Item 16C - Motion 2011-D - Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee

[Bob Armstrong]

Motion 2011-D - Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee - Discussion

Moved : Stuart Brammall; Seconded : Michael von Keitz

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

This thread is for discussion of the motion only. A separate motion voting thread will be started at 9:00 PM EDT tonight, Monday, Oct. 4.

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

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.

This thread is for discussion of the motion only. A separate motion voting thread will be started at 9:00 PM EDT tonight, Monday, Oct. 4.

Bob
This seems like a much better idea than my singular motion about one single membership fee. I offer to be part of this committee, if voted to be formed.

[Ellen Nadeau]

I may have missed something, but is the intent of this motion to eliminate Youth membership or youth rating fees?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ellen:

There has been some discussion of eliminating membership fees entirely, and raising rating fees to compensate for the loss of income. But this is a very complex issue, and the movers decided that the committee should look at all apects of the fees structure, and in the process, consider the possibility of melding membership and rating fees in some way as one possible scenario. Junior fees have not been separated out in the discussion yet for any separate analysis.

The mover and seconder can supplement my observations as an outsider.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

In terms of moving to one rating fee only, I would note that rating fees only account for roughly 40% if the CFC revenue. About 60% comes from Membership fees ( my figures are rough only, because there are some smaller sources of revenue that I have excluded for the purpose of making my point ).

So based on this rough rounded off analysis, to compensate for lost revenue, rating fees would have to be made to generate 150% more revenue than they do now. And already there are complaints that the rating fee is too high, and complaints that CFC uses them as a source of general revenue, and they in no way reflect the actual cost of maintaining the rating system.

How much worse will the complaints be when the rating fees are raised 150%??

Bob

[Ellen Nadeau]

Thanks Bob, I did find the thread below and read the posts after seeing this thread.

I cannot support any direction where scholastic tournaments become costly. We would have no large youth events involved with schools which do bring Junior members to the CFC.

[Christopher Mallon]

Rating Fees are probably just a bad name for what they really are.

In the other thread, someone mentioned something about how players who play rarely but pay full membership subsidize players who pay frequently. This is not really true, because the ones playing frequently are chipping in rating fees.

Of course we haven't really considered the other end of the spectrum: If memberships account for 60% of our intake, we could increase them by 67% and do away with rating fees entirely (assuming a fully automated rating system that is).

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Ellen:

There has been some discussion of eliminating membership fees entirely, and raising rating fees to compensate for the loss of income. But this is a very complex issue, and the movers decided that the committee should look at all apects of the fees structure, and in the process, consider the possibility of melding membership and rating fees in some way as one possible scenario. Junior fees have not been separated out in the discussion yet for any separate analysis.

The mover and seconder can supplement my observations as an outsider.

Bob
This might just be my impression, but Bob Armstrong, it seems to me that you often come back to the idea of raising rating fees. However, it seems that the vast majority of people are against that direction. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is unfair when you return to raising rating fees.

I contributed to the start of this whole discussion by talking about the potential elimination of (some) membership discounts. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, it is my strong opinion that the idea of raising rating fees is a brutal non-starter. On the other hand, I would like to eliminate (some) membership discounts, maybe even increase membership revenue.

[Stuart Brammall]

The idea behind moving to a single fee (one that should in my opinion replace the rating fee) is that, in reality, the rating of tournaments is the only thing of value the average player recieves from this organization. Sure we have a news-letter, but we all know that no one pays a membership if they do not plan to play in tournaments.

When do you use a CFC membership except when playing in tournaments? Never.

We provide one service; we should charge one fee.

When I write a cheque to the CFC, I do it to get my games rated--- That is to say that I am viewing the money from both my membership and the rating fees collected from the events as both going to pay for the rating my events.

The reason why I thing the single fee should be what is now the rating fee is simply because not everyone plays the same number of events. Oubviously this new single fee would need to be significantly higher then the current rating fee--- looking at the budget right now I can see we get aprox. $31,000 from rating fees, this indcated aprox, 10,300 rating fees paid. To make up the total of the current mempership fees + rating fee (aprox $82,000), the new fee would need to be aprox. $8. ---- Probably should be a little higher since I have assumed everyone is using SwissSys and paying the low rating fee.

Why is this more fair?

This way you're not asking someone planning to only play one event to pay $9 per game (($43 ontario membership +$3 rating fee)/ 5 games in a weekender) while I sitting across the board from him am getting my games rated for $1.5 each(($43 ontario membership + (9X$3 rating fee)) / (9 tournaments X 5 games per event))

[Stuart Brammall]

Also, not having to deal with memberships will make life much easier for everyone--- organizer, CFC office staff, everyone.

[Aris Marghetis]

The idea behind moving to a single fee (one that should in my opinion replace the rating fee) is that, in reality, the rating of tournaments is the only thing of value the average player recieves from this organization. Sure we have a news-letter, but we all know that no one pays a membership if they do not plan to play in tournaments.

When do you use a CFC membership except when playing in tournaments? Never.

We provide one service; we should charge one fee.

When I write a cheque to the CFC, I do it to get my games rated--- That is to say that I am viewing the money from both my membership and the rating fees collected from the events as both going to pay for the rating my events.

The reason why I thing the single fee should be what is now the rating fee is simply because not everyone plays the same number of events. Oubviously this new single fee would need to be significantly higher then the current rating fee--- looking at the budget right now I can see we get aprox. $31,000 from rating fees, this indcated aprox, 10,300 rating fees paid. To make up the total of the current mempership fees + rating fee (aprox $82,000), the new fee would need to be aprox. $8. ---- Probably should be a little higher since I have assumed everyone is using SwissSys and paying the low rating fee.

Why is this more fair?

This way you're not asking someone planning to only play one event to pay $9 per game (($43 ontario membership +$3 rating fee)/ 5 games in a weekender) while I sitting across the board from him am getting my games rated for $1.5 each(($43 ontario membership + (9X$3 rating fee)) / (9 tournaments X 5 games per event))
Stuart, I respectfully disagree. I doubt that your type of explanation, no matter how correct or not it might actually be, will ever get traction with Joe Regular player. The immense danger is that people will see it as a gigantic rating fee (insanely far more than the $0.40 that Larry charges, for example) and we risk a revolt against CFC-rated chess. There already are pockets in the country who are using online rating services, rather than pay the $3/$5 (and/or the CFC membership fee). I think, that at this time, we should not look the current $3/$5 rating fee horse in the mouth, and leave it as is.

It seems that the proposals for CFC annual membership fee rationalization have as much to do with perceived fairness, than with feeling gouged, no?

Anyway, it would be great to continue this with the proposed committee?! ;)

[Stuart Brammall]

Would it please you then to call it a membership fee that lasts the length of the tournament?

It's not like I am asking to increase the revenue from fees, just that they be distributed according to how much you play.

The average player doesn't even know the rating fee exists right now, they believe that is what there membership is for. I think most people will be happy when you tell them they no longer need to pay $43 per year and that the tournament fee is only $8... which by the way is even less then the tournament membership of day of yore.

[Aris Marghetis]

Would it please you then to call it a membership fee that lasts the length of the tournament?

It's not like I am asking to increase the revenue from fees, just that they be distributed according to how much you play.

The average player doesn't even know the rating fee exists right now, they believe that is what there membership is for. I think most people will be happy when you tell them they no longer need to pay $43 per year and that the tournament fee is only $8... which by the way is even less then the tournament membership of day of yore.
I guess where we differ is that I believe some players are indeed aware that there is currently a fee-per-tournament, and most of them will call it the rating fee. They will ask how much this new rating fee is. The answer of $8 (regardless of how good that number might be based on your rationale) will elicit howls of comparison to Larry's $0.40, for example, or some of the online sites that at least two areas in Ontario are already using, if I recall correctly.

The issue is not just doing something fair, but something that will be seen by the vast majority to be fair. My fear is that any raising of the per-tournament fees runs the risk of debilitating backlash from too many Joe Regular players.

Again, this is why a committe should be struck. Views diverge tremendously!

[Stuart Brammall]

The amount of the fee is not what I am am really concerned with, it is the structure... The amount can only be changed by finding a contracter to do it for cheaper.
I will agree with you that on a theoretical level it should not cost so much to have tournaments rated---
I was not a governor when the current contract was established, though I imagine there was a bidding process for it? Does Larry offer to rate any event for $0.40 per player? If so, why did he not win the contract ? ? ?

[Bob Gillanders]

The motion is to form a committee to study moving towards a single fee basis. After reading thru the comments, the concept of fairness appears to be of paramount importance.

When I look closely at all of the proposals made, I don't see any that will be accepted as fair by a majority of the membership. IMHO, all of them are seriously flawed. I believe the best solution is a combination of membership and rating fees. Some improvements maybe possible, but it would likely make the fee structures more complex, not less.

So with all due respect, I am voting No. With such a divergence of opinion, the options considered = number of committee members! :o

I think everyone needs to take a critical look at their proposals. If you can't identify the downside, with respect, you aren't looking close enough.:(

[Lyle Craver]

This was the key point in the discussion of BC provincial dues.

Having seen Stephen Wright with his laptop with the CFC TD List integrated into SwissSys I'm very impressed. On the other hand it pretty much mandates that you need a laptop to be a TD these days...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stuart:

There was no bidding process for the current outsourcing contract with EKG. David Lavin, President at the time, did not tender it. I believe he discussed it with the Executive at the time, before entering into it. I am not sure if the executive actually voted to approve the contract or not, or whether it was a presidential exercise of authority.

There was certainly no govenor approval. Many governors felt that the President exceeded his authority in terminating the then Executive Director team and entering into a total outsourcing contract for the CFC office.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I believe the best solution is a combination of membership and rating fees.(

Meanwhile I supported the motion to allow people/governors to discuss more thoroughly possibility to reconstruct fees.

I think fees must at the level to encourage people to play in CFC-rated tournaments. Thus, in my opinion, two type of fees should be enough: membership (classical with all membership benefits) and tournament (aka pay&play). The hardest part is to transform them (fees) in to numerical values evaluating possible scenarios.



Sure we have a news-letter, but we all know that no one pays a membership if they do not plan to play in tournaments.

Looking at my playing records, I'm a person who is still a member only due to the newsletter :D

[Ken Craft]

I'm a Life Member. It is almost a decade since I played in a CFC rated tournament.

[Lyle Craver]

There was no bidding process for the current outsourcing contract with EKG. David Lavin, President at the time, did not tender it. I believe he discussed it with the Executive at the time, before entering into it. I am not sure if the executive actually voted to approve the contract or not, or whether it was a presidential exercise of authority.

There was certainly no govenor approval. Many governors felt that the President exceeded his authority in terminating the then Executive Director team and entering into a total outsourcing contract for the CFC office.



Yes there was an Executive vote on the matter. I'd have to go back to my records but am pretty sure it was unanimous.

Who are these "many Governors"? The reason I ask is the Board was certainly not inundated with protests - in fact I don't recall seeing even one.

[Fred McKim]

Lyle. Maybe you're thinking about the first time this was attempted by Hal, I think.

[Lyle Craver]

It's possible but I don't think I'm confused on this point.

Believe me if we had had as many as 10 protests from Governors on ANY subject it would be well remembered by the board!

[Christopher Mallon]

The vote was in fact unanimous, I remember the call because I was sitting in a 2 hour lineup for a car wash.

And yes there WAS a lot of complaining, on Chesstalk. David would have been first in line but I personally did not receive any official complaints about it from any Governors.

[Lyle Craver]

On ChessTalk - OK that explains a lot. That's not a site I've spent much time on in the last year or two since Larry's people show no appetite for dealing with the constant flames and general negativity.

I didn't see any of that here or in my Inbox and I regularly hear from Governors one on one.

[Michael Barron]

I think fees must be at the level to encourage people to play in CFC-rated tournaments. Thus, in my opinion, two type of fees should be enough: membership (classical with all membership benefits) and tournament (aka pay&play).

Bingo! :)

To make administration simpler, membership could be sold for the calendar year, and tournament fee could be used without any restrictions - once a year or ten times...