should be increased by 100% ( adult – from $ 3 /player/event to $ 6; junior – from $ 0.50 to $ 1 )

4. Tournament Playing Fee ( = " Tournament Membership " ):
that the tournament playing ( “ membership “ ) fee shall be eliminated; as an alternative to this proposal # 4, though only lukewarmly supported, the tournament playing fee can be kept, but it shall be increased 100% ( from $ 10 to $ 20 ). However, if proposal # 3 is adopted, then the tournament membership fee shall still be eliminated.

5. Membership Discount to 1st time CFC'ers:
that, if the tournament membership is eliminated, there be instituted an annual membership discount of 40% for first time CFC’ers. If the tournament membership fee is not eliminated, but goes to $ 20, then this discount shall not be instituted.

The Grassroots' Campaign would be pleased to receive all comments as they finalize their submission to the CFC Governors. You can post here, or e-mail me, the Grassroots' Campaign Coordinator ( bobarm@sympatico.ca ) .

Bob

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: CFC Fees Review

I wonder why anyone bothers to get tournaments rated by the CFC. You can rate them FIDE for $2.20/player. You can create your own internal ratings for virtually nothing. Why spend $3 or $5 per player to have them rated by the CFC?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: CFC Fees Review

Hi Tom:

Because they want to be part of a " Canadian National Rating System "?

And they want to help pay to run their Canadian National Chess Federation?

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Tentative CFC Fees Review Submission

Bob, may you make some math: What will the collected sum of your proposal be for (A) 10% increanment, (B) same, (C) 10% declining of members and collected rating fees?

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: CFC Fees Review

The FIDE system is the world standard. When you go to a tournament outside of Canada no one is going to care about your CFC rating, especially if you have a FIDE one.

People scoff at the idea of having a local rating system for non-FIDE events in their rating pool, but the CFC system is simply a community of local rating pools. In other words, there is no rational reason to believe that a 1700 rating in Prince George is the equivalent of the same rating in Saint John.

Finally, I thought that the rating fee was to pay for the rating of the events. Instead, you are suggesting that it is being used for either programs, administration, or a combination of the two. I suggest that the administration costs would be a lot less if the CFC didn't bother to rate tournaments. As for the costs of programs? I ask you: what programs? ;-)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Good Changes for CFC Members

Hi Egis:

The calculations to support the 50% drop in CFC Annual Membership fee, and the 100% increase in CFC Rating fee is as follows:

In CFC’s 2007-8 financial year, CFC took in from rating fees approx. $ 25,000. It is proposed by the Grassroots’ campaign that this be doubled to $ 50,000 [ regular rating fee would go to $ 6/ player/ event ( from $ 3 ); Junior rating fee would go to $ 1 ( from $0.50 );],. This is 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 means 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 ( from $ 24 ) ].

Such a change would be “ revenue neutral “ to the CFC – what is lost in the annual membership fee reduction is made back by the rise in rating fees. We believe that in altering annual membership and rating fees, the CFC should not seek to “ increase “ overall revenue. Members already give strong financial support to the CFC, and especially in the light of the elimination of the print Chess Canada magazine. But revenue neutral changes will be of assistance.

So to answer your question, if there is no change in CFC membership, the CFC will neither gain nor lose money.

If the no. of CFC members goes down, then CFC will lose money both from annual membership sales, and from rating fees ( because there will be fewer CFC players playing in tournaments ).

If the No. of CFC Members goes up by 10%, then CFC revenue from memberships and from rating fees will likely go up by the same 10%.

When comparing the $ from before our proposal to after our proposal, one can see that a member will save $ 18 on his CFC annual membership fee. So at the new increased rating fee ( $ 3 increase per tournament ), the member could play up to six tournaments per year and still break even !! Only if he plays 7 TOURNAMENTS OR MORE will it in fact cost him more money out of his pocket. How many CFC members play 7 tournaments per year or more? If the member plays only 5 tournaments, or less, per year, he will actually save money on our changes ( but we hope he will play , since he's saving on the CFC annual membership, and so can afford to play in lots of CFC-rated tournaments ) !

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: CFC Fees Review

When you go to a tournament outside of Canada no one is going to care about your CFC rating, especially if you have a FIDE one.

Reading Chess Life I made a different opinion: the USA tournaments recognize CFC rating without an adjustment. (about FIDE I can not say anything now

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Good Changes for CFC Members

Hi Egis:

The calculations to support the 50% drop in CFC Annual Membership fee, and the 100% increase in CFC Rating fee is as follows:

Hi Bob,

I look at it a bit differently.

The building is about to be sold which takes away all the expenses related to that. The books and equipment have been farmed out so no labour costs there. The ratings pay for themselves. Probably more than pay for themselves, from what I've been reading. There should be profits from the books and equipment and likely profit from the ratings.

That leaves the magazine of which there hasn't been one in a long time. By the time the magazine does arrive Olympiad games will be stale dated. I mean it's so long after the event who cares.

Probably the idea is to assign the remaining duties to the executive postitions and do away with the business manager positions. It's a relic from the past. A time when the business manager wrote the magazine and mailed it.

It appears a set of decisions was taken at the annual meeting. Since then it appears the decisions are being reversed. By the time it's over it will be time for another election and the process can start again. While it's fun to watch, I can tell you I'm not tempted to renew my membership.

Have you given any thoughts to rewriting the rules for qualifying for the Chess Olympiad? Possibly some minimum standards for even sending a team.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Good Changes for CFC Members

Have you given any thoughts to rewriting the rules for qualifying for the Chess Olympiad? Possibly some minimum standards for even sending a team.

You should start a new thread :) (I had similar (not the same) thoughts about the rules, i.e. 1218 Expanses "(i) the six players on the National Team; (ii) the four players on the Women’s Team;" does not fit with the reality. However I may have an outdated version or missed updates)

[Bob Armstrong]

CFC Annual Membership Fee - Can It Be Eliminated?

One issue canvassed in the past has been the elimination of a separate membership fee. Is this possible?

I suppose the CFC membership fee could be eliminated. It could be that all players in a CFC-rated tournament automatically became annual CFC members at no separate charge.

But the CFC's only other source of income is rating fees. For the CFC to maintain the level of annual membership/rating fees revenue of 2007-8, it would have to triple the rating fees ( adult - to $ 9 from $ 3; junior - to $ 1.50 from $ 0.50 ). It could be renamed the " CFC Surcharge ", and be advertised as a separate part of the entry fee when entering a CFC-rated tournament. This would certainly be an attractive change for players who only play one or two CFC tournaments a year.

But, for example, it would be more costly for those who play a number of CFC tournaments a year. But it would not be too bad. For example, the Scarborough CC holds 5 rated tournaments per year. Currently an SCC member pays $ 41 per year ( annual membership - $ 36 + $ 15 ( 5 tournaments @ $ 3 each )). Under the " surcharge " proposal, he would pay $ 45 per year. This is an increase of only $ 4 per year. And I doubt most CFC members play 5 tournaments per year.

So, thinking outside of the box, I suppose a totally " user-pays " system, with no $ membership, would be possible too.

What would be the downside of such a system ( one I fear is that the CFC would have less revenue under this system, because the " surcharge " fees will not in fact cover the loss of membership revenue ).

Bob

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Grassroots' Campaign - Tentative CFC Fees Review Submission

4. Tournament Playing Fee ( = " Tournament Membership " ):
that the tournament playing ( “ membership “ ) fee shall be eliminated; as an alternative to this proposal # 4, though only lukewarmly supported, the tournament playing fee can be kept, but it shall be increased 100% ( from $ 10 to $ 20 ). However, if proposal # 3 is adopted, then the tournament membership fee shall still be eliminated.

:')

"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

[Roger Patterson]

Re: CFC Annual Membership Fee - Can It Be Eliminated?

" I fear is that the CFC would have less revenue under this system"

If you are thinking of this system without the corresponding thinking of doing away with some amount of overhead relating to maintaining an office to process memberships open 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, you are missing the point. It's not gross revenue that you care about, it is the net result.