Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

**Roger Patterson** · Tuesday, 13th January, 2009, 07:49 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

If I as a tournament organizer am faced with losing 2/3 of my players who take out tournament memberships I may well decide to either a) hold a non CFC tournament b) decide not to run the tournament at all. Either way, the CFC loses out on rating fees and probably, in the long run, members as there is reduced incentives to be a CFC member.

This is not a hypothetical situation. Already, some active tournaments are run as non CFC events because, in the judgement of the organizers, it is too expensive for players to insist on CFC membership and associated fees for the dubious benefit of having an active rating. In particular, the Victoria Olympic fundraising active http://victoriachessclub.pbwiki.com/...ournament+2008 (ironically an event held to support what should be a CFC showpiece), the upcoming Victoria CYCC fundraiser , http://victoriachessclub.pbwiki.com/...ive-Fundraiser, and the one day active tournaments being held in Vancouver by Luc Poitras e.g. http://www.chess.bc.ca/Reports/Nov08Active.html. For a small tournament such as the Jack Taylor (~20 players with 6 of those as tournament memberships) which I run as a low cost event to encourage newcomers to play would probably go to a non CFC format simply to keep the costs down and attractive to non CFC club members or perhaps siimply fold up all together. The organizers of the Victoria Chess Festival, of which I am one, have discussed the impact of not having tournament memberships for that event and feel unaminously it would be disasterous. As a consequence, there would be a good chance we would not continue to hold it.

You are blase about the effects of losing participants in tournaments. TDs and organizers are not.

**Tony Ficzere** · Tuesday, 13th January, 2009, 09:34 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Bob,

I don't understand why you want to eliminate this option. It allows players to play when they want, almost no overhead involved, there is nothing to lose. Your idea is to force players into paying for something they only want to use once or twice per year. I am glad you are not running the CFC as we would be at zero members in no time flat.

Also, you pull your figures out of the air. I'm not talking about the numbers from GL3, I'm talking about the what if numbers you provide in your post. They are your best GUESS, that is all. Note that with each T membership sold, there is also a $3 rating fee collected. Did you try to figure out how many T options went on to pay full memberships? Probably not. I know there are some, but I won't quote figures from thin air. As a tournament organizer for over 20 years now, I have gained many entries to tournaments from players who would not have played otherwise with this membership. As a former CFC employee I can recall many T options who converted into full CFC members. You should be more concerned on how to get more players to tournaments, not eliminating them!!!!

The T option also means revenue to the tournament. Why do you want to decrease tournament revenue? Eliminating the T option will not save the CFC. Leave it alone. It actually works. Start thinking outside the box on ways the CFC can generate revenue, not on ways we can lose players and members.

**Bob Armstrong** · Tuesday, 13th January, 2009, 10:37 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Hi Tony:

Tony F: " I am glad you are not running the CFC as we would be at zero members in no time flat. "

The person currently " running the CFC " has recommended the elimination of the tournament playing fee:

From 2008/9 GL # 2, President David Lavin's " Message ":

" On September 15th I forward a copy of the my Business Plan to all the Governor's and
started a number of threads on the CFC's [ Governors' ] Discussion Board. I included a page of questions and observations which I considered to be somewhat controversial. I also included hard numbers related to rating fees and membership fees, including projections based on different fees, and a recommendation to eliminate junior, family, and tournament memberships."

CFC Secretary Lyle Craver said in the same GL # 2:

" Certainly I am of the opinion that “tournament memberships” have devastated the CFC as rather
than bringing in new people in droves, regular members have chosen this option and have chosen
to play in fewer but larger events. This at least has been the experience in Vancouver – Governors
will have to decide whether it matches their experience in their areas. "

So the GC is working WITH the Executive on this recommendation of eliminating the TPF option.

It is a matter of principle - equality of support for the CFC ( no distinction between players playing in CFC-rated tournaments ) vs loss of a number of tournament membership players ( which form a small proportion of all tournament players, and some will be lost only for the short run ). Is the principle worth it?

The GC says YES. The CFC governors in July 2008 at the AGM, by passing the straw vote motion eliminating the tournament playing fee, said YES. The current CFC President says YES. The current CFC Secretary says YES.

I guess the governors will have a chance to revisit this decision in future, and decide whether they want to change their minds. You and Roger and Aris and Jason and others will have every chance to make your position known to them - will it change their minds? Who knows?

I am not alone in taking up a platform on the elimination of the TPF option.

Bob

**Aris Marghetis** · Tuesday, 13th January, 2009, 11:44 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Bob, I feel that I am a fairly active Organizer/TD, for both Regular and Active events, which I both rate CFC (and FIDE for Regular). Other Organizers/TDs and myself have repeatedly tried to explain to you why it seems to be a bad idea to eliminate some kind of tournament membership option. And yet you persist with what at times seems like a vendetta, and I must concur with one of the other posters, your numbers are ???!!!

I guess what I'm saying is, I just cannot understand why you keep stalking this idea?

No need to reply, unless an active Organizer/TD agrees with you. Yours in chess.

**Tony Ficzere** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 12:31 AM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

Hi Tony:

Tony F: " I am glad you are not running the CFC as we would be at zero members in no time flat. "

The person currently " running the CFC " has recommended the elimination of the tournament playing fee:

From 2008/9 GL # 2, President David Lavin's " Message ":

" On September 15th I forward a copy of the my Business Plan to all the Governor's and
started a number of threads on the CFC's [ Governors' ] Discussion Board. I included a page of questions and observations which I considered to be somewhat controversial. I also included hard numbers related to rating fees and membership fees, including projections based on different fees, and a recommendation to eliminate junior, family, and tournament memberships."

CFC Secretary Lyle Craver said in the same GL # 2:

" Certainly I am of the opinion that “tournament memberships” have devastated the CFC as rather
than bringing in new people in droves, regular members have chosen this option and have chosen
to play in fewer but larger events. This at least has been the experience in Vancouver – Governors
will have to decide whether it matches their experience in their areas. "

So the GC is working WITH the Executive on this recommendation of eliminating the TPF option.

It is a matter of principle - equality of support for the CFC ( no distinction between players playing in CFC-rated tournaments ) vs loss of a number of tournament membership players ( which form a small proportion of all tournament players, and some will be lost only for the short run ). Is the principle worth it?

The GC says YES. The CFC governors in July 2008 at the AGM, by passing the straw vote motion eliminating the tournament playing fee, said YES. The current CFC President says YES. The current CFC Secretary says YES.

I guess the governors will have a chance to revisit this decision in future, and decide whether they want to change their minds. You and Roger and Aris and Jason and others will have every chance to make your position known to them - will it change their minds? Who knows?

I am not alone in taking up a platform on the elimination of the TPF option.

Bob

Given the executives record for making sound decisions, I think this only adds weight to my opinion.

David Lavin and Lyle Craver haven't run a CFC event in how many years? Lyle states that it is his opinion, no facts were presented, no experience to base his opinion on, only a hunch.

By the sound of it, you blame the Tournament membership for the complete fall of the CFC membership. I still don't know how you come to that conclusion. I guess there were no other factors involved with the demise of the membership.

Organizers who actually organize tournaments from across the country have told you over and over again that it is a bad idea, but you still persist with this agenda. Hey, what the heck do organizers know anyway, right!

I have seen T's turn to O's, personal experience from working at the CFC, and directing tournaments. The ordinary players who expire sometimes come back down the road and play the occasional tournament. You seem to not want them back.

As I said before, if you want to be constructive, come up with a revenue generating idea that will help the CFC. This is not the answer.

**Jason Lohner** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 12:38 AM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Bob is more interested in getting more out of a shrinking pie... This proposal does NOTHING to a large market area such as Toronto, be damned on how it will hurt other areas because it doesn't affect him.

Lets use a real world example in the business world of his 'logic'. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo released their 'next generation' of Video game consoles. One went very high end ($600) packaged in a bluray player and made the highest end graphics, The second took the middle road with a decent price and good graphics... the Third player decided to try another path, they went after a market that isn't just the 'hardcore' gamer. this Third player innovated with a new controller and had the lowest price, also it designed games that were geared towards people who play casually as well as their usual titles. Guess who is DOMINATING the current video games industry?

Sony PS3 - epic fail, getting creamed by being too expensive (hardcore players video game players only) lost 4 BILLION dollars in 3 years.

Microsoft Xbox 360 - lowered price and is doing fine with both hardcore and casual players. Hey it might just break even this generation!

Nintendo Wii - lowest price, and is outselling the other two combined. HUGE PROFITS!

How does this apply to the CFC? instead of reaching out to the casual player the CFC puts forth a motion to stick up their middle finger to these players and tell them they aren't welcome. Instead of making a bigger pie (like Nintendo has done) they figure a high price will just draw them in... EPIC FAIL.

This is the official position of the Western Liberation Front.

**Ben Daswani** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 03:57 AM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

My final comment on this issue:

With all due respect to Lyle, he's not even remotely involved in the Vancouver chess scene. He doesn't play in events, he doesn't direct events, and - in only my experience, of course - he's been completely unhelpful with regard to his duties as BCCF Treasurer. He doesn't speak for Vancouver.

**John Brown** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 08:17 AM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

I was just looking at the USCF magazine this week and I see that they have a reduction of membership fees if you join to get an online magazine. About $12 reduction.
Will the CFC do the same if it ever gets it online magazine working?

Bob:
I left your grassroots campaign because of this idea of eliminating the Tournament participation fee.

In the past I have had lots join on this tournament fee but the CFC was poor at giving the magazine out. That caused a lot of complaining and some who rejoined to full membership never did receive a magazine either.

Now that the magazine is no more and the online is not running what has the CFC got to give to get participation in tournaments? Answer : NOTHING
At least with the tournament participation fee they get some rating fees and a bit of money.

The Governors need to modify the tournament fee to reflect a better deal say that if a player uses the tournament fee 3 times say at $17.50 ( $52.50) or even $20 ($60 ) then it would be cheaper to take out a full membership at $43.

Most chess players being humans ( I hope anyway) are creatures of habit. If you always play in certain tournaments a year then you would know what is more to you advantage.
The CFC should take advantage of this habit and use it to their advantage.
If you squash the tournament participation fee then you squash CFC
revenue.

There are die hard Members who play in as many tournaments as they can get and they pay the full membership.

There are die hard casual players that play in specific tournaments ie Labour Day Open and Thanksgiving Open.

If the CFC would raise the tournament fee to $20 = $40 for two tournaments they only lose $3.00 but gain a guaranteed income of $40 from that player each year.
If you find out how many used the tournament fee entry you can use real numbers to forecast CFC revenue in their budgets.

If you want to compete for a SWOCL or GTCL Grand Prix Prize then you get full membership. If you are only allowed a couple of tournaments a year because of work or family commitments then you won't join full membership.
Seems like Old and current CFC executives don't look farther than the front door, then close it because it's raining revenue LOSSES.

Chess Players Play chess because they are interested with chess.
So why not key on that issue.
HOW do we keep players interested in the thing they like CHESS?

**Bob Armstrong** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 02:47 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Hi John ( sorry, got the reply under the wrong post somehow ):

Analysis of Membership fees

1st half 2009 Year 2008

Annual membership fees collected $ 21,060 $ 44,942
Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987

The above is from GL # 2, the 1st half 2008-9 financial statement.

So in the 1st half, CFC collected $ 1,320. Let's double that to get the total for all of 2008-9 = $ 2,640.

At $ 10/ per tournament membership, this total would represent 264 tournament memberships for this year.

If the CFC had doubled the Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ) to $ 20 back on May 1, 2008, then CFC would have taken in this year instead, $5,280. This would have been an added revenue of $ 2,640 for this year.

But there is a problem with this simple calculation. The issue raised by some organizers is that TPF players will not continue playing if the CFC eliminates the TPF. So the question arises, how many of those TPF players would have quit tournament chess over the increase? This is hard to predict.

What we can say is that if 1/2 would have quit over the TPF increase, then there would have been only 132 TPF players this year. This, @ $ 20/player, gives again $ 2,640. So CFC would not get revenue this year from the increase, nor lose it.

I have projected a TPF player loss of 2/3 ( my best guesstimate - said to be low by some organizers ). If this had happened, there would have been only 88 TPF players this year. This @ $ 20 would have generated only $ 1,760. In this scenario, CFC would have lost this year $ 880 ( $ 2,640 - $ 1,760 ).

So, in this year, a loss of 176 players from across Canada for a year ( somewhat less actually, because tournament playing fee players do play more than 1 tournament per year sometimes ) and $ 880 on my projection. Not great from an organizers point of view; not really significant from the CFC financial point of view, given their projected total revenue for this year being in the $ 100,000 range.

The issue for the GC is that the elimination of the TPF is seen as one of principle : equality of support for the CFC from everyone, regardless of how often they intend to play ( no discrimination between players playing in tournaments ). It is for this principle, that the GC accepts the unfortunate loss of some TPF players and supports total elimination of the TPF.

However, due to input from some organizers, the GC has now amended its Platform on CFC Fees to now read:

" However, there have been very strong submissions by some organizers, that it will be very detrimental to eliminate tournament memberships. And they put forward that their experience should give their opinion weight on this issue. And this position has also been taken by a number of CFC members and non-members. Some CFC members approached by us for endorsement of the platform on CFC fees, have specifically refused, solely on the grounds of objecting to the elimination of tournament memberships. So we are suggesting that we support, as a secondary position only, if our initial position of elimination is voted down, the retention of the tournament membership, but increasing it by 100% ( from $ 10 to $ 20 ). "

This is exactly what you are proposing. We have found that a number of people opposed to eliminating the TPF, have agreed to this increase.

We still believe elimination of the TPF is required for equity purposes, but acknowledge the doubling of the TPF as a fall back position, if we lose the elimination vote.

JB : " If you squash the tournament participation fee then you squash CFC revenue ".

This is an arguable point, John. Yes we initially lose a TPF player and a $ 3 rating fee = $ 13. But what happens when that player wants to play CFC-rated tournament chess, and so caves in and buys a full membership later in the year? They then pay $ 36 to the CFC for full membership and the rating fee. So CFC gains on the player who returns. Some organizers seem to be saying that NOT ONE TPF player will return to the CFC, they will be so upset by having to pay a full CFC membership. I'm sorry but I don't believe that. Their numbers are as suspect as they say my 2/3 loss prediction is. Chess players love to play chess, and get a rush from tournament playing conditions, and like to have a national rating. Some TPF players will return to the CFC.

On my calculation in the original post, on my predicted figures, eliminating the TPF really had almost no financial effect. A principle of equality will have been put into place, and the downside is, unfortunately, the loss of some TPF players who will not return.

Bob

**Jason Lohner** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 04:30 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post

the downside is, unfortunately, the loss of some TPF players who will not return.

Bob

Which show that you don't care about the casual chess player in Canada. Right from you own words. Keep shrinking that pie.

**Roger Patterson** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 05:34 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Allowing the possibility of doubling the tournament membership fee to $20 is not a compromise. You're still trying to kill it.

You claim this is more equitable but defining "equity" is notoriously in the eyes of the beholder. A TM player can equally claim it is not equitable for him to pay for services he does not want or perhaps cannot even use.

Moreover, if you want to do this properly, you need to be more careful. The current TM includes a portion that is allocated to the provinces. It is improper for the CFC to unilaterally change a fee that belongs to someone else. And in fact, BC has now a membership requirement that is only tournament memberships. BC sets that number, not the CFC.

**John Brown** · Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 05:50 PM

Re: Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Bob;
You and a few others are missing the biggest point of my post.
Humans are creatures of habit. If a player only wants to play say in the Labour Day Open and he/she has to pay an extra fee whether it is a CFC membership or a Tournament participation fee then they will pay it regardless of the price.
So you cannot squash the Tournament fee by increasing it. You squash it my eliminating it, period. If it went to $20 then those who played two tournaments may only play one not two tournaments a year. No one knows a person's financial position except the person themselves. So all these maybes could be's
guessing is for not. A chess player who wants to play will play. You just have to give them an option. Without an option you get no chess players.

Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Grassroots' Campaign: Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment