Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Jean:

Do not be taken in by appearances. I don't think this platform is either depressing in content nor tone. It is realistic. We have had 3 consecutive years of large losses, and will have another one when the financials for May 1, 2007 - April 30, 2008 come out. That is what is depressing. We cannot live beyond our means like this.

I think the platform is hopeful because it says we can cut expenses to match our income. When that is done, and CFC is in the black, then we can return to the task of " rethinking " what should be done next ... within our income level.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

List of Endorsers ( as of June 16 ) - Up to 17

Bob Armstrong – CFC Life Member/former chess club executive
Chris Mallon – past CFC President/ current OCA President
Steve Karpik – CFC member/chess club executive
Rick Garel – CFC member/chess club executive
Caesar Posylek – CFC Governor/ chess club executive
Kerry Liles – incoming CFC Governor/ chess club executive/ OCA Executive
Jerry Kitich – CFC member/former chess club executive
Dave Broughton – former CFC Governor and Executive / former OCA Director/ former CFC member
Ken Kurkowski – CFC member
Frank Dixon – former CFC Governor/ tournament director/tournament organizer/ former chess club executive.
John Brown – CFC member/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive
Vlad Dobrich – tournament director/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive/ former CFC member
Doug Gillis – CFC Member
Tyler Longo – CFC Member
Jim Roe – CFC Member
Luke Peristy – CFC Member
Dinesh Dattani – CFC Member

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

I think the platform is hopeful because it says we can cut expenses to match our income. When that is done, and CFC is in the black, then we can return to the task of " rethinking " what should be done next ... within our income level.

What about the possibility that when things are "in order", the CFC will be left with no income to speak of, no paper magazine or other means to reach the few members left or potential new members, a rating system that is basically worthless for most chess players, and no plan at all to effectively promote the game ? I see no reason for optimism when the aim is simply to avoid mate in two without no longer term ideas to improve the position. Without the "rethinking" immediate mate may be avoided, but the end result will be the same. A long grind to defeat... Cutting expenses is obviously forced, but something more positive is needed.

The CFC for one thing just can't simply abolish its paper magazine without having something more effective to replace it.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Jean:

I think you are right that more may be needed than just a website. But I think you with your bulletin, and Scarborough Chess Club, with its newsletter, have shown that an e-bulletin can be economically produced and distributed. Since CFC would already be maintaining a " Canadian News " website, it should be fairly easy to get content for the bulletin. This would allow CFC to keep in touch with its members directly and on a regular basis. And will be much, much cheaper than a magazine.

I don't see the rating system as being useless. We play only regular CFC-rated tournaments all year long at Scarborough CC and the members play for those precious rating points, and regulary check their updated ratings ( no $$ prizes at SCC ).

Our platform does not imply nothing will be done to promote chess. It attempts at this time only to deal with the immediate deficit/losses and the restructuring issues necessary to get us into the black again. It does not attempt to cover all things the CFC will be doing and continue to do.

Bob

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Bob, you might want to know where I agree and disagree with the plan of action you have proposed. I'll go through it.

CFC PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN PLAN OF ACTION

1. Core Roles: CFC will continue its role re FIDE, international and national events, a national rating system, and a website with membership info, ratings, membership sales, tournament announcements, chess club lists, and news submitted by members (highlights of recent tournament, etc.). Maintenance of these functions will be the responsibility of the Executive Director.

I agree with this as far as it goes. There is no stated expectation for increase of membership or promotion of the game. The membership sales are "come to me". Send memberships or come to the web site and buy one. There is no actual expectation of doing anything to actively sell memberships by promotion of the game.

2. CFC Revenue: CFC revenues to come from memberships, rating fees, investments and donations. With the reduced scope of operation, costs for the organization should be less, and it may be possible to reduce annual membership fees and/or rating fees.

This means nothing and could have been left out. The word may renders the clause meaningless.

3. CFC Membership: CFC to eliminate tournament memberships – if you want to play in a CFC tournament, you must purchase an annual membership. To encourage individuals to become members, first time CFC members will be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year.

I agree with eliminating tournament memberships. I don't agree with a 40% fee reduction for the first year. The CFC portion of the membership fee is not very large and a reduction should not be larger than 25%. The provinces should be encouraged to offer a similar provincial discount on their portion. In addition the "first year" should be defined. Would a person be entitled to a first year as a junior, adult and senior? If his membership lapsed for 10 years would his first year back be eligible for a discount? An reasonable argument could be made for this as an enticement.

4. Chess Canada: CFC will terminate the magazine contract with TKS immediately (with the May 2008 issue being the last issue of the magazine).

I haven't read the contract so don't know if there is a cancellation clause in what I understand is an ongoing contract. I don't agree with discontinuing the magazine. Of the ones I've seen I'd use different content.

5. Retail Business: Sell off the inventory of the retail business; it will be closed entirely. An alternative but small source of revenue, if requiring minimum labour, could be through a commission arrangement, such as the Amazon affiliate program ( http://affiliate-program.amazon.com/...oin/links.html ).

Even when I did the work for the CCCA I used to store goods we sold in my basement and ship them to members who bought them. It was a valuable source of income and were the kind of goods a correspondence player used. Chess sets, boards, etc. would fall into that category. A commission arrangement for bulky items like books is good. I agree with that part.

6. CFC Condominium Office: The current CFC office would be placed for sale. The office would then be run out of either a small rental space or a home office.

Agree. How the proceeds from the office sale would be handled should be spelled out and I'm surprised it has not been done. I can only guess there is a disagreement amongst those who drafted this proposal.

7. CFC Staffing: In light of the reduced business activities of the CFC office (no retail sales and no print magazine), the Executive Committee would undertake a review of the Executive Director and Assistant positions and would recommend appropriate staffing changes if required. The Executive will consider eliminating the part-time staff, and cutting back the Executive Director position to part-time.

It seems reasonable to pay for only the amount of work being done.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi Gary:

Thanks very much for taking the time to give me a detailed response, because I had initially hoped to get your endorsement with this " back-to-basics " platform. My comments are:

# 1 - We did not try to put into the platform everything the CFC is doing now, or will continue to do. Promoting chess, which includes selling memberships, is a main goal of the CFC, and our platform does not affect that ( I can advise we had something in the platform in an earlier version, but in trying to trim it down, and reduce the targets, we deleted it - but this doesn't mean we don't still support it.

# 2 - We could not promise an annual fee/rating fee reduction, until we know whether we have a surplus, after our restructuring. But we did want to indicate we see reducing them as a priority, especially when the magazine is gone.

# 3 - Your comments are helpful and we feel that the platform can be " fine-tuned " when it comes time to implement. We gave 40% because we have heard from organizers that getting first-time players to play when they hear they have to join the CFC is hard. We wanted it to be significant, and felt with the restructuring, we could afford this.

# 4 - We have not seen the contract either, but CFC needs out of it somehow. Look at 3 consecutive years of significant losses ( and one coming as well for 2007-8, I bet ). A 1000 annual member organization cannot afford the magazine. But we will suggest that the CFC start a members e-bulletin to communicate on a regular basis with members ( we did not put this into the platform, because we saw the priority as a clean item to get rid of the magazine ). Since the CFC will be maintaining a good " Canadian News " website, doing the e-bulletin should not be that hard.


# 5 - Retail takes time, and we cannot afford it with our ED. hours, and the return generated. Our ED should be promotiing chess.

# 6 - We did not want to prejudge how the sale funds should be allocated - this can be dealt with when the building is sold. But it is my view that the money should be invested at reasonable, safe return.

# 7 - Not only should we only pay for work done by the ED, but the hours he is employed must be affordable to the CFC - no deficits.

Hope this helps with understanding where we are coming from a bit more. Thanks again for taking the time to respond. We had hoped to generate public debate like this, and feel we have been successful. We only hope that the CFC Governors are following this, since it is ultimately their decision.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

List of Endorsers ( as of June 17 ) - up to 18

Bob Armstrong – CFC Life Member/former chess club executive
Chris Mallon – past CFC President/ current OCA President
Steve Karpik – CFC member/chess club executive
Rick Garel – CFC member/chess club executive
Caesar Posylek – CFC Governor/ chess club executive
Kerry Liles – incoming CFC Governor/ chess club executive/ OCA Executive
Jerry Kitich – CFC member/former chess club executive
Dave Broughton – former CFC Governor and Executive / former OCA Director/ former CFC member
Ken Kurkowski – CFC member
Frank Dixon – former CFC Governor/ tournament director/tournament organizer/ former chess club executive.
John Brown – CFC member/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive
Vlad Dobrich – tournament director/ tournament organizer/ chess club executive/ former CFC member
Doug Gillis – CFC Member
Tyler Longo – CFC Member
Jim Roe – CFC Member
Luke Peristy – CFC Member
Dinesh Dattani – CFC Member
Pino Verde – CFC Member

[John Brown]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

The problem with the tournament fee is it was set too low to begin with. $10.00 is very low and it takes 5 tournaments to make it more that a CFC membership in Ontario.
Setting the fee at $15-$20 would encourage players who play at least 3 tournaments a year to see the better deal to join the CFC and play more games. It would also provide some revenue to the CFC. It also allows others from other associations and foreign players to play in Ontario events without having to pay full CFC memberships.

NOTE: Although I may be an endorser of the Grasss Roots Plan I'm not in favour of all the ideas.
I would also let you know that these proposals were not discussed amongst the endorsers and the will have to be fine tuned before it reaches voting status.
That is why all comments and opinions from anyone should be posted here so that we can make a proper proposal to present at the CFC AGM.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Hi John:

We appreciate that our endorsers may support the platform generally, but may have a specific improvement to a particular item. Our suggestion in this case is that the endorser make their amendments known at the time of the implementation vote for the particular item.

As to current process for bringing the platform before the Governors,we are engaged in the second prong of our campaign now, which is to bring this platform before the Governors for a “ straw vote “ , BEFORE the July CFC AGM. But given the results of the process the last time a complete package of restructuring was presented to the Governors, we have decided that it is best to canvas the views of the Governors on the restructuring issues, independently of each other – that way a Governor who may object to one individual item, could still vote for all 6 other items, and not have to vote down the whole package, leaving us with no indication of what s/he might have accepted.

So we have broken our platform down now into 7 individual motions, each representing one item of our platform. And we are proposing a non-binding “ straw vote “ on these motions. This way, the outgoing Governors can give the incoming Governors some guidance as to their views on each of the restructuring issues, without binding their hands.

We now have Governor movers and seconders for 5 of the 7 items of the platform and have contacted more Governors to find movers and seconders for the last 2 items.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

From the " old " ChessTalk:

Re: Is there a financial projection for this proposal?
Posted by Michael Yip on June 18, 2008, 5:10:22, in reply to "Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package"

Hello

-I favor big changes but this proposal lacks a financial projection to go with it.

-Probably there should be something done about the operating structure too.

The proposal seems incomplete to me. However I will support any big changes that include
-a plan
-a budget that makes sense
-a change to the clumsy structure and decision making process that is at least partially responsible for the current situation.

Michael Yip
Former CFC member

I replied as follows:

Hi Michael:

1. The Plan - the platform is a bare-bones one that is trying to cover all the major restructuring items. It is a concrete doable plan as a first phase. We feel it is necessary to immediately get CFC back in the black, and feel this plan will do it. Once the restructuring is complete, and we know whether we have a surplus, and how many hours of staff time we can afford, then in phase 2, the Executive/Governors will have to sit down and set priorities for what the CFC can accomplish with the freed-up hours the ED will have ( a main one being a plan for chess promotion in Canada, including increasing membership ). We feel this is a sufficient plan to get us out of our current problems.

2. The Budget Projection - We feel that we will have pared back expenses to the bone with this restructuring. We will still have income from memberships, rating fees, investments ( Chess Foundation; investing the sale funds from the CFC building ), perhaps a small amount from a retail business commission arangement with someone like CMA or Amazon, and donations. With this income, we will cover our now minimum expenses. If we still are in the red, then we have proposed staff downsizing to make us live within our means - no deficit. We hope this may not be necessary, but if it is, then it is what a 1000 annual member small non-profit organization can afford. We are looking at trying to put together a simple $$ projection, but have not satisfied ourselves yet that we have all the information required, but we are working on it ( and I'm not the greatest with financial statements - if anyone else can do one based on our platform, it would certainly be helpful. But I will continue to work on it ). But we are satisfied from the general $$ figures we know, that this plan is financially sound and will get CFC back in the black.

3. The Governing Structure - we are attempting to initially handle the restructuring items that bear only on the $$ problem. This was to keep the platform clean, neat and minimalist. Many have already suggested a change to the current governing structure to us. We have replied that this should be the second priority for the CFC after restructuring ( # 1 being a plan for chess promotion and membership growth ). We have suggested that this is controversial since some see the current system as cumbersome, but democratic partially, in that the provinces run the CFC through their representative Governors. Others want a one member- one vote system. Others want only a cabinet styled government. I have suggested the CFC strike a committee right away after restructuring to make a recommendation on the governance structure.

Hope this additional information entices you to become an endorser of the platform. Let me know. Thanks for your interest.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

From the " old " ChessTalk:

Re: I raise the same question again
Posted by Bruce Harper on June 18, 2008, 10:00:52, in reply to "Re: Is there a financial projection for this proposal?"
Author - Suttles bk Vancouver

I don't think Bob has dealt with this question:

"Why do those who favour this package believe that players will pay the same membership fees for "CFC lite" - no magazine, no book or equipment sales?"

I appreciate that current members would have no choice, because they would have already paid. But what happens when their memberships expire? Is the privilege of playing in rated tournaments enough to cause people to renew at $36 per year, or to join in the first place (even with a 40% discount)?

I agree with a lot of the package, but I think it's wishful thinking to believe that most chess players are prepared to continue paying the same amount for CFC memberships when there has been a drastic reduction in services.

I replied as follows:

Hi Bruce:

1. What Organization we want: We have a 1000 annual member small non-profit organization now. We want it to deal with FIDE and international events, sponsor national tournaments, keep a national rating system, keep memberships up to date, promote chess in Canada, have staff to answer our membership questions, maintain a good " Canadian News " website, and maybe have a members e-mail bulletin, etc.. If we want this, we must be willing to support the organization as a membership base, and financially, where there is no other significant source of income.

2. Membership/Rating Fee Reduction : However, we recognize that there has been a decrease in service with the cancellation of the magazine ( though the rating system will still be the big benefit to members ). So in item # 2 of the platform, we have made it a priority , after restructuring, and if there is then a surplus,to reduce the membership annual fee and/or rating fees. Also, some have suggested raising the rating fees, and this might also allow a further lowering of the fees. As well there is the 40% reduction of annual fee for first-time CFC'ers.

3. Membership Renewals/New Members: We think members understand the finances of a small organization, and will continue to support the CFC, and will continue to play rated CFC tournaments, and thus get ratings, maintained by the CFC for them. And new members will get a 40% reduction of their first year annual fees. We are losing more members by poor service and significant annual losses ( 3 years in a row, with a fourth to come this past 2007-8 year ) than we are because of membership fees, in my opinion. As Jerry Kitich commented in a post, we have a good product in competitive, CFC-rated chess tournaments, and as well chess is a cheap passtime by comparison to many other leisure activities.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Grassroots CFC Restructuring Package - Governor Movers/Seconders Coming On Board

Update: The Grassroots Campaign now has Governor Movers and Seconders for 5 or their 7 platform items. We continue to look for Governors who will move/second our motions dealing with items 5 ( Retail Business ) and 7 ( CFC Staffing ) of the platform. Any interested Governor should contact me: bobarm@sympatico.ca

Bob

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

3. CFC Membership: CFC to eliminate tournament memberships – if you want to play in a CFC tournament, you must purchase an annual membership. To encourage individuals to become members, first time CFC members will be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year.

This is exactly what shouldn't happen. I was discussing this exact point with a friend of mine at the Keres Open. He only goes in this one tournament a year. I asked him what he would do if they eliminated the tournament fee and he had to buy a CFC membership and he said he would stop playing in CFC tournaments. This player also is has organized his own unrated invitational tournament which he easily filled up. All this proposal will do is reduce the amount of people who play in CFC tournaments.

People in Ontario might not think this is a problem, but here in BC there has been declining participation in OTB tournaments and this proposal would only make it worse.

If I had a vote in this I would vote for Bruce Harpers recommendation of getting rid of the CFC membership and only going with the rating fee.

J.Lohner

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

The end of the tournament membership would mean the end of (what little there is ) of CFC tournament chess in Quebec. I'm sure at least half the players in last years Quebec Open that played in the CFC-rated sections paid the $10 tournament membership fee - and I'm sure that half those players wouldn't pay the full fee (seeing what little they received for it). I'm sure the CFC (or the FQE) could verify this easily enough.

The only other CFC rated tournaments in the Montreal area are closed FIDE-rated events (which have to be CFC-rated in order to be FIDE-rated) such as the Quebec Closed.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Grassroots Group Proposes CFC Restructuring Package

Obviously regular membership needs to come down in price - drastically. I'm thinking something like $10 Junior and $15 Adult. At which point you don't need the tournament memberships anymore. If you don't have the magazine or the office anymore, that would be possible. Who knows perhaps another tournament or two would be run if you guys had a lot more people around there who had full memberships?