PDA

View Full Version : 13. Membership / Rating Fee Restructuring Committee



Lyle Craver
01-15-2011, 01:44 AM
please post your report here

Bob Gillanders
01-15-2011, 11:19 AM
Okay, so we have several governors with various ideas to restructure our revenue base to hopefully increase memberships. Motion 2011-A was introduced recklessly at the last quarterly meeting without debate. The motion was to have a flat membership rate of $30. On the other end of the spectrum, there is a proposal to scrap membership dues and hike rating fees to $8. I see problems with both these ideas. So we deferred the discussion to this meeting to give everyone a chance to review their proposals.

So if everyone would please present their proposals on this thread, we can discuss them. To avoid rushing into a decision, this meeting is for discussion only. Any motions brought forward to amend our membership dues or CFC rating fees will not go to a vote at this meeting.

As for motion 2011-A, I would like to void it, to clear the deck. Do I have the consent of the assembly? It could easily be reintroduced at a later date. :)

Bob Armstrong
01-16-2011, 06:32 PM
1. On the Motion 2011-A thread, I have now moved to adjourn the motion to the 2011 Spring Quarterly Meeting, for vote. Debate can occur in the interim on the Governors' Discussion Board.

2. I still think the Membership/Rating Fee Restructuring Committee, legitimately passed and instituted at the 2010 Fall Meeting, should be staffed and get to work ( even though I am far from convinced on any amalgamation of membership and rating fee ). The committee can investigate that option, and Motion 2011-A, and all others, and make a report to the 2011 Spring Meeting, to guide us on the vote on Motion 2011-A, and to bring any other motion they may see as beneficial at that time.

Bob

Michael Barron
01-16-2011, 10:50 PM
The CFC's mandate is to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada - please see http://www.chess.ca/about_us.shtml

It means - we should encourage people to play chess - the more the better!
One way of encouragement - to eliminate rating fees.
The more tournaments a player play - the better for the CFC!

We all understand, that the Federation needs money to maintain rating system.
To get the money, we need membership fees.
These fees should cover all Federation's expenses, including rating system.
This is the main benefit what a member gets from the Federation.

We should encourage as well non-members to play chess.
For them should be another fee - "pay and play", no strings attached.

A player could choose to buy a membership - and play whole year without any additional fees.
Or to pay "tournament fee" every tournament - be it once per year ot ten times per year.

Such model will promote chess in Canada.

Paul Leblanc
01-17-2011, 01:35 AM
I don't mind this idea of Michael's myself and I would be happy to pay the $80or so that this would require as an annual membership. Then the hidden rating fees that many players don't even realize are taken out of a tournament budget would no longer be hidden.
I also support his idea to charge players by the event if they don't want a membership. The cost probably could remain at the current $20 per event.
However, most players would probably balk at the higher membership cost and claim that the rating fee savings would be scooped up by the organizers!

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 01:10 PM
Recognizing that ratings are the only real reason people give money to the CFC, I think it is clear that we should not be charging membership at all, and should just be charging rating fee / tournament fee.

It seems to me that charging everyone $8-$10 per tournament (I worked it out at during the last online meeting) is far more reasonable, considering everyone plays a different number of events.

I am always disturbed when taking registrations at Hart House, and some newbie comes in and pays $43 (or even $20) and I realize that because this is his only tournament of the year he is paying almost 10 times what I pay per game to have those games rated.

Having a per tournaments fee would encourage new players to come out.

Paul Leblanc
01-17-2011, 01:35 PM
I expect there would be some reduction in overhead as well if we did not have memberships per se. I remember Stuart's suggestion but don't remember the analysis. There probably would be less revenue from those of us in provinces that have low levels of chess activity but it would be made up by higher revenue in Ontario.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 01:36 PM
Hi Michael:

For 2009-10 the revenue from annual memberships and rating fees were:

Membership - $ 46,767 ( Adult annual rate for CFC part - $ 36 )

Rating Fees - $ 28,582

Total - $ 75,349

If we were to try to raise all this by membership, we would need a 61 % increase, which would be $ 58/yr .

1. Is this acceptable?
2. What about the argument that members play at different rates during the year, and so those who play less are really subsidizing the active players.
3. Stuart Brammall has suggested a pay-as-you-play fee, tournament by tournament, as treating chess players more equally - the more you play, the more you cost the CFC, and the more you pay. What do you say to that?

Bob

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 01:37 PM
If we ever get any kind of a concensus on this, I'd like to see the rating fee for active events half that of regular events.

This basically becomes a tournament membership, and it doesn't make sense for full two or three day weekend events to be the same price as a 5 or 6 hour tournaments.

Organizers would then have a choice if they wanted to have an event for novices, the CFC charges could be less.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 01:42 PM
Hi Stuart:

I was not following your discussions on rating analysis with Roger Patterson a while ago. But I thought one of the conclusions he came to was that the absolute number of tournament players per year was decreasing ( OTB is in decline )?

Is this a concern for your proposed Pay-as-you-play scenario? Will CFC be on a continually declining revenue base? Will it be more pronounced than any annual membership decline we are suffering?

Bob

Bob Gillanders
01-17-2011, 01:44 PM
Stuart,

Currently the CFC collects provincial dues with the membership dues and later remits it to the provinces. Under your proposal of eliminating CFC membership dues, what happens to the provincial dues?

Bob G.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 01:46 PM
If we ever get any kind of a concensus on this, I'd like to see the rating fee for active events half that of regular events.

This basically becomes a tournament membership, and it doesn't make sense for full two or three day weekend events to be the same price as a 5 or 6 hour tournaments.

Organizers would then have a choice if they wanted to have an event for novices, the CFC charges could be less.

I disagree, the cost of rating the event is constant whether it is an active or a regular event-- I therefore see no reason why the cost should be less for active events.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 01:50 PM
Hi Stuart:

I was not following your discussions on rating analysis with Roger Patterson a while ago. But I thought one of the conclusions he came to was that the absolute number of tournament players per year was decreasing ( OTB is in decline )?

Is this a concern for your proposed Pay-as-you-play scenario? Will CFC be on a continually declining revenue base? Will it be more pronounced than any annual membership decline we are suffering?

Bob

That was his conclusion-- but surely it is clear that this affect the traditional revenue stream as well. Decreasing participation will always negatively affect revenue.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 01:56 PM
Hi Stuart:

This is not necessarily the case.

Members renew annually at the same rate as long as they are playing, even if they may be actually playing less OTB tournament chess.

So their membership revenue is constant, while any tournament fee revenue from them would be decreasing.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Stuart,

Currently the CFC collects provincial dues with the membership dues and later remits it to the provinces. Under your proposal of eliminating CFC membership dues, what happens to the provincial dues?

Bob G.

I will maintain a consistent position here: the only reason which I give the CFC any money is to have my events rated; therefore they should not be giving any of that money away to organisations which offer little or nothing to the community, and whose mandate is unclear.

It is obvious to me that almost all CFC members only buy the membership for the ratings, if the OCA needs money, let them fundraise it on their own... if their product is marketable they won't have any trouble, otherwise, good riddance.

(I should probably mention that I am an OCA governor)

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 02:15 PM
Hi Stuart:

This is not necessarily the case.

Members renew annually at the same rate as long as they are playing, even if they may be actually playing less OTB tournament chess.

So their membership revenue is constant, while any tournament fee revenue from them would be decreasing.

Bob

You are right that it is not the case by necessity; however I maintain that it is likely the case in fact. The decline in tournaments-players is correlated directly with a decline in membership.

Further, I would argue that it is likely the decline is due, at least in part, to the membership fee, and its lack of value, perceived lack of value, or decline in value.

Ken Craft
01-17-2011, 02:17 PM
First, the CFC is a federation of Provincial Associations. Provincial Associations set their fee and require their members to also be CFC members.
Second, I became a Life Member while not playing rated chess. I can't remember the last time I played CFC rated chess (2000?). I still play OTB five days a week. I bought a CFC membership without intending to play in rated events.

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 02:17 PM
I disagree, the cost of rating the event is constant whether it is an active or a regular event-- I therefore see no reason why the cost should be less for active events.

At the moment the rating fee is fairly negligible.

If we did away with the annual membership and had to charge a much higher rating fee than now, I'm simply saying that an active tournament would cost way too much in relation to a normal event.

Lyle Craver
01-17-2011, 02:21 PM
Roger's feedback is particularly of note since he is president of the BC Chess Federation which adopted such a membership format two years ago.

Thus anyone considering such a thing for the national federation should definitely pay attention to what is going on in BC.

I am undecided in this matter but no question the BC experience should play a big role in Governors' consideration.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 02:23 PM
At the moment the rating fee is fairly negligible.

If we did away with the annual membership and had to charge a much higher rating fee than now, I'm simply saying that an active tournament would cost way too much in relation to a normal event.

I understand your point Fred, but what I am saying is that the two cost the same... Gerry does the same work for both. If you were to charge less for active you would not be reducing the cost, you would only be forcing the players of the regular events to subsidise the cost of the actives.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 02:27 PM
First, the CFC is a federation of Provincial Associations. Provincial Associations set their fee and require their members to also be CFC members.
Second, I became a Life Member while not playing rated chess. I can't remember the last time I played CFC rated chess (2000?). I still play OTB five days a week. I bought a CFC membership without intending to play in rated events.

And you are in the minority. Let the affiliates set their fee at whatever they wish, just don't force me to pay it when all I won't is to have my games rated.

Also, your life membership contributes no provincial dues.... have you been keeping up an active provincial membership ;)

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 02:37 PM
I understand your point Fred, but what I am saying is that the two cost the same... Gerry does the same work for both. If you were to charge less for active you would not be reducing the cost, you would only be forcing the players of the regular events to subsidise the cost of the actives.

The point is the following: Right now the rating fees are a slight income maker for us. If they go up to let's say $15 the CFC event has to be worth holding or else there will be a whole slew of events that turn unrated (including Active tournaments) -this is why you might want to set the tournament memberships at say $10 and $20 (assuming there wasn't an annual fee).

I just think this is too much for the parts of the countries that aren't used to huge entry fees.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 02:58 PM
The point is the following: Right now the rating fees are a slight income maker for us. If they go up to let's say $15 the CFC event has to be worth holding or else there will be a whole slew of events that turn unrated (including Active tournaments) -this is why you might want to set the tournament memberships at say $10 and $20 (assuming there wasn't an annual fee).

I just think this is too much for the parts of the countries that aren't used to huge entry fees.

The total revenue the CFC collects will remain the same... I think that individuals who play more, be it active or regular, should pay more... they should not have the costs associated with having their events rated subsidised by those who play less.
I also think the average member is intelligent enough to realize two things:
Firstly, that what we currently call the "rating fee" does not even come close to paying for the costs of rating events.
And Secondly, that people would realize that paying $8 per event is not a burden, considering they no longer have to pay $35 per year.

For the sake of comparison, I suggest everyone do a calculation and see what the difference in cost to them is if we were to only charge an $8 tournament fee.

For example Fred played 8 events in 2010, which would cost $64 in my proposed system, as opposed to $59 ($35 membership + ($3 rating fee * eight events)). Since you play more then the average player your total cost has increased, but it is only five dollars.

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 03:10 PM
Well this is a useful discussion, at least.

I'm still not sure if $8 is breakeven (I was using much higher figures, like $15).

As well, some consideration would have to be made for Life Members.....

Paul Leblanc
01-17-2011, 03:11 PM
And I having played in only 6 events paid $54 to the CFC ($36 membership + $18 rating fees). Under Stuart's system I would pay only $48.
And of course I paid the BCCF $16 for the four BC events that I played in. That would not change.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 03:31 PM
I'm still not sure if $8 is breakeven (I was using much higher figures, like $15).


The fee should be between $8 and $10, in order to be revenue nuetral.

Calculated from the budget:

$31,288 from rating fees for 2011 implies that ~10,300 rating fees will be paid, at $3 each.

Total income from memberships and rating fee = $83,159

$83,158/10,300 =~ $8.07

Lyle Craver
01-17-2011, 03:44 PM
Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

Fred McKim
01-17-2011, 04:05 PM
Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

Life members (I'm one too) would be expected to contribute something. Right now we contribute $3 per tournament.

Any new system would have to err on the conservative side. In this case, that tournament participations went down. Perhaps by 10%.......

I have to admit it would be nice and simple, if we simply submit $10 or $12 to the CFC for each participant (and half that amount for Active or Junior only tournaments).

We could consider someone a member for two or three years (for example) from the last time they paid.

Someone could "buy" a membership by simply paying the business office the appropriate tournament fee. This would provide access to membership content at the website.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 04:19 PM
Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

As I said my experience is generally restricted to the OCA, which I do not think even has the apparatus to collect fees from life members.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 04:20 PM
Life member fee could remain a $3. That should satisfy?

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 04:41 PM
Hi Stuart:

A few years ago, when I wanted to purchase an OCA Life Membership, I caused great consternation far and wide !

Was there such a thing? No one had a list of the OCA Life members nor did anyone know how many there were. Kerry Liles eventually ( and reluctantly ? - what do I do with this??? ) accepted my cheque when we found the formula for calculating OCA Life Membership cost.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 05:04 PM
Hi Stuart:

A few years ago, when I wanted to purchase an OCA Life Membership, I caused great consternation far and wide !

Was there such a thing? No one had a list of the OCA Life members nor did anyone know how many there were. Kerry Liles eventually ( and reluctantly ? - what do I do with this??? ) accepted my cheque when we found the formula for calculating OCA Life Membership cost.

Bob

Hi Bob,
That's kind of my point... the OCA does not have a clear mandate-- there is no reason for them to have any money at all. For the sake of comparison, when I was running the Hart House Chess Club, which at the time had ~60 members our budget was more than five times the OCA budget. The reason why there is no way to buy an OCA membership without a CFC membership is, quite frankly, because only one person (you) has ever tried to buy just an OCA membership. If given the choice, I imagine the vast majority of Ontario players would firstly, choose to pay just $35 for the CFC membership and not be a member of the OCA, and secondly realize no difference in what they receive thereafter.
It is clear to me why this is: people buy their memberships to have their games rated; they do not buy memberships in support of a broad chess-philanthropy philosophy.

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 05:21 PM
Hi Stuart:

If there were no OCA, I wouldn't have gotten to revise their Constitution !
If there were no OCA, I'd have my OCA Life Membership Fee to use to keep my " beer date " promise with Alex.
If there were no " broad chess-philanthropy philosophy ", CFC rating fees would be much lower.
If there were no OCA, Michael v K could study more ( well maybe OCA doesn't take that much of his time ! ).
If there were no OCA, think of all the silence there would have been without " Trillium " !

Add to the list??

Bob

Michael von Keitz
01-17-2011, 05:32 PM
I think this conversation is becoming slightly derailed by Stuart's constant reference to his philosophical stance on the usefulness of the OCA. If he would like to push for the dissolution of provincial associations, I would ask that he start a separate thread. The question is - broadly - whether a single fee structure would be beneficial/implementable by the CFC, not whether the CFC should be collecting dues on behalf of its provincial affiliates.

Stuart Brammall
01-17-2011, 06:11 PM
I think this conversation is becoming slightly derailed by Stuart's constant reference to his philosophical stance on the usefulness of the OCA. If he would like to push for the dissolution of provincial associations, I would ask that he start a separate thread. The question is - broadly - whether a single fee structure would be beneficial/implementable by the CFC, not whether the CFC should be collecting dues on behalf of its provincial affiliates.

You got it, el presidante.
It is true that it is somewhat peripheral, but all I was trying to say is that I recognize that switching to a one fee system would make it difficult to collect money for the provincial afiliates, but that anything having to do with the OCA is by definition a non-issue. :rolleyes:

Michael von Keitz
01-17-2011, 06:57 PM
So, as opposed to compounding the issues by injecting your stance on the OCA, why not structure your suggestions from the standpoint that, until a decision is made otherwise, the CFC will be collecting dues on behalf of its provincial affiliates? If you would like to see a decision made at this meeting to stop collecting dues, of course, simply ask for another thread to be started.

As I see it, you might have the ability to convince the provincial organizations to homogenize their fees, if a single-fee system is adopted. If you wish to debate the relevance of the OCA (or any other provincial organization), however, I don't think this is the time nor the place.

Aris Marghetis
01-17-2011, 08:33 PM
The point is the following: Right now the rating fees are a slight income maker for us. If they go up to let's say $15 the CFC event has to be worth holding or else there will be a whole slew of events that turn unrated (including Active tournaments) -this is why you might want to set the tournament memberships at say $10 and $20 (assuming there wasn't an annual fee).

I just think this is too much for the parts of the countries that aren't used to huge entry fees.
Whereas, I am uncomfortable with our current fee structures, I believe that Fred has a point, that if per event fees go up too much, that it would be unpalatable for many.

If I may step back here, part of the problem is that (Stuart is right) most people become or renew as CFC members solely in order to play in CFC rated tournaments. Some of you may disagree, but I challenge you to ask what MOST people are doing out there. Then we charge them not the amount required to rate their events, but much more. That, in my humble opinion, is why this problem is so difficult, because we are trying to improve something that is actually broken in a completely different way, kind of like repairing the wiring on a lawnmower that is under water, LOL. Seriously though, until we have the courage to charge rating fees based on what they actually cost, we might go around on this one for years. But how do we let go of that cash cow?! I cannot see yet how we can. All it seems we can do at this time, is to incrementally weed out injustices, like (this is my personal opinion that not everyone shares) discounts based on group biases.

Michael Barron
01-17-2011, 10:55 PM
Hi Michael:

For 2009-10 the revenue from annual memberships and rating fees were:

Membership - $ 46,767 ( Adult annual rate for CFC part - $ 36 )

Rating Fees - $ 28,582

Total - $ 75,349

If we were to try to raise all this by membership, we would need a 61 % increase, which would be $ 58/yr .

1. Is this acceptable?
2. What about the argument that members play at different rates during the year, and so those who play less are really subsidizing the active players.
3. Stuart Brammall has suggested a pay-as-you-play fee, tournament by tournament, as treating chess players more equally - the more you play, the more you cost the CFC, and the more you pay. What do you say to that?

Bob

Hi Bob:

1. Yes, this is acceptable!
2. Don't want to subsidize the active players? Play more! ;)
3. Stuart's suggestion actually DISCOURAGE players to play and organizers to run CFC-rated tournaments, which is goes against the CFC mandate.
Just look what is going on in BC... :(
The CFC should do exactly the opposed - to help players who're playing more (they already spend much more money on chess - nobody gives them free entry to any tournament) and encourage others to increase the participation... :)

Bob Armstrong
01-17-2011, 11:09 PM
There is one argument that I don't think has been raised, which is used to justify the current divided revenue streams - players pay bits at a time, and so don't notice the total, and so tend not to complain as much about " high " fees. They pay one very modest, in my opinion, annual membership fee ( when compared to the cost of many other leisure activities ). Then their second payment towards running the CFC ( not just paying for their games to be rated ), is broken up into small $ 3 parts each tournament they play in, and so there is generally no awareness of the amount of rating fees they also contribute in a year. What do people think of this justification of the status quo? Is it less contentious for CFC to collect the money in different streams - more acceptable to the membership?

Note: I myself think the CFC should be up front about the fees they collect, and why. There should be no CFC argument that rating fees are just for the purpose of maintaining the rating system. That costs much less than is paid. Rating fees are simply another way CFC raises much needed revenue to run all its operation.

Bob

Aris Marghetis
01-17-2011, 11:24 PM
Check out my last post futher up, kind of arguing that we are stuck with the status quo.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-18-2011, 09:49 AM
If we were to try to raise all this by membership, we would need a 61 % increase, which would be $ 58/yr .

1. Is this acceptable?

Would a 50$ flat fee (and discounted for juniors) increase a number of members? No additional rating fees. Thus this might collect more money.

As I have read the CFC have a big number of non-coming-back members. Maybe discounted 2, 3 and 5 years membership fees would keep them longer.

Hal Bond
01-18-2011, 01:16 PM
With a user fee only (or a nominal $10 annual membership fee) we could still pay provincial affiliates per rated game in their province. Provinces are then motivated to hold more events.

It is difficult to use our existing stats to extrapolate a revenue projection because I believe the behaviour will change if the fee structure changes to this degree.

I like the user (rating ) fee as the primary driver. I believe that players resist the member fee and we would have more players if it was diminished. Going forward, an expanded base of players is also an expanded base of potential donors.

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 01:56 PM
It is difficult to use our existing stats to extrapolate a revenue projection because I believe the behaviour will change if the fee structure changes to this degree.

Thanks Hal. That is a very important point that I have also tried to stress. I can give you a hypothetical example:

The Burlington Chess Club - about a dozen plus members. A very nice friendly club. Meets every tuesday, and runs about half a dozen CFC rated tournaments each year. No entry fees, no cash prizes, no complaints. Everyone pays their CFC membership dues (no complaints), everyone chips in $3 for the rating fees at the start of each tournament (no complaints).

Now you introduce $10 rating fees! Maybe we get some complaints. $3 is just change, $10 is currency! :eek:

I am utter convinced that 95% of the members (excluding those with limited access to CFC events) have no problem with the membership dues. If we begin to cater to the tiny minority who find $36 outrageous, we have a problem. Because they will also find $30 to much, $25 too much, $20 too much, $15 too much..........and we go bankrupt.:(

Lyle Craver
01-18-2011, 02:04 PM
I firmly agree with the previous poster who said there will always be folks who think any figure we set is too high and that our policy should not be set by them.

The CFC has NEVER had a problem attracting members - our problem has been retention.

A more appropriate question would be why?

Stuart Brammall
01-18-2011, 03:07 PM
Now you introduce $10 rating fees! Maybe we get some complaints. $3 is just change, $10 is currency! :eek:


If you were to have a $10 rating fee, of which say $1 is remitted to the OCA, each person at your club would be paying $60 per year... right now they pay $61 per year....
Personally, I think they are probably smart enough to realize this on their own, but if they really are morons you could explain it to them.

The benefit of this approach is obvious: a player who has never played an event before, and who is not sure that he will again will not be asked to fork over $43 for one event.

Also, you never need to worry about who is a member and who is not.

The only people who will be negatively impacted financially by this system are those who play 8 or more events per year... everyone else will save money... And it seems likely to me that if you play 8 or more events per year you are hopelessly addicted to chess, and retention should not be a big issue.

Why we have maintained this antiquated membership system is beyond me. Also, I should say that this approach would be far from revolutionary... it is after all the way FIDE charges fees.

Bob Gillanders
01-18-2011, 05:24 PM
Now Stuart, I trust you didn't mean to call the members of the Burlington club, morons. :( and neither did I.

I gave the Burlington Chess Club as an example to see if you had considered the impact on CFC rated events at a typical club setting. After I posted, I was out for a while and was going over the numbers in my head. Yes, in this scenario, the annual dues are almost identical. $60 vs. $61. But I am addressing the perception. Will paying $10 (six times a year) be perceived as being more annoying that paying $43 once and the $3 (six times)? Maybe. I will pose the question to the club members tonight. :)

Actually, I am warming up to the idea. Not convinced yet, but...:D

Final note, just cause FIDE does it?, not a compelling argument. :rolleyes:

Christopher Field
01-18-2011, 06:19 PM
Hi Bob,
That's kind of my point... the OCA does not have a clear mandate-- there is no reason for them to have any money at all. For the sake of comparison, when I was running the Hart House Chess Club, which at the time had ~60 members our budget was more than five times the OCA budget. The reason why there is no way to buy an OCA membership without a CFC membership is, quite frankly, because only one person (you) has ever tried to buy just an OCA membership. If given the choice, I imagine the vast majority of Ontario players would firstly, choose to pay just $35 for the CFC membership and not be a member of the OCA, and secondly realize no difference in what they receive thereafter.
It is clear to me why this is: people buy their memberships to have their games rated; they do not buy memberships in support of a broad chess-philanthropy philosophy.

Well, I think you could say that I actually did buy my life membership in support of a "broad chess-philanthropy philosophy". I have not played many tournaments since, although I have continued to organise and run a lot of tournaments for juniors.
I am in a sick-leave situation at the moment, which accounts for my not having run any tournaments this school year.

Bob Armstrong
01-18-2011, 06:40 PM
people buy their memberships to have their games rated; they do not buy memberships in support of a broad chess-philanthropy philosophy.

Hi Stuart:

I bought my OCA membership pretty much out of a " broad chess-philanthropy philosophy " - I almost never am able to play in the Ontario Open since it is on the Victoria Day weekend, and migrates around the province. But I support the OCA as a chess promotion body in the province. So I guess its not so much what I personally derive from the OCA, as to what I'd like them to contribute to Ontario chess generally.

Now Chris has said his CFC membership is based on " chess-philanthropy ".

I think there are a significant minority of CFC members who no longer play, or play seldom, who renew so that CFC can organize chess in Canada, and our international participation - that is " chess-philanthropy "

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Many Life Members are no longer active, and yet their memberships keep bringing in a nice interest payment to the CFC from the Chess Foundation annually - they are in a sense " chess philanthropists ".

So we maybe should be careful not to sell chess players too short on their willingness to pay money to help run chess in Canada, even if it is clear that they do not personally benefit financially to the extent of their payment.

I'm not saying chess players don't want value for their money - we all know chess players are very cost conscious ( cheap ?? ) - but maybe some ( a good portion? ) accept, resignedly maybe, that they have to help Canadian chess out this way.

Bob

Christopher Field
01-18-2011, 11:40 PM
Hi Stuart:

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Bob

I am not sure that all players really know that they are paying a $3.00 rating fee, or that juniors (members and non-members) are paying a $0.50 rating fee.
Players pay an entry fee for a tournament.
It is understood that this covers the organiser's costs (which include the rating fee) and the prizes.
A higher rating fee would simply add a lot to those costs.
The result would be: higher entry fees, or lower prize funds.

Christopher Field
01-18-2011, 11:41 PM
Hi Stuart:

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Bob

I am not sure that all players really know that they are paying a $3.00 rating fee, or that juniors (members and non-members) are paying a $0.50 rating fee for a junior tournament.
Players pay an entry fee for a tournament.
It is understood that this covers the organiser's costs (which include the rating fee) and the prizes.
A higher rating fee would simply add a lot to those costs.
The result would be: higher entry fees, or lower prize funds.

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 01:59 AM
Stuart,

I presented your proposal at the Burlington Chess Club last night. I explained it, just the facts, we discussed it, answered their questions (unbiased), then we voted.

Results:

Keep the status quo - 10 votes
The Brammall plan - 2 votes

You got some explaining to do! :D

Hal Bond
01-19-2011, 08:41 AM
Bob, I think part of Stuart's (mine as well) preference goes to the notion of appealing to those who are not members- the "inconverted". The risk of the status quo is umm, the status quo. Do we want to play safe or try to reach out? Lyle's point about the CFC's ability to attract new members is true in a very small way.

FIDE and CMA both avoid individual membership fees. CMA can boast a 6 figure membership roll.

You are right about the club players versus the weekend players though. I think this is where the most resistance will be.

Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 09:31 AM
Like I told Stuart earlier, I am warming up to the idea.

I can see resistant at some clubs, like Burlington. But there the difference in fees over the year was negligible. Several members said they didn't really care, and wondered "why do you want to change it?"

The potential upside is attracting new players at weekend tournaments where the rating fees can be hidden (buried) in the entry fees. Harder to bury though in smaller tournaments.

I still think we haven't explored all the potential negatives. But maybe a leap of faith is required, if we believe. :D

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 01:30 PM
Now Stuart, I trust you didn't mean to call the members of the Burlington club, morons. :( and neither did I.

I gave the Burlington Chess Club as an example to see if you had considered the impact on CFC rated events at a typical club setting. After I posted, I was out for a while and was going over the numbers in my head. Yes, in this scenario, the annual dues are almost identical. $60 vs. $61. But I am addressing the perception. Will paying $10 (six times a year) be perceived as being more annoying that paying $43 once and the $3 (six times)? Maybe. I will pose the question to the club members tonight. :)

Actually, I am warming up to the idea. Not convinced yet, but...:D

Final note, just cause FIDE does it?, not a compelling argument. :rolleyes:

I would expect them to not care either way, after all, their fees would remain almost the same.... The people this is meant to help however are those who play few events per year, and new players.

The problem as I see it is that every time I ask a potential first time player to fork over $46, or $23, I realize that they are paying an astronomical $9.20 or $4.60 per game, in the five round events at Hart House. Why should they pay so much when I (who played in 18 events in 2010) payed on average $1.07 per game? The fact is that the current system asks players who play infrequently to pick up the slack of those who play regularly.

Also, to anyone who thinks $8 per tournament is a lot, they should know that it is the average of what people are already paying... If it is too much then what you are really complaining about is the choice of expenditures in the budget. Were the fee to be set at the actual amount it costs to rate events it would be only $5.72 per player per tournament (Budget lines for EKG, Office supplies, benefits / number of rating feespaid). If you think that is still to much for ratings then you are simply recognizing that we are getting ripped off for the EKG contract.

It should also be noted that Bob A. earlier remark that $3 is more then the cost of rating events is false... at least not with our current contractual obligations.

Aris Marghetis
01-19-2011, 01:49 PM
Hi Stuart, I appreciate most of your points, but from strictly an Organizer/TD viewpoint, raising the tournament entry fee for everyone by $5 would kind of irk everyone, no?! :(

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 02:01 PM
It should also be noted that Bob A. earlier remark that $3 is more then the cost of rating events is false... at least not with our current contractual obligations.

Hi Stuart:

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things here. I understand that CMA is able to rate tournaments at $0.50 per player. That was what I was using when I said the CFC $ 3 per player went well beyond covering the actual cost of running the rating system. If we look at all EKG does, the amount of their cost to CFC in running the rating system has to be pretty low.

My point was that a major portion of the rating fee, I think, is actually going to cover CFC general operating costs - beyond just maintainance of the rating system alone.

So are we still in disagreement? If so, you'll have to try again to explain whey I'm wrong on this.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 02:05 PM
Hi Stuart, I appreciate most of your points, but from strictly an Organizer/TD viewpoint, raising the tournament entry fee for everyone by $5 would kind of irk everyone, no?! :(

Not if they don't have to pay a yearly membership as well.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 02:14 PM
Hi Stuart:

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same things here. I understand that CMA is able to rate tournaments at $0.50 per player. That was what I was using when I said the CFC $ 3 per player went well beyond covering the actual cost of running the rating system. If we look at all EKG does, the amount of their cost to CFC in running the rating system has to be pretty low.

My point was that a major portion of the rating fee, I think, is actually going to cover CFC general operating costs - beyond just maintainance of the rating system alone.

So are we still in disagreement? If so, you'll have to try again to explain whey I'm wrong on this.

Bob

I consider most of what the office does to be rating related... for example, I consider the website to be essential to the rating system because it is generally through the website that people access the database. As I see it, right now ratings are costing us $5.72 per player per event, so yes we are still in disagreement. If you can find an individual or group willing to manage the (figurative) office for $0.50 per player per event I suggest you ask them to place a bid when EKG's contract expires. I'm not making any statement on how much it should cost to rate events, I am simply noting that this is what we are paying right now.

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 02:15 PM
I don't favour eliminating the annual membership, because I think this means that the rating fee becomes too high. It's not significant in large weekend swisses, but in the little club events without entry fee, it would be significant.

What might be doable would be to raise the rating fee to $5 and reduce the membership fee to be cost neutral (which would make memberships more attractive to the new player).

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 02:24 PM
Fred, there would be no increase in the cost to the "little club events". The only cost increase is to individuals who play 8 or more events per year.

Let me reword what you are saying when you say you want to keep annual memberships:

"I think players who only play one event per year should subsidize the cost of my events being rated."

That is what is going on right now.

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 02:32 PM
It's a fundamental change in the nature of membership. How would a player become a member if s/he did not wish to play in rated events?

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 02:40 PM
I think that the idea of a player only contributing to the association when they play is flawed. I think that there will be ample benefits to members, once the new web page is ready.

If we put the rating fees up to $5, then the CFC membership could possibly be reduced to $20-22 (based on current numbers).

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:52 PM
I think that the idea of a player only contributing to the association when they play is flawed. I think that there will be ample benefits to members, once the new web page is ready.

If we put the rating fees up to $5, then the CFC membership could possibly be reduced to $20-22 (based on current numbers).

I think the idea of a player who plays one event per year subsidizing your costs is flawed.

Here is a further possibility: Rating fee is set at $8, membership fee remains at $36, but you don't need to buy a membership to get your events rated.
How many people do you think would buy a membership?
------ Just trying to demonstrate what has value and what does not.

I think there will still be no benefits, besides having your rating, to being a member when the new website is done.

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 04:15 PM
I guess you place no value in the Monthly newsletter

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 04:20 PM
I guess you place no value in the Monthly newsletter

Nothing close to what it costs us, that's for sure.

I view it more as a set of patronage appointments...
Something to deal with at a later date.

However... I feel that I represent the majority of members on that account.

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 05:43 PM
I view it more as a set of patronage appointments...


However... I feel that I represent the majority of members on that account.

1) Patronage appointments..........That's the funniest thing I've heard for a long time !!

2) How would you know you represent the majority of members ? Do you take surveys ?

Ok. I'm just teasing... you sound like you are ready to take the next step in CFC politics. We need some young blood on the Executive.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 06:01 PM
2) How would you know you represent the majority of members ? Do you take surveys ?


No, but I think I play in more events per year then any of the other governors besides Bob G.; I feel that puts me more in touch with the membership-- and the opinion I have given is the one which I hear most commonly expressed, except perhaps the following: "We have a Newsletter?" ;)

Valer Eugen Demian
01-19-2011, 06:49 PM
No, but I think I play in more events per year then any of the other governors besides Bob G.; I feel that puts me more in touch with the membership-- and the opinion I have given is the one which I hear most commonly expressed, except perhaps the following: "We have a Newsletter?" ;)

So this puts you in touch with the small fragment of the chess population you come in direct contact with. You hear "those" opinions. Don't think we should start competing to see who is "more" in touch with the membership in order to validate our ideas...

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:42 PM
So this puts you in touch with the small fragment of the chess population you come in direct contact with. You hear "those" opinions. Don't think we should start competing to see who is "more" in touch with the membership in order to validate our ideas...

Perhaps not; but even so, being a regional governor it is them I am elected to represent... and so I do.

Lyle Craver
01-20-2011, 10:07 PM
No - Fred makes a valid point.

I know one player of 2100 strength who is a regular correspondence player but has not to my knowledge played over the board in 35 years and who has kept up his membership year by year continuously.

There's no question in my mind that Harry contributes to the CFC.

Similarly I know a couple of 'chess parents' who don't play in chess events but direct junior tournaments. Nationally there are probably more of these than my friend Harry but again, I'm not sure it's a good idea to so tightly couple CFC Membership to tournament play.