PDA

View Full Version : Item # 16 - CFC Membership Fee / Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership )



Bob Armstrong
10-01-2010, 08:10 AM
Item # 16 - CFC Membership Fee / Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership )

Introductory Post by Aris Marghetis

1. CFC Annual Membership Fee Structure - It is proposed that the CFC membership annual fee structure be rationalized to a single amount, with no discounts of any kind. It is expected that an arithmetic analysis of will confirm a new annual CFC membership amount of less than the current $36, which most regular members will appreciate. A potential downside is that parents of juniors will likely pay more in the future than they currently do, but it should be argued that all currently available discounts are being subsidized by regular adult members, are unrealistically and unfairly low, and benefit from discrimination (i.e. age discrimination).

2. Tournament Playing Fee ( = tournament membership ) - It is suggested that the recently elevated tournament membership fee (from $10 to $20) is negatively influencing potential growth in CFC membership. This negative influence is particularly inhibiting when trying to attract FQE members from Quebec to CFC events in Ontario. The FQE tournament membership fee is still only $10. Therefore, it is proposed that either the CFC tournament membership fee be returned to the prior $10 level, or that it be eliminated completely. Whereas the latter might seem to be a harsh alternative, the $20 tournament membership fee seems to be generating a lot of ill will, as it is understandably being thought of more as gouging vs. policy. If we eliminate tournament memberships, to avoid attempts to circumvent process, we should also eliminate first-time membership discounts.

Bob Armstrong
10-01-2010, 08:11 AM
Tournament Playing Fee - I’ll be first in line to support the total abolition of the tournament playing fee. But I have to say I agree with the principle that there should be some financial incentive built in for first time CFC’ers, who may balk initially at the full cost of an annual membership, in addition to the tournament registration fee ( a deep 40% discount for first time CFC’ers was one of the planks of the Grassroots’ Campaign that got withdrawn a while ago in the face of serious governor and organizer opposition ).

What do we know?

1. Chess is one of the most inexpensive hobbies around – lots of other entertainment is much more expensive.
2. Chess players are the cheapest group in the human species, and object to paying anything to play chess.
3. Newbies are already upset at the registration fee for a tournament ( even if they shouldn’t be ), and the organizers tell us that they walk away and don’t play once they hear that the cost of an annual CFC membership ( or even the tournament playing fee of $ 20 ) is on top of the registration fee.

Are all 3 of the above statements true?

If so, the only chance I see to raise the chances of newbies playing, is to offer them a discount on the first annual membership ( even though I agree that maybe we should just keep pounding out that chess is cheap at the cost – but the organizers say we are losing potential tournament players doing this ).

I see the discount as somewhat giving in to the newbies view that chess is “ expensive “, while at the same time trying to hook them in for 1 year, in hopes of a second year renewal at the full price.

I don’t know if others will be happy to see this topic back on the table again, but Aris felt it should be revisited. Is there any more support now for a first time annual membership discount, substituting for the tournament playing fee, than there was at the Spring Quarterly On-line Meeting?

Patrick McDonald
10-01-2010, 11:51 AM
First of all ... We really need to call the tournament fee a "Non-Member Tournament fee" rather than a "Tournament Membership fee" ... it is not a membership.

Second, I cannot remember one instance of someone walking away from registering for a tournament because of the membership fee or non member tournament fee. (and I run my fair share of tournaments).

Having a first time membership fee discount will be VERY problematic for tournament organizers.
If this is to be offered, I believe it will have to be on memberships purchased directly from the CFC. Even with downloaded membership lists available at the tournament site, it would add much more administrative overhead to an organizer at a crucial time of the tournament, where walk-in registrations are being accepted. This is the time of the tournament where it is most prone to potential mistakes being made with lists/sections/pairings etc.

Also, what is going to stop someone from just registering under a different name (for those that don't really care about their rating too much anyway - or want a fresh start on their rating)

Gordon Ritchie
10-01-2010, 12:07 PM
I agree completely with Aris that we should rationalize our fee structure to one rate.
With respect to the $20, I wonder if we should simply provide that this amount is applied against the individual's purchase of a CFC membership.
That would provide a monetary incentive to join if a player enjoys the experience.

Stuart Brammall
10-01-2010, 12:40 PM
It is my strong opinion that it is not the tournament fee but rather the membership fee which should be eliminated.

While taking registrations at Hart House events I have had a number of potential players walk out when the membership is explained to them, usually one or two per event.

As Bob argues, those paying Adult membership are currently subsidizing any discounted memberships, but I believe a more important issue is that those that play two events per year are subsidizing those who play ten.

Playing around ten events per year, I am paying $4.30 per event--- How can we justify charging a newbie who has never played an event $20 for one.

Instead I suggest we consider eliminating the membership fee, amalgamating the tournament fee and the rating fee, and setting it such that it meets the requirements of the budget.

I imagine ten dollars per tournament, per player would be sufficient.

Fred McKim
10-01-2010, 12:48 PM
Wow. This has become a total free-for-all among Ontario Governors.

#1 - I am in favour of retaining a Junior Membership Fee and an Adult Membership Fee.

#2 - I am in favour of retaining the Tournament Membership.

I would suggest that those who feel likewise, speak up now, before a vocal miority take control :-)

Michael von Keitz
10-01-2010, 01:03 PM
Stuart's proposal seems radical, but I like it. Maybe the dollar amount should be discussed further, though that's moot if I am the only one agreeing with him.

On a related note, I also like the thought of offering a pin, button, or badge to players in their first tournament of each calendar year. This would simply bear the CFC logo and some message along the lines of "CFC Member for 20xx."

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
10-01-2010, 01:05 PM
Wow. This has become a total free-for-all among Ontario Governors.

#1 - I am in favour of retaining a Junior Membership Fee and an Adult Membership Fee.

#2 - I am in favour of retaining the Tournament Membership.

I would suggest that those who feel likewise, speak up now, before a vocal minority take control :-)

I agree with you Fred!

We need to keep these fees in place. We need to keep the avenues open for people to enter events. The more participants the better.

We need to be inclusive not exclusive in our entry fee and membership (tournament fee) processes.

The new chess player needs a "Menu" to select from... not a membership policy that will dissuade participation.

Christopher Field
10-01-2010, 01:07 PM
There are a lot of complications here.
1. Juniors:
I was the originator of the proposal for the current set-up, under which juniors in effect receive a free "tournament membership" for tournaments with no adult players. I think that this has been worthwhile in attracting a number of younger players. When they wish to enter regular tournaments, they must then buy a membership. Since the "participating" membership has been dropped, they now have only the choice of the "full" junior membership.
Many junior players must buy the membership (and tournament entry) from allowance / part-time earnings. Some will have parents who will pay; often in this case, the parent may have more than one child wishing to play. I think there is good reason to continue with some kind of junior and / or family discount.
If we go for a single fee, lower than the current adult fee (taking into account that the cost of the magazine is now a lot lower than the previous printed version), perhaps a discount for additional family members would be in order.

2. Tournament membership:
I don't think it a good move to abolish this completely. What then is the incentive for anyone to buy a membership? Reducing it to $10, in line with FQE, seems appropriate.
Would it be possible to include one-time access to the next on-line magazine? This would give the player a chance to see one of the benefits of membership. The player might then decide to purchase a full membership. If he does, why not give the first year at $10 off ? In effect, this would make the tournament membership option become a "trial membership".

Bob Gillanders
10-01-2010, 04:19 PM
Here's an idea I floated last year, and it was ignored! :(

Replace the tournament membership fee with a short term membership, say 3 or 6 months. It would be say $10/$15/$20 and you get the newsletter. The shorter term may prompt the newbie to squeeze in a second tournament before expiry. Not to mention a few newsletters will hook him/her for sure.:)

Another thought for organizers faced with the walkaways, wave the CFC short term membership dues. To illustrate:

Tournament entry fee = $60
CFC 3 month membership = $15

The newbie shows up at the door, $60 in hand. He has never heard of the CFC, and wonders why he has to pay $15 more than everyone else. He gets annoyed, feels cheated, and is ready to walk. You can avoid this scenario. Here is how:

You charge him just the $60, and you pay the $15 to CFC yourself. Newbie is delighted because he is getting something for free. :) The tradeoff is that the newbie is not eligible for cash prizes. He wasn't expecting to win anything anyway. As an unrated player, was not eligible for class prizes anyway and chances of winning open section, rare indeed. You are effectively getting $45 towards costs.

Think about it! Looks like a win-win! :D

Paul Leblanc
10-01-2010, 04:38 PM
Chess activity in BC is much lower than Ontario. I'd say most of the potential members play 2 events per year. So to replace the annual $36 CFC membership revenue and the $4 BCCF event fee with a payment on registration would require each player to pay $20 per event not including the rating fee.

Of course the calculation of necessary revenue would have to be made from a national perspective, I imagine, and the averaging effect of doing that would result in a sort of regional subsidy.

Hugh Brodie
10-01-2010, 05:47 PM
How about eliminating the membership fee completely - and build it into the rating fee? This would add a sum (let's say $10) to entry fees - but that would penalize players who play in no-entry-fee events (Scarborough CC?).

Just a thought.

Stuart Brammall
10-01-2010, 06:08 PM
Hugh--
That is precisely what am advocating, though I guess I did not speak/type clearly enough. Some sort of accomodation might be made for no-entry-fee or non-cash-prize events.

Paul--
I do not think that players in BC should make up the total of what they contribute right now--- Right now BC is subsidizing the costs of elsewhere in the country if individuals only play in two events, since they are playing much less then those elsewhere.

The fee should be set at: (the total expenditure CFC budget) / (average number of players per tournament X total number of tournaments)

Everyone pays the same for each tournament they have rated.

Elegance in Simplicity.

Fred McKim
10-01-2010, 06:16 PM
For those who favour a special first time membership rate, it is possible to do this now simply by lowering the entry fee for those players.

One interesting issue is the fact that we have a fixed rating fee...perhaps the rating fee should be based on the tournament entry fee......

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2010, 09:02 PM
I am completely against a first-time discount at least at the CFC level. TDs can do whatever they wish with their own budgets of course.

I don't like the short-term memberships much and the reason is that I think quite a number of current annual members would likely drop to a 3-month membership, say if they are a summer-only player. Overall you'd lose more full-time members than you would gain part-time.

Any kind of "first-time" discount would also promote ratings fraud. However if that is thought to be a small issue, the "Original" Tournament Fee was a good one. In your FIRST EVER event you can pay $10, and you get one free magazine (Electronic now of course) in addition to being able to play. Sure, give them an offer to upgrade to a full year by simply paying the remainder. But make the fee strictly only for a first-time member.

Paul Leblanc
10-02-2010, 12:30 PM
We have gone the no-membership route for the BC Chess Federation. At the AGM in May 09, we voted to eliminate the $12 annual BCCF fee that was being collected for us by the CFC and to replace the revenue with a fee of $4 per player per tournament. The fee must be forwarded to the CFC by the tournament organizers before their event is rated.
It's still a bit early to tell but after a few growing pains, it appears to be revenue neutral and it reduces the sticker shock of a $48 membership for a new player to a little less imposing $36. The $4 BCCF fee is hidden in the entry fee of course.

Bob Armstrong
10-02-2010, 12:42 PM
Hi Paul:

Interesting to see how the BC experiment is working.

I've never been taken with " hidden " taxes. We used to have the Manufacturer's Tax, which I thought was a bad idea, a hidden tax.

Is there any move afoot in BC that organizers in advertising need to disclose your BC rating fee as part of the registration fee, and it be shown on a public list of tournament expeses, including the TO fee, and the TD fee, if any?

Bob

Paul Leblanc
10-02-2010, 04:47 PM
Bob, so far there is no specific BCCF regulation covering your two points. It is a small chess community, however, and the issue is well known to organizers, TDs and regular players.

Fred McKim
10-02-2010, 05:47 PM
So, BC has initiated a rating fee model for their memberships.

The basic rating fee is now $7 for BC, with no provincial membership fee, interesting model.

In an earlier post I suggested a staggered rating fee, based on entry fee, or type of event, etc.

Lyle Craver
10-02-2010, 07:34 PM
BC adopted the 'tournament fee' system described above two years ago. I thought it was a mistake then and still do.

Making such a system national (which I understand is the British system) would simply compound the mistake nation-wide.

I think our focus should be on increasing 'value added' to members and with that well in hand we've accomplished most of the goals.

Two other points:
- we live and die on the efforts of an army of organizers both at the local club level and at the tournament director / organizer level. These folks are key people in the success of the CFC and we need to be constantly on the lookout for ways to make things easier for them. The SwissSys deal was a good step, particularly as it took place at a time when laptop computers were not as commonplace as now.

Michael von Keitz
10-03-2010, 01:26 AM
The issue of provincial dues dawned on me before Paul posted, though I am glad he took the time. Despite some apparent dissent, the BCCF system seems perfectly acceptable to me and I am sure the OCA could successfully implement a similar model.

Stuart Brammall
10-03-2010, 01:39 PM
Lyle,
Can you elaborate on why you think the BC system is a mistake?
Can you give an example of "Value added"?

I strongly agree with your recogintion of clubs and organizers as the base on which the CFC stands, however this seems to have led me to having an opposing position.
I do not see how the streamlining of revenue collection through an amalgamation of such fees could possibly be bad.

Ken Einarsson
10-03-2010, 02:22 PM
Lyle,
Can you elaborate on why you think the BC system is a mistake?
Can you give an example of "Value added"?

I strongly agree with your recogintion of clubs and organizers as the base on which the CFC stands, however this seems to have led me to having an opposing position.
I do not see how the streamlining of revenue collection through an amalgamation of such fees could possibly be bad.
He kind of contradicting himself as he is quoted "we need to be constantly on the lookout for ways to make things easier for them.". Would not this make it easier as the TD/organizer does not have to remember the expiry dates of the membership as it is paid every single tournament they play in.

As for me I would be in favour of the concept. As for it being considered a hidden tax I do not believe that it should not be an issue if one were to disclose how the funds are distributed at the tournament (i.e. prize fund, CFC fee, Provincial /club fee, TD fee, etc.).

Stuart Brammall
10-03-2010, 02:51 PM
As for it being considered a hidden tax I do not believe that it should not be an issue if one were to disclose how the funds are distributed at the tournament (i.e. prize fund, CFC fee, Provincial /club fee, TD fee, etc.).

I agree. Whenever a tournament flier was to be circulated it would simply state "$60 Entry fee + $10 rating fee" or something thereabouts.

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 05:21 PM
I agree. Whenever a tournament flier was to be circulated it would simply state "$60 Entry fee + $10 rating fee" or something thereabouts.
Philosophically, I could be talked into just a per-tournament fee. The problem is in the optics. I fear that "$60 entry fee + $10 rating fee" just looks so bad, that it would really push many more people to consider non-CFC rating! :(

Bob Armstrong
10-03-2010, 05:28 PM
Hi Aris:

You hit the nail on the head - the CFC does not make any claim that its rating fees reflect real rating maintenance cost. It is a way of generating general revenue to run the organization, and is fixed according to CFC revenue need. And rating fees form almost 40% of the CFC revenue I believe ( the other major revenue being membership fees ).

So attempting to meld membership fees into rating fees makes the optics worse than they already are, and will lead to many more " rating fee gouging " charges. I like the revenue division between membership fee and rating fee. It seems to have worked relatively OK to now.

Bob

Fred McKim
10-03-2010, 08:52 PM
It makes sense that each province might want to have a fee model similar to the CFC model (fixed and variable cost) although this adds to the CFC's admin costs in making the rebates more complex.

The CFC cannot switch to only a variable rate model, although it might be possible to reduced the fixed cost and increase the variable cost.

So for example consider dropping the Membership fee to $20. This would be a loss in revenue of around $20k. We would have to put the rating fee to maybe $7 to correct for this. Effectively entry fees would go up by $5 to compensate.

As well there are EKG contract issues.

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 10:19 PM
Hi Aris:

You hit the nail on the head - the CFC does not make any claim that its rating fees reflect real rating maintenance cost. It is a way of generating general revenue to run the organization, and is fixed according to CFC revenue need. And rating fees form almost 40% of the CFC revenue I believe ( the other major revenue being membership fees ).

So attempting to meld membership fees into rating fees makes the optics worse than they already are, and will lead to many more " rating fee gouging " charges. I like the revenue division between membership fee and rating fee. It seems to have worked relatively OK to now.

Bob
Yes, maybe my ideas above were misconstrued. Here are my current takes :

1) The elimination of any discounted CFC membership (i.e. Junior ones, etc.) In other words, each province has a single annual CFC membership rate. That would be an easy first step towards CFC membership rate rationalization, and will result in regular adult members paying a lower and more fair (IMHO!) rate.

2) When I mentioned the possibility of eliminating tournament memberships, it was with the idea of forcing annual memberships. Note this would be easier if point 1) above is implemented, as the new annual rate would be lower! After considering the optics, I cannot at this time support increasing rating fees.

My preference would be to vote on 1) first, and if it passes, then after we determine the new annual (<$36) rate, we vote on eliminating tournament membership, which would be at our next Governors meeting, or so I predict.

Bob Armstrong
10-03-2010, 10:34 PM
Hi Aris:

I just draw to your attention that under the meeting procedures, motions must be brought before 9:00 PM EDT on Monday, Oct. 4. This is when voting starts on all motions, and so none can be filed after that time.

If a member wants to initiate a motion, they need only find a seconder, and then post under the relevant thread the exact wording of their motion. I will then separate it out into a new " voting thread " of its own for Monday night. This has already happened under the Elimination of Life Governors thread, where Les Bunning/Lyle Craver have now launced a motion.

Bob

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 10:52 PM
Hi Aris:

I just draw to your attention that under the meeting procedures, motions must be brought before 9:00 PM EDT on Monday, Oct. 4. This is when voting starts on all motions, and so none can be filed after that time.

If a member wants to initiate a motion, they need only find a seconder, and then post under the relevant thread the exact wording of their motion. I will then separate it out into a new " voting thread " of its own for Monday night. This has already happened under the Elimination of Life Governors thread, where Les Bunning/Lyle Craver have now launced a motion.

Bob
OK then, in order to file a specific motion, I would like to know exactly how many of each type of member the CFC has now. This is to ensure that I calculate and propose a new annual rate that is at least revenue-neutral.

How would I get that information by Monday morning?

Bob Gillanders
10-03-2010, 10:57 PM
Aris,

Contrary to urban legend, most members do not find the CFC membership dues excessive. In fact, they are very reasonable, even cheap. The adult dues of $36 have not been raised for many years. Actually getting cheaper with inflation.

The vocal minority that complain $36 is expensive, would also complain if it was $30, would still complain if it was $25, would still complain at $20, and again at $15, and maybe even at $10,......you get the idea.:(

Some Juniors will be paying more this year with the cancellation of the Junior Participating membership. So let's not hit them with another increase too soon.

The issue is not one of cost, but of fairness. We need to think very seriously before making any changes with the membership vs. rating fee split. I have not heard a serious proposal yet that is free of danger. We need to protect our revenue base.

Bob Armstrong
10-03-2010, 11:05 PM
Hi Aris:

The May 1 membership stats are on the CFC Website: http://www.chess.ca/MemStats.shtml

Bob

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 11:17 PM
Aris,

Contrary to urban legend, most members do not find the CFC membership dues excessive. In fact, they are very reasonable, even cheap. The adult dues of $36 have not been raised for many years. Actually getting cheaper with inflation.

The vocal minority that complain $36 is expensive, would also complain if it was $30, would still complain if it was $25, would still complain at $20, and again at $15, and maybe even at $10,......you get the idea.:(

Some Juniors will be paying more this year with the cancellation of the Junior Participating membership. So let's not hit them with another increase too soon.

The issue is not one of cost, but of fairness. We need to think very seriously before making any changes with the membership vs. rating fee split. I have not heard a serious proposal yet that is free of danger. We need to protect our revenue base.
Hi Bob, I respectfully disagree on a few points, expressed above, as folllows :

1) That is not an urban legend, and I am quite surprised to see that claim! Most CFC members bemoan they are not getting $36 worth from the CFC.

2) This is different from finding dues are excessive. People are feeling ripped off with reduction in services (for example, the printed magazine) coupled with unexplainably high rating costs. On the other hand, resetting to a lower annual membership for the average person, will increase goodwill to the CFC!

3) Juniors is not the same as students, for example. Like for almost any other recreational activity, it is the parents paying for juniors, not little kids out of their allowance. Why do I pay more for my kid to play hockey than I would pay for me, but I pay significantly less for my kid to play chess? This seems so unfair, and think of the positive reaction to a lower rate for Joe Regular!

4) Please note that I am not encouraging any increase to the rating fees!

5) Would you know how many of each type of member we currently have?

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 11:28 PM
Hi Aris:

I just draw to your attention that under the meeting procedures, motions must be brought before 9:00 PM EDT on Monday, Oct. 4. This is when voting starts on all motions, and so none can be filed after that time.

If a member wants to initiate a motion, they need only find a seconder, and then post under the relevant thread the exact wording of their motion. I will then separate it out into a new " voting thread " of its own for Monday night. This has already happened under the Elimination of Life Governors thread, where Les Bunning/Lyle Craver have now launced a motion.

Bob

Replace the membership rates for Adult, Family, Junior; with a single new annual CFC membership rate, whose federal portion would reduce to $30.

Bob Armstrong
10-03-2010, 11:49 PM
Hi Aris:

This seems to be sufficiently worded for a formal motion. But you need to post who your seconder of the motion is before I can put it on the agenda for voting.

Bob

Aris Marghetis
10-04-2010, 12:07 AM
Hi Aris:

This seems to be sufficiently worded for a formal motion. But you need to post who your seconder of the motion is before I can put it on the agenda for voting.

Bob
Well, I'm waiting for a seconder to step forward. If no one does, it dies! ;)

Valer Eugen Demian
10-04-2010, 12:26 AM
Gentlemen, I think we fail to see the forest from the trees!...

An organization such as CFC - or any other Canadian organization - needs members to exist. These members have to pay a fee to benefit from the services provided; in CFC's case those are:
- organized chess
- website
- magazine (pdf format)
- official rating of value (and not you Tom, Dick and Harry server rating...)
- official link to FIDE and international chess
- other benefits I am forgetting now
In conclusion regardless of their number they exist and someone wishing to take advantage of them must pay!

Asking to eliminate the CFC membership is absolutely ilogical. This must be kept, together with the provincial membership. One should not be able to play without being a member of both: provincial organization and CFC. If they do not want to be, they are free to play in the park, over the internet (where in most places you have to pay anyway...) or during a barbeque with their friends.

The tournament playing fee should be decided by organizers based on their expenses. I am sure we can find out what are the most likely amounts required for an average local tournament to break even based on the experience of all TDs around here.

I fail to see why someone would complain while showing up for the first time to a tournament site and finding out it needs to be a member in the federations sanctioning that tournament, as well as to cover the tournament fee (his quota for playing in it). I was and still am one of the few who believe amateur Canadian chess players are some of the cheapest and speak from personal experience. It is sad to say this and my only hope actually is for the new generation we fight tooth and nail to raise properly!

Meantime the fees (whatever amount we decide) must stay!

Christopher Mallon
10-04-2010, 05:26 AM
Aris, I will second your motion with whatever final wording you decide upon, based on a $30 annual rate.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 06:55 AM
Aris & Chris:

I will post a motion tonight at 9:00 PM EDT as follows:

Motion 2011-B - Moved: Aris Marghetis; Seconded : Chris Mallon

Single Annual CFC Membership & Fee - that CFC replace the memberships for Adult, Family, and Junior, with a single new annual CFC membership, and the rate for the federal portion would be $30.

As Posting Secretary, I felt Aris' initial wording of his proposed motion needed some minor editing. I hope it is satisfactory to you. If you want to amend anything here, please let me know ASAP. If you don't post by noon EDT, I'll assume it is now OK, since I need to post it before voting starts tonight.

I will then post it as a new supplementary thread under this agenda item, so it gets displayed prominently, and the discussion can be separated out from the other topics and issues under this thread.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 08:24 AM
I think it is important to hear from Fred, as CFC Treasurer, whether he believes the Marghetis/Mallon Single CFC Membership & Fee proposal will be revenue-neutral for CFC.

Bob

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 08:36 AM
current memberships
971 ordinary
271 junior
27 family
185 particpating

Let's assume everyone renews at both the old and new rates, but we lose say 1/2 of the particpating members

971*36 + 271*24 +27*18 +93*24 = 44178

971*30 + 271*30 + 27*30 + 93*30 = 40860

I would predict a loss of $3300 from the existing membership base. We would have to bring in 110 new members (because of lower fee) to compensate this loss. I think the break even (with no new members because of lower fee) is between $32 and $33

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-04-2010, 08:41 AM
how many of each type of member the CFC has now.

http://www.chess.ca/MemStats.shtml
It is not "now", however numbers should be similar (+-)

update:
President posted 2010/10/01 data at
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showpost.php?p=8011&postcount=4

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 08:42 AM
Hi Aris & Chris:

Fred has proposed either $ 32 or $ 33 as a revenue neutral fee for a single annual CFC membership fee. Would you treat this as if it was a proposed amendment to your motion, and treat it as a " friendly amendment ", and replace your $ 30 figure with one of these figures?

In either case, please let me know ASAP. And if it is acceptable, let me know if you choose $ 32 or $ 33. Thanks.

Bob

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 08:42 AM
I'm using 2010/10/01 data.

Hal Bond
10-04-2010, 09:19 AM
I do not see the need for Junior memberships or its rationale, particularly since we waive membership for scholastic tournaments. I have eliminated junior discounts at my tournaments and it has not affected their participation.

I do like Stuart's idea of moving to a heavier rating fee and a reduced (possibly eliminated) membership fee. This is more radical and would require much thought. Personally I would take it a step further and switch wholesale to FIDE ratings.

If we are taking smaller steps, I like Bob Gillanders' suggestion of a short term membership, but only for unrated players.

Ken Craft
10-04-2010, 09:23 AM
I believe we need to stop the constant tinkering with our membership structure. I'll be voting against the motion.

Fred McKim
10-04-2010, 09:27 AM
Maybe the motion should read a new one price membership, with the exact fee to be set after a brief analysis by the executive. To come into effect Jan 1.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 09:31 AM
Hal/Ken/Fred:

I have started for Aris/Chris, a new supplementary motion thread specifically on their motion. Could further future discussion of this specific motion now take place under that thread. This is important for people first coming to that thread, who may not read posts buried deep in the multi-topic thread this one is. Thanks.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
10-04-2010, 09:56 AM
I like my idea more as well ;)

I will be voting agaist Aris' motion, as I do not find the the amount of the current fees to be at all unreasonable, simply the way in which they are organized/collected.

I am unfortunately unprepared to bring a motion to move to a one fee system, as this would effect a number of things which have not been discussed here---- These include, but are of course not limited to:

-Election processes for governors, specifically, who gets to vote when there are no members
-How such a structure would work with the provintial organizations
-Whether or not clubs and tournaments that do not charge entry fee should be accomodated and in what way

I will however move that a committee be formed to investigate a possible restructuring in that direction.

Michael von Keitz
10-04-2010, 10:07 AM
I will however move that a committee be formed to investigate a possible restructuring in that direction.

I will second that motion.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 10:09 AM
Hi Stuart:

Are you indicating that you intend to ask the Executive to form such a committee?

Or are you saying you are bringing a formal motion to establish the committee? If so, you need to post who your seconder is for me to start a supplementary motion thread.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
10-04-2010, 10:13 AM
I am making a motion, Michael is my seconder.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2010, 10:56 AM
Motion 2011-D - Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee

Moved : Stuart Brammall; Seconded : Michael von Keitz

- that a committee be formed to investigate a possible restructuring in the direction of one CFC fee.

I will now start a new supplementary motion thread for the discussion of this motion.

Bob

Lyle Craver
10-06-2010, 05:31 AM
Aris, you can find historical statistics at http://www.chess.ca/MemStats.shtml

The reason these stats are presented as they are is this is in the format used by the Secretary each year to calculate eligibility for each province's quota of Governors - this is required to be done each year at the close of business each April 30th.

Hope this helps, LC