Tournament Playing ( = " Tournament Membership " ) Fees

[Bob Armstrong]

Analysis of Membership fees

1st half 2009 Year 2008

Annual membership fees collected $ 21,060 $ 44,942
Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987
TOTAL $ 22.380 $ 47,929

The above ( modified ) is from the 1st half 2008-9 financial statements in the GL # 3.

It shows that in 2007-8, the tournament memberships formed 6.2% of the total collected. In the 1st half 2008-9 this year, they formed 5.9% of the total.

This shows that the elimination of tournament memberships affects a very small portion of CFC's income. Even if 2/3 of tournament membership players refused to play after tournament memberships are eliminated, CFC will lose approximately $ 2,000 for the year ( And the CFC 2009 total revenue will be in the range of $ 100,000 ).

We do not want to lose the tournament membership players. But there is an issue of fairness between tournament membership players and annual membership players ( the latter are subsidizing the former ). This is why the Grassroots' Campaign is supporting elimination of the tournament playing fee.

The above numbers show that the chess world will not cave in if tournament membership fees are eliminated. It will be too bad to lose any players, but the financial effect on the CFC will be minimal.
Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

I would just note as well, that if 1/3 of the tournament membership players did continue to play after the elimination of tournament memberships ( about 100 players / year ), then they would pay $ 3,600 ( CFC membership fee portion is $ 36; additional is provincial ), instead of $ 1,000 ( since the tournament membership is $ 10 ). This is a net gain to CFC of $ 2, 600.

So if you offset the lost revenue from those tournament players quitting of $ 2,000 ( 200 players / year ), then CFC comes out ahead $ 600.

As I said in the initial post, the financial effect of eliminating tournament memberships is almost revenue neutral.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

Eliminating the tournament membership fee is one of your recommendations that I don't understand, Bob. It seems to me, just on an intuitive level, that increasing the number of ways in which people can interact with the CFC, without the CFC having to gamble on the expense side of the equation, should provide a more reasonable probability of increasing the overall number of people the CFC deals with. People who avail themselves of these tournament memberships have already, in effect, done their own cost-benefit calculations. Trying to "force" them to buy full CFC memberships looks like a dubious tactic to me, especially in these days when the CFC is trying to put together a package for its members that will justify the annual fee.

My suggestion: hold off on trying to put the kibosh on the tournament membership, at least until we see how the dust settles for the rest of the CFC's operations.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

I understand your concern about a member asking what he " personally " gets for his membership. But he gets a rating, and he, in 10 days or less, will get an online magazine. But this is not the only perspective that is important.

The CFC operates for the benefit of all chess players in Canada - It is associated with FIDE, it runs national tournaments, it has a rating system, it answers members' questions, it helps promote chess in Canada, etc.. Someone has to pay for all this. It is not just a perspective of what I personally get. It involves support for the organization.

The Grassroots' Campaign question is why one person pays $ 10 and one pays $ 36. Why should one group subsidize the other? It is a question of fairness. And solving that question may involve, unfortunately, losing some players who do not want to support CFC, it is true. But the fairness question is one of principle, and should be resolved.

( I will note that the GC, as a second best alternative, has accepted keeping the tournament playing fee, but doubling it to $ 20. This is not really solving the unfairness question, but goes some way towards rectifying it ).

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The Grassroots' Campaign question is why one person pays $ 10 and one pays $ 36.

Do these two groups people get the same thing? I think no. Thus there is a difference in amount paid.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

With the coming back of the webzine just for members, you are right that the situation will change from what it is now. If CFC keeps the tournament playing fee option, then arguably the tournament membership should be less, since it does not include the webzine.

But there is still the problem that the CFC faces financial challenges still. The major issue is whether the CFC wants to give this as an option at all? The Grassroots' Campaign says no, and that all players should just become members. Everyone pays the same, is treated the same, and gets the same. Whether someone wishes to access the webzine or not is up to them - they still buy a full membership - no discount membership.

If CFC nevertheless still wants to keep the tournament playing fee, then maybe the doubling of the tournament playing fee to $ 20 ( as accepted by the GC as a second less favoured option ) is a compromise.

Bob

[Peter McKillop]

I believe a number of chess clubs offer annual memberships and a pay-as-you-go option. What does the SCC do? If someone only has time to attend a few club nights in a year do you tell them, "that's tough, pay the annual fee or beat it", or do you allow them to attend at a rate of $x/night?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Peter:

At Scarborough CC , we ask everyone to take out a membership - for first timers, we have a tournament membership ( short term, but substantial cash ); then we offer 6 mo., 1 yr. and 2 yrs., with a slight discount the longer you commit yourself. Everyone becomes a full member ( just length of time varies ). If you want to skip a tournament during the year, that's up to you - you don't get a discount because you don't intend to play !

Now we are different I guess, in that we don't really offer casual chess; all members play in the tournament ( if someone comes in to watch the tournament, and afterwards analyzes with a player, or plays a bit of blitz, we don't charge them anything ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

So, effectively you have four membership levels: 6,12,24 month full member, and casual (free) member. Are not the paying members subsidizing the free ones?

In fact I would argue that in the CFC's case it is the Tournament members who are subsidizing the regular ones! Or at least, helping to pay for the public-acccess stuff like the CFC website.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

1. Scarborough CC asks everyone to become a full member. CFC should ask everyone who plays in tournaments to become a full member.

2. Scarborough CC runs 5 rated tournaments a year. A member can choose how many tournaments he wants to play in during the life of his membership. CFC rates many tournaments per year. A CFC member can choose how many rated tournaments he wants to play in during the year.

3. If an SCC member decides not to play in one of the tournaments during the life of his membership, that is his choice. He does NOT get a DISCOUNT because he intends not to play. If a CFC member decides not to play in tournaments available during the year, that is his choice. He should NOT get a DISCOUNT ( = tournament membership @ $ 10 ) because he intends not to play.

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Bob, from the Scarborough Chess Club webpage:

"After holding a Tournament membership, players will have to purchase a six-month, one or two year membership."

IMHO, thus the player can choose to play half year in 2-3 tournaments lets say winter-spring session (Jan-Jun), than makes a brake till winter, pays for 1/2 year and plays again. Is it right?


CFC needs more flexible memberships structure to collect more money from more players, e.g.: speed player (who plays only with <60 min time control), +player, + online magazine, + take participation in governing CFC, + donors (who donates $$$); junior, senior, ladies.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

That is right - you can buy a membership for 6 months for example; then when it finishes, you can take a break as long as you want, and then purchase your next membership ( 6 mo.; 1 yr.; 2 yr. ). For CFC the comparison is that a CFC member buys a year membership. Then when it finishes, he takes a break as long as he wants. Then he purchases another year membership whenever he decides to play again.

In both cases, it is up to the member how much he plays during his membership, and how long he takes a break between memberships. But the membership fee stays constant.

Also, in both cases, the membership structure is simple and easy to administer and therefore it is not costly to keep track of memberships. And everyone is treated equally and gets the same benefits of membership.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Player ( Ontario ): How much is an Adult Annual CFC membership ?
CFC: $ 43 ( $ 36 - CFC; $ 7 OCA )
Player: How much can I play for that?
CFC: Oh, you can play in as many tournaments in a year as you want. Alex Ferriera, Canada's most active tournament player in 2008, played in over 20. And you can get any number of matches rated you want.
Player: That sounds great....but if I play less than Alex, can I get a discount on my membership? Sort of get rewarded for playing less?
CFC: For you I have a bargain. If you only want to play 4 times this year, then DON'T become a MEMBER ! And we won't make you join the OCA either. We love telling people not to become members ! You can just pay $ 10 each time and it will only cost you $ 40 ! We love it when people don't play chess and don't become members. CFC doesn't need the money anyways.

[Kerry Liles]

Player ( Ontario ): How much is an Adult Annual CFC membership ?
CFC: $ 43 ( $ 36 - CFC; $ 7 OCA )
Player: How much can I play for that?
CFC: Oh, you can play in as many tournaments in a year as you want. Alex Ferriera, Canada's most active tournament player in 2008, played in over 20. And you can get any number of matches rated you want.
Player: That sounds great....but if I play less than Alex, can I get a discount on my membership? Sort of get rewarded for playing less?
CFC: For you I have a bargain. If you only want to play 4 times this year, then DON'T become a MEMBER ! And we won't make you join the OCA either. We love telling people not to become members ! You can just pay $ 10 each time and it will only cost you $ 40 ! We love it when people don't play chess and don't become members. CFC doesn't need the money anyways.

Didn't this scenario play out already with someone in the GTCL team championships... who then was inelegible for a prize because he wasn't a CFC member??? Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I seem to think that is more or less what happened...

But I get your point - allowing people to select a lower membership commitment is playing with fire. Most anyone can do simple arithmetic - if they intend to only play in the Canadian Open (say), then the tournament membership fee is the way to go. You get to play in what is likely the largest tournament for the year without forking out the same as most other players.

This all comes back to value - the tournament membership fee is more attractive if the annual membership fee is higher than the perceived value.

With the switch to an online magazine, it is much harder to convince people to join the CFC... maybe once the online magazine is available and people are able to get a preview, that might change - I hope so. All I can tell you is that for a long while the printed magazine was about the only selling feature of a CFC membership.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Didn't this scenario play out already with someone in the GTCL team championships... who then was inelegible for a prize because he wasn't a CFC member??? Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I seem to think that is more or less what happened...

As I remember (old chesstalk had a discussion. maybe archive.org or better informed members may give more info): it was a Grand Prix and it was not very clearly stated in the regulations...



Most anyone can do simple arithmetic - if they intend to only play in the Canadian Open (say),

Such players must be members: "At any national Championship, this fee is not permitted as a substitute for CFC membership. [see Motion 2005-14]"

[roger patterson]

Such players must be members: "At any national Championship, this fee is not permitted as a substitute for CFC membership. [see Motion 2005-14]"

AFIK this regulation applies only to the Canadian Closed and not to the Canadian Open. You would be delusional to think that the 2008 Canadian Open held in Quebec did not accept tournament memberships.

[Peter McKillop]

... You would be delusional to think that the 2008 Canadian Open held in Quebec did not accept tournament memberships.

In fact, wasn't there a big ruckus at the old chesstalk when some wag suggested that the sale of tournament memberships should not be allowed? Thankfully, saner minds prevailed.

[Bob Armstrong]

When the tournament playing fee is eliminated, it may be that Quebec needs to be evaluated by the CFC as a " special " case.

It may be that demanding full CFC membership for CFC - rated tournaments in Quebec, from players who are already full members of the FQE, who seldom if ever play outside of Quebec, and who only rarely play in a CFC-rated tournament in Quebec, is not workable. They may only want FQE membership, and not desire a CFC membership. This is because they have no intention of playing outside Quebec. Hugh Brodie has raised this issue before in relation to the straw vote motion eliminating tournament memberships passed by the July 2008 CFC AGM.

The Grassroots' Campaign has not taken a position on this, and has seen fit at the moment to leave this issue to the Governors, once the tournament playing fee is gone.

If I as a CFC member, play in Quebec in an FQE-rated only tournament, do I have to take out a full FQE membership to play, and to get an FQE rating? Anyone know?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Bob,

You can't always fix all the problems at the same time.

At this point there is very little support from active tournament directors for eliminating these fees.

These are the same people the CFC relies upon to sell most of its memberships.

Many great points have been made in support of the fees. Opposition seems to be mostly based on principles, which I can understand but at this point if nothing else it doesn't seem to be a good PR move.

Getting back to my original point... the time is not right for eliminating these fees. I don't think it will ever be right, unless the regular fees come down significantly.

I've told you this before in email, but there, now you have on public record an Executive member who is opposed to eliminating the fee.

It really doesn't make financial sense, it's bad PR, and it will hurt tournament participation. How is it good?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Thanks for publicly clarifying your own position as CFC Treasurer.

Seems we have a divided Executive on this point:

For Elimination of the Tournament Playing Fee:

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

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

In the same GL # 2 CFC Secretary Lyle Craver :

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

Against Eliimination: CFC Treasurer Chris Mallon

It is a very controversial topic it seems.

Where do the rest of the CFC Executive stand on this issue? Will they make their positions known to the membership too?

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I lived in Vancouver for a year (2002) and my experience there was there only WAS one CFC rated event - the Keres. In fact the only 2002 event I played in, I flew back to Ontario for it.

Plus it's been what, over two months since those opinions were written, which was before all the recent discussion. So I'd be interested in what their current opinions are, wouldn't you?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

The answer is yes.

The Grassroots' Campaign, and members generally, would like to know the current position of the Executive members on the elimination of the tournament playing fee. It is important, because in July 2008 at the CFC AGM in Montreal, the governors passed a straw vote motion eliminating the tournament playing fee.

Are the Executive and the Governors on the same page on this one? Will the Executive members post their positions on this issue, as Chris has now done ?

Bob

[Peter Stockhausen]

Hi Chris,

Total RUBBISH.

The records show that there were some 18 or so adult events in Greater Vancouver that year. Anything from the SCC Open, the Thanksgiving Open, the UBC Tournaments, the Lionel Joyner Memorial and even the Canadian Closed.

Also close by (much closer than Ontario), like Victoria or the Okanagan another half dozen adult tournaments took place that year.

Of course there were even many, many more Junior tournaments.

If you lived in Vancouver that year and missed all that......

Cheers
Peter

[Christopher Mallon]

They did a very bad job of advertising them in that case. I couldn't afford the Keres but I would have played in others if I had known about them.

[Jason Lohner]

They did a very bad job of advertising them in that case. I couldn't afford the Keres but I would have played in others if I had known about them.

All of the tournaments are posted on the BCCF webpage. I get all my info there.

[Tony Ficzere]

I always check the BCCF page for tournament ads as I am in BC quite a bit. From what I see there are plenty of ads for adult and junior events. When time permits I will even play in one of their events if it happens when I am there for business.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

AFIK this regulation applies only to the Canadian Closed and not to the Canadian Open. You would be delusional to think that the 2008 Canadian Open held in Quebec did not accept tournament memberships.

So the rule does not work in a real life.
Probably the word "OPEN" must mean something - everybody can play, even non-members and without any restrictions (tournament membership fee) :rolleyes:

[Michael Barron]

Hi Bob:

I think, before we could answer this main question:
"What does the CFC need the money for?"
all discussions regarding changing various fees don't make sense - there always will be people who will be very disappointed by ANY change.

Let's first discuss what we need the money for, and then we could explain members why the changes are necessary.

[Christopher Mallon]

All of the tournaments are posted on the BCCF webpage. I get all my info there.

Sorry, never occurred to me that a CFC-rated tournament would not be advertised on the CFC website or in En Passent. ;)

[Tony Ficzere]

Sorry, never occurred to me that a CFC-rated tournament would not be advertised on the CFC website or in En Passent. ;)
There are lots of tournaments that don't get advertised on the CFC site. There was a time where tournaments were submitted on the CFC site, and they never made it online there for whatever reason. So organizers didn't bother posting their tournament announcements to the CFC site and relied on other avenues of advertising.

[Christopher Mallon]

Yes, but 2002 was before that time.