PDA

View Full Version : CFC Moves on Fees



Bob Armstrong
02-21-2009, 10:51 PM
The Grassroots' Campaign is advised ( not given notice by the CFC - sigh - we've had to employ our moles ) that the Governors are considering 2 motions ( to be voted on by March 2 ) in which the GC has an interest ( we've been clamouring for the CFC to do something on fees for a while now, though we had hoped the Governors would take input from the membership, including us - not to be ):

1. The GC wanted any junior rating fee increase capped at a maximum of 100% ( or $ 1 ). The one motion does this, though adds the condition that the organizer must use the new CFC automated tournament submission system. The motion does not raise the adult rating fee- stays at $ 3 - but again only if you use the automated submission system. Finally the motion penalizes those organizers not submitting using SwissSys - $5 per player ( whether adult or junior ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion ( though we do think the 400% increase in the penalty for junior organizers is unfair, when the increase for organizers of adult tournaments not using the system is only 66.7% ).

2. The GC wanted the tournament playing fee ( TPF ) doubled ( to $ 20 ), if the Governors were going to refuse to eliminate it ( still our first choice ). The second motion does this, and introduces for the first time a " junior tournament playing fee " of $ 10 ( we're fine with that, if they are keeping the darned TPF ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion. But we will renew our motion for elimination some time in the future, when the new TPF has been gotten used to.

Too bad the Governors didn't consult with the membership - we had some new ideas on reforming the junior memberships and introducing a special membership for full-time non-junior college and university students ( an initiative of Frank Dixon's in negotiation with the GC ). Oh well, maybe we'll try to introduce it some time in the future, as part of a GC Fees Reform Platform.

Bob

Jason Lohner
02-22-2009, 05:08 AM
Heck if he and some guys from Toronto want to bring forward a movement to change fees, I would too...

I propose that we keep the Tournament Fees at $10, but limit it to once a year. This way the casual player won't feel like he isn't welcome. Local club players will feel welcome to play in their yearly CFC rated club tournament and we won't lose casual players... I know the toronto gang want to impose a solution that only works in toronto and screws the rest of Canada but I believe that a limit on usage would encourage people to continue playing tournament chess without dropping participation numbers in the areas that aren't in Ontario. Perhaps if the toronto gang actually talked to people who use the tournament memberships and to people who actually are active TD's they could think up an actual solution instead of trying to decrease the number of chess players in the rest of Canada... one can only wish

Bob Armstrong
02-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Jason and I have our little disagreements. But here I agree with 1/2 of Jason's proposal, which may surprise him.

I disagree to keeping the Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ) at $10. It should go to $ 20, as per the motion.

But I agree with Jason that since we are keeping the TPF, " limit it to once a year ". In fact this is what the CFC and the Canadian organizers are supposed to be doing. The current CFC Handbook section states:

375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events, for foreign players, and for players whose name does not appear on the last Annual List, of $10.00 may be paid in lieu of CFC membership. The player will then receive a rating, one copy of the magazine, and an invitation to join the CFC

The Governors should tack on an amendment to the motion to confirm that " the CFC will again start enforcing the section as written ". Will a governor move this amendment??

It is really bad form guys to have laws saying one thing, and for the organization to ignore them and do the opposite. It makes the organization look Mickey Mouse in my view.

The Governors are dealing with section 375, so clarify where the CFC stands on the " limit " issue, at the same time as they deal with the " amount " issue.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
02-23-2009, 12:02 AM
375 was amended a couple of years ago to allow the fee as often as you like.

Bob Armstrong
02-23-2009, 12:11 AM
As usual, us plebs didn't know that since we can only rely on the CFC Handbook as it is on the website ( I know Bob G is to update it when he gets time, now that he has the special report from Govenor Maurice Smith ). It will be great when members can know the laws of the organization !

But that doesn't change Jason's excellent point - he doesn't want it available " as often as you like ". He wants it now to be available only " once per year ". So if the Governors are to incorporate his idea, they will have to amend the " amended " section 375 that no one knows the wording of, outside of the select few. It will have to be changed from the TPF being indefinitely available, to being only available " once per year ".

Bob

Ken Craft
02-24-2009, 11:26 AM
The fee motions are undergoing vigorous debate on the Governors' section.

roger patterson
02-24-2009, 03:09 PM
The fee motions are undergoing vigorous debate on the Governors' section.

I do hope that debate includes rewording the motion so that it does not attempt to set provincial dues. At the moment, the motion improperly sets provincial dues. Apart from upsurping provincial responsibilties, it sets provincial fees that are different than those set by BC (and collects provincial dues for regions that don't have provincial affiliations e.g. Quebec with no specification of what happens to thoses amounts).

If passed, the executive director will have the choice of:
a) ignoring the wishes of provinces with different dues or
b) ignoring the motion of the governers.

Ken Craft
02-24-2009, 03:16 PM
I'm guessing all of the motions currently being debated will see some revision prior to being voted on. Of course, I could be wrong...

Bob Armstrong
02-26-2009, 09:53 AM
1. The GC wanted any junior rating fee increase capped at a maximum of 100% ( or $ 1 ). The one motion does this, though adds the condition that the organizer must use the new CFC automated tournament submission system. The motion does not raise the adult rating fee- stays at $ 3 - but again only if you use the automated submission system. Finally the motion penalizes those organizers not submitting using SwissSys - $5 per player ( whether adult or junior ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion ( though we do think the 400% increase in the penalty for junior organizers is unfair, when the increase for organizers of adult tournaments not using the system is only 66.7% ).

Bob

I drafted the GC motion and the commentary on capping any junior rating fee increase on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign ( GC ), and I intended that the GC actively support the CFC raising the junior rating fee, if it only went to $ 1.We assumed the CFC needed the money if they moved for an increase. I thought this was clear to the membership. It was on this basis that I made my post saying the GC urged the governors to pass the increase. I thought our position was clear in support. The Commentary to our motion capping the junior rating fee increase said:

“ A raise in rating fee may be justified given the CFC’s financial situation, but a 100% increase in the junior rating fee is the maximum tolerable. “

But subsequently 2 Governor GC Supporters questioned whether this position was understood by all GC Endorsers from the motion/commentary. They felt it was ambiguous. Consequently I went back to the GC membership to clarify the situation.

An overwhelming majority of those voting, changed the GC position ( they had not understood my position as being set out clearly by the GC motion/commentary ). So the new position of the GC on the junior rating fee increase is :

" The GC should take no position on a junior rating fee increase. We neither support it , nor do we oppose it. It is solely a CFC decision. They know their finances, and if they need an increase. All we maintain is that the increase not go over $1, and it hasn’t in the motion, so we are able to “ accept “ the motion if passed by the Governors. "

In the light of this change, GC withdraws its active " support " for the motion, and no longer " urges " the Governors to pass the motion. But neither do we " oppose " it. It is up to the CFC to convince the Governors it is required. If it is passed, we can " accept " that.

GC still urges the Govenors to pass the motion doubling the Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ) to $ 20, and instituting the junior TPF of $ 10.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
02-27-2009, 10:50 AM
The 2 motions regarding tournament fees and rating fees are now including in GL4 which has been sent to the governors this morning. We will post it on the website on the weekend.

Voting deadline has been extended to March 6th.

Bob Armstrong
02-28-2009, 03:26 PM
From GL # 4:

Motion 2009-07 (Moved David Lavin / Maurice Smith)

Effective May 1st, 2009 the CFC Tournament Fee will be $20 per player per tournament, $4 of which will go to the Provincial Authority. The CFC Tournament Fee for Juniors will be $10 per player per tournament, of which $2 will go to the Provincial Authority.
This replaces the entire Section of Article 375 Tournament Playing Fee in the Handbook.

David Lavin: There has been much discussion about Tournament Memberships. Many feel that they encourage new members, others feel that they are costing the CFC revenue. What cannot be disputed is that an adult Tournament Membership fee of $10 is incredibly cheap when comparerd
to the Annual Membership of $36. The cost of processing each membership is the same, so the costs to the CFC of a Tournament Membership is disproportionately high. Secondly, relatively few people play in four tournaments a year so there is a significant incentive to purchase the $10
Tournament Membership rather than full Membership.

Motion 2009-08 (Moved David Lavin / Maurice Smith)
Effective May 1st 2009 the Rating Fee for Adult Tournaments will be $3 per person per Tournament if using CFC/SwissSys, $5 per person per Tournament if not using CFC SwissSys.The rating Fee for Junior Tournaments will be $0.50 per person per Tournament if using CFC SwissSys, $2.50 per person per Tournament if not using CFC SwissSys. Tournaments submitted Swiss Assistant shall receive the same rate as those submitted using CFC SwissSys.
This replaces tthe entire Section of Article 731 Fees in the Handbook and any Motions regarding 731 that were passed and not published.

David Lavin: The CFC at some expense has purchased a software solution to the rating of CFC tournaments. This system was implemented in order to replace the manual input of tournament spreadsheets by the Executive Director and staff that has been expensive to use. We want to encourage TDs to use a system that has proven to be simple to use and beneficial to all parties.

Governors should note that this motion is NOT identical to the version originally posted on the CFC Forum – the original version had a junior fee of 1.00 and 3.00 (which was an unintended increase in the current fees) and did not mention Swiss Assistant. We apologize for any confusion!

Jason Lohner
03-02-2009, 06:43 PM
At the end of the month I am playing in a non cfc tournament. This tournament is geared towards club level players (under 1600). Several of these players play in the Keres open but use the tournament membership. I plan on asking them whether they are planing to go to the keres or skip it due to the increased fees. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan on just skipping the event now. I know if my friends aren't going to be in it, I won't bother either since I go to these events for the atmosphere and friends. I believe your proposal to increase the fee is counter to the goals of the CFC. You don't increase the amount of people participating by increasing the price. This will only hurt participation. But then again isn't that what the toronto gang wants? chess for the elites only?

Tony Ficzere
03-02-2009, 07:00 PM
Raising this fee would be the same as dropping a rook in a game. Its a huge blunder.

Bob Armstrong
03-02-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm glad you guys are shooting at somebody else for a change !! Respite - so nice.

Bob

Kerry Liles
03-02-2009, 10:41 PM
...
But then again isn't that what the toronto gang wants? chess for the elites only?

Why don't you give the anti-west axe a rest for a while? It doesn't improve your argument.

Bob Armstrong
03-03-2009, 12:04 AM
Hi Kerry:

I agree with you ..... but.... I think you mean the " anti - EAST axe "?

Bob

Jason Lohner
03-03-2009, 01:16 AM
Why don't you give the anti-west axe a rest for a while? It doesn't improve your argument.

because I call it like I see it. This 'grass roots' is really just a bunch of people from Toronto. There is nothing 'grass roots' about it. If it was truly a grass roots organization there would be representatives from across Canada. Until then it is the Toronto Gang. With 'governance' like this I would be greatly pleased if BC left the CFC. Its no wonder Canada's highest rated player refuses to play in Canada anymore.

Bob Armstrong
03-03-2009, 06:01 AM
Hi Jason:

To be a bit more accurate, everyone in the Grassroots' Campaign is not from Toronto. There are members from Kitchener, Kingston, Markham, Orillia, Mississauga, Hamilton, etc..

But you are right that it is a basic south central Ontario group. I would like to have had a broader group, but these are the CFC members/former members I knew whom I knew would be concerned about the future of the CFC.

But the issue is not the geography of membership.

It is the geograpy of success. All of our platforms ( with 1/2 of 1 being currently voted on ) have been now passed and implemented by CFC Governors from across Canada, including those from BC, I believe ( the first four restructuring motions of the fall of 2008 had an 81 % governor participation rate I believe ). This is a ringing endorsement for the worthwhileness of ideas, and not their geographic source, which you seem so fixated on.

Bob

Kerry Liles
03-03-2009, 01:03 PM
Hi Kerry:

I agree with you ..... but.... I think you mean the " anti - EAST axe "?

Bob

Perhaps that was incorrect - it was late and I was tired. I guess the intent of my post was clear. I meant that he was accusing US of having an anti-west bias, when in fact, it seems HE has an anti-EAST bias. But enough about factions...

No wonder the CFC has a hard time getting *anything* accomplished when there are SO many people who are effectively saying "do it my way or I won't support you at all".

Obviously, you cannot please everyone and compromises have to be accepted. It appears to me that there are a number of people who will not compromise on a number of issues... [shrug]

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-03-2009, 02:24 PM
Obviously, you cannot please everyone and compromises have to be accepted.

It would be even better that their would be some choice, not just yes and no :rolleyes:

Bob Armstrong
03-03-2009, 02:30 PM
Hi Kerry & Egis:

On Motion 2009-07 - Tournament Playing Fee - Do you have any predictions on whether the Lavin/Smith motion will pass??

Just curious if there seems to be any position that seems to have coalesced as the debate went on.

Won't hang you on your predictions.

Anyone giving odds?

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-03-2009, 02:46 PM
Hi Kerry & Egis:

On Motion 2009-07 - Tournament Playing Fee - Do you have any predictions on whether the Lavin/Smith motion will pass?

Let's say so: unpredictable. Maybe only 5 governors discussed on this motion. You should know better the total Governors number (5x?).

I hope I have not breached secrets :)

Ken Craft
03-03-2009, 03:43 PM
The interesting thing is some Governors appear to be voting yes/no on the two motions but not the same way. Those who have spoken (a small number) seem divided on both. Consensus certainly does not seem to be found.

Bob Armstrong
03-03-2009, 04:07 PM
Hi Egis:

The current number of Governors-at-Large are:

A - Executive - 7
B – Non-Executive Officers - Masters' Representative and Women's Coordinator - 2
C - Representative of Chess Foundation of Canada, and, Canadian Correspondence Chess Association - 2
D - Canadian Champion and Runner-Up - 2
E – Former CFC Presidents ( some Life Governors ) – 10 ( as now shown on the CFC website ); almost equal the votes of the other Governors-at-Large

Total – 23

The current number of Provincial/Territorial Governors are:

A - B.C. - 5
B - Alta. - 5
C - Sask. - 1
D - Man. - 2
E - Ont. - 17
F - Que. - 2
G - N.B. - 2
H - P.E.I. - 1
I - N.S. - 2
J - Nfld. & Lab. – 1
K - no reps from the 3 territories ( 3 vacancies )

Total - 38 ( and three vacancies )

Grand Total - 61 Governors

Issue: How many will bother to vote? Anyone got a % prediction for me?

Bob

Jason Lohner
03-05-2009, 01:57 PM
I would love to see how each governor voted on this issue. Please post names and results.

Bob Armstrong
03-05-2009, 02:28 PM
Hi Jason:

As you know, I am not a governor, so I will not have access to the results. I suggest you write the CFC Secretary Lyle Craver, probably through Bob Gillanders, ED., to ask that he post the actual voting record here on CFC Chess Forum.

I can assure you, I think, that if you don't do that, you won't get the names until perhaps the next GL ( they seem to be given the names of voters now, not just the result ).

Bob

Bob Gillanders
03-05-2009, 02:54 PM
hmmmmm.....there seems to be some backhanded comments about secretcy regarding voting records......

Governors' votes are a matter of public record. The vote results plus how each governor voted is in the next GL, which are posted on the website.

Bob Armstrong
03-05-2009, 04:17 PM
Hi Bob:

Sorry if I was somewhat inaccurate on this one - I couldn't remember if the GL's had always named the governors voting or if that was more recent - a bit of ignorance I'm afraid, and being too lazy to go back into the GL's to find out.

Nevertheless, I think Jason's point was also a timeliness one - I think he was wondering if the voting record might be released earlier than the next GL, given the high interest among members on the motion 2009-07 ( on the TPF ) in particular.

Bob

Kerry Liles
03-05-2009, 04:25 PM
Hi Bob:

Sorry if I was somewhat inaccurate on this one - I couldn't remember if the GL's had always named the governors voting or if that was more recent - a bit of ignorance I'm afraid, and being too lazy to go back into the GL's to find out.

Nevertheless, I think Jason's point was also a timeliness one - I think he was wondering if the voting record might be released earlier than the next GL, given the high interest among members on the motion 2009-07 ( on the TPF ) in particular.

Bob

I'm all in favour of releasing the results of the votes early (if anyone wants my opinion of course) but I don't really see what the big deal is about the timing... the official result is already published in the GL, finding out earlier just means a witch hunt can start sooner doesn't it? (just kidding)

There can only be two outcomes; presumably, some people will like one outcome more than they like the other... if you don't get the result you wanted, all that is required is a new motion to revisit the issue (and so the cycle continues). I suppose if a provincial election is on the horizon, it might be useful to see what the local governor(s) voted so that they can be held to account, but all of this is much ado about nothing.

Democracy doesn't guarantee the correct outcome; it merely ensures the enlightened and the ignorant have equal sway. [how would Bush have been elected (TWICE!!) if there had been an IQ test for US voters??]

Ken Craft
03-06-2009, 08:27 AM
I have voted. I encourage other Governors to do likewise.

Bob Armstrong
03-09-2009, 03:07 AM
Any tabulation of voting results yet on 2009-07 ( the more controversial one - doubling the TPF ) and 2009-08 ?

Bob

Ken Craft
03-09-2009, 07:19 AM
The Governors do not have the unofficial results yet.

Bob Gillanders
03-09-2009, 08:48 AM
The official votes count will be in GL5 with governors voting for and against listed.

motion 2009-07 Raising the Tournament fees - passed

motion 2009-08 Raising rating fees for non SwissSys submissions -passed

I remind everyone that these changes are effective May 1, 2009.

Ken Craft
03-09-2009, 08:58 AM
Will the unofficial results be posted with names on the Governors' Forum, Bob?

Bob Gillanders
03-09-2009, 09:09 AM
I have more urgent matters to attend to.

Ken Craft
03-09-2009, 09:47 AM
I didn't mean immediately and I didn't mean by you, Bob (perhaps the Secretary). My questions is more general. Since we now have a Governors discussion board will unofficial voting results (including names) appear their before appearing in GLs? Sorry if I gave the impression there was sense of urgency on this matter, Bob. I know you are very busy.
Cheers,
Ken

Bob Armstrong
03-09-2009, 11:48 AM
To the CFC Governors:

The Grassroots' Campaign congratulates you on passing motion 2009-07, doubling the tournament playing fee. This was the fall back position of the GC if the governors were not going to eliminate the TPF entirely ( which clearly you were not ready to do at this time ).

We still feel replacement of the TPF by our " First Time CFC Member 40% Discount " is preferable ( our initial position ).

But we can all now see whether the chess world caves in, as some organizers maintained, due to the $ 10 increase.

We will consider in future whether to re-launch a motion putting forward again our initial position.

Bob

Tony Ficzere
03-09-2009, 06:26 PM
To the CFC Governors:

The Grassroots' Campaign congratulates you on passing motion 2009-07, doubling the tournament playing fee. This was the fall back position of the GC if the governors were not going to eliminate the TPF entirely ( which clearly you were not ready to do at this time ).

We still feel replacement of the TPF by our " First Time CFC Member 40% Discount " is preferable ( our initial position ).

But we can all now see whether the chess world caves in, as some organizers maintained, due to the $ 10 increase.

We will consider in future whether to re-launch a motion putting forward again our initial position.

Bob

Hi Bob,

Nobody claimed the "chess world would cave in", but they did predict a decrease in tournament attendence.

The CFC should be working towards bringing as many players to the board as possible. This, in my opinion, is a move in the wrong direction. No, its not the end of the world, but it does nothing to accomplish what should be the CFC's number one priority.

Michael Barron
03-09-2009, 08:21 PM
The CFC should be working towards bringing as many players to the board as possible. This, in my opinion, is a move in the wrong direction. No, its not the end of the world, but it does nothing to accomplish what should be the CFC's number one priority.

Well said!

John Coleman
03-10-2009, 09:48 AM
The CFC should be working towards bringing as many players to the board as possible. This, in my opinion, is a move in the wrong direction. No, it's not the end of the world, but it does nothing to accomplish what should be the CFC's number one priority.It not only does nothing to increase the numbers, doubling the T-option actually works to DECREASE the number of players.

We are accustomed to the CFC shooting themselves in the foot. This time, they're raised their sights.

Ken Craft
03-10-2009, 10:18 AM
My preference would have been to abolish the T option. It has been abused in recent years and moved a far distance from its original marketing purpose.

You either belontg to the national sporting federation or you don't.

Bob Armstrong
03-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Hi Ken:

Well said !!

The Grassroots' Campaign will be looking for your vocal support when we launch our motion later this year to replace the Tournament Playing Fee with our " First-Time CFC Member 40% Discount ". It will market chess by giving new players a substantial discount on membership, and at the same time get them to be " members ".

Bob

Ken Craft
03-10-2009, 12:41 PM
I think that would be an administrative nightmare, Bob. Also, I don't think we should be continually tinkering with our membership models. The current motion is a decent compromise.

John Coleman
03-10-2009, 12:52 PM
You either belong to the national sporting federation or you don't.I dunno, Ken, that sounds pretty pompous. we were considering have a little CFC rated round-robin, roping in a couple of former CFC members at the same time. Now you say those old guys have got to "join a national sporting federation".

Gee, we were just gonna get together for a weekend of chess. I guess the CFC doesn't want us. Which makes us part of the majority.

Kerry Liles
03-10-2009, 12:56 PM
I dunno, Ken, that sounds pretty pompous. we were considering have a little CFC rated round-robin, roping in a couple of former CFC members at the same time. Now you say those old guys have got to "join a national sporting federation".

Gee, we were just gonna get together for a weekend of chess. I guess the CFC doesn't want us. Which makes us part of the majority.

Are we to assume that you were going to collect the (old) $10 Tournament fee from the former CFC members and now that plan falls apart because it is $20? [I think Bob Gillanders mentioned that the new fees are not until May.1?]

I can see people paying a tournament fee for a weekend Swiss or a Club championship Swiss or RoundRobin with a decent number of games, but to pony up $10/$20 to rate a handful of games seems like a longshot to me.

Ken Craft
03-10-2009, 01:39 PM
I don't want accuse you of being disingenuous, John because I know better. The concept of the tournament membership is a relatively recent innovation and it still exists. I think the Federation would be better off if it had never created the TM which was designed as a one time introduction to the Federation. From there it has morphed into the creature it has become today.

It may sound pompous but I believe it is incumbent upon chess players to support their national federation.

Tony Ficzere
03-10-2009, 01:54 PM
I don't want accuse you of being disingenuous, John because I know better. The concept of the tournament membership is a relatively recent innovation and it still exists. I think the Federation would be better off if it had never created the TM which was designed as a one time introduction to the Federation. From there it has morphed into the creature it has become today.

It may sound pompous but I believe it is incumbent upon chess players to support their national federation.
And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Here is mine, again.

We all know that the T option was created for first time players, and that it evolved into something else. What it evolved into was an option which allowed the casual player to experience the occasional tournament for only $10 as opposed to paying for a full membership. I'm not sure how giving money to the CFC fails to support chess. You are saying we have to pay $35 plus or whatever the fee is in your province. To me, it doesn't make sense. So now we will tell those players to fess up, or go away, we don't want you. Sounds all inclusive to me. And somehow, doing this will increase the number of members. Hmm. Interesting.

We all know that it takes about 30 seconds to process a tournament membership. There is no longer a magazine tied to it. So, the cost to administer is quite small. Note that the player still pays the rating fee. Yes, some will turn around and pay the full price. Others will walk away. In effect, you are denying these people from supporting the CFC.

And there are those who say $35 or whatever the fee is in your province isn't a big deal. Hey, the economy is doing good. What's another $35. There is no unemployment. All a guy has to do is drink a few less beers, and there is your membership. The timing is perfect.

Seems to me that those businesses that think this way soon find themselves in hard times. But don't take my word for it.

Again, just my opinion.

John Coleman
03-10-2009, 02:01 PM
The CFC appears to be heading in the direction of a very small "national sporting federation", which excludes (or, does not include) a very large number of people who just like to play chess.

I would rather see a large number of players pay a small fee, than a small number pay large fees.

So, how do we get the larger mass of people to support the CFC? Certainly not by doubling the tournament membership fee, or insisting they have to "belong" to a national sporting federation.

Bob Armstrong
03-10-2009, 04:14 PM
Having savoured once more the sweet taste of success in our ongoing campaign since the summer of 2008, the Grassroots' Campaign now bids all adieu as it goes into hibernation for 6 months.

We will return in September, when there is new crop of governors, to move that our " First-Time CFC Member Discount ( 40% ) " replace the current Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ).

Bob

Ken Craft
03-11-2009, 07:24 AM
What's the point of attempting to create constant instability in our fees structure, Bob?

Bob Armstrong
03-11-2009, 08:35 AM
Hi Ken:

We are willing to let the dust settle. We are going away for a while, to let the new fees get established. This seems reasonable to do. Doubling the Tournament Playing Fee has been a struggle. There needs to be some respite now.

But we are proposing the " First-Time CFC Member Discount " to replace the TPF, an animal in its current form that shouldn't exist. The Governors only went half-way this time. The job still needs to be completed - we don't see this as " constant instability ", but correcting what became an abberation ( the TPF was never meant to be a continuous use alternative to CFC membership ). The Discount keeps the idea of marketing membership to new players ( the discount is 40% ), but makes them members right away.

In fairness, all should become members and support the national organization through membership and $$.

See you in September.

Bob

Tony Ficzere
03-11-2009, 10:29 AM
Hi Bob,

You seem to be an energetic guy. Instead of fiddling with membership fees, why not concentrate on another area, like bringing new players to the board. Forget about membership fees, they will take care of themselves.

Now, if you could find a way to bring new players to the board, that would be victory.

Bob Armstrong
03-11-2009, 10:50 AM
Hi Tony:

CFC needs a " chess marketing " strategy. It has been too busy surviving to do anything about that core mission.

But now, if they can balance the 2009-10 budget, we may have dug ourselves out of the hole, and can regroup.

I would like discussion on the establishing of a new Executive position - media relations. The task would be to try to formulate strategies to help organizers " market " their tournaments, beyond the well-heeled CFC tournament players. The position would coordinate the creation of " Media Packages " that would be available to organizers and clubs to use in promoting their tournament in mainstream media.

Maybe a discussion on this would go some of the way towards what you want?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
03-11-2009, 12:57 PM
Two special officer positions were created several years ago. One was PR and the other was fundraising, I believe.

Guess how many people have volunteered to fill those positions? They still exist. Maybe you are interested?

Valer Eugen Demian
03-11-2009, 03:30 PM
And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Here is mine, again.
We all know that the T option was created for first time players, and that it evolved into something else. What it evolved into was an option which allowed the casual player to experience the occasional tournament for only $10 as opposed to paying for a full membership. I'm not sure how giving money to the CFC fails to support chess. You are saying we have to pay $35 plus or whatever the fee is in your province. To me, it doesn't make sense. So now we will tell those players to fess up, or go away, we don't want you. Sounds all inclusive to me. And somehow, doing this will increase the number of members. Hmm. Interesting.
We all know that it takes about 30 seconds to process a tournament membership. There is no longer a magazine tied to it. So, the cost to administer is quite small. Note that the player still pays the rating fee. Yes, some will turn around and pay the full price. Others will walk away. In effect, you are denying these people from supporting the CFC.
And there are those who say $35 or whatever the fee is in your province isn't a big deal. Hey, the economy is doing good. What's another $35. There is no unemployment. All a guy has to do is drink a few less beers, and there is your membership. The timing is perfect.
Seems to me that those businesses that think this way soon find themselves in hard times. But don't take my word for it.
Again, just my opinion.

Given the hard times around us, people normally look closely at how much money they have available for chess. Still the tournament membership as it is today (after the voting) is a step in the wrong direction. From a customer point of view I think it is preferable to sell a 1 year membership with an introductory rate given it offers an unlimited number of tournaments, compared with paying each time the tournament fee!

The second argument against the tournament membership is directly related to the number of members CFC has/ can have if more buy membership. Having a decent number of members allows you to go and fight for a different status for chess in Canada as it is today. You might ask how does this help your ocassional player? Well, it might not help him in the short term, but if successful then eveyone (including that ocassional player) will benefit from the conditions created!...

In chess terms it seems that we are too concerned going up a pawn instead of looking for initiative and attack! ;)

Bob Armstrong
03-11-2009, 05:28 PM
Hi Valer:

The Grassroots' Campaign hopes it can get your vote, if you are still a governor for 2009-10, when we bring the following motion in September:

First Time CFC Member Introductory Discount –

Section 375 ( Tournament Playing Fee ) of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted. Substituted for it is:

“ 375. An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ). “

This would encourage new players to sign up, because of the discount, and as you note, right to play in unlimited number of tournaments, and at the same time it would make them full members.

Bob

Valer Eugen Demian
03-16-2009, 05:09 PM
Hi Valer:

The Grassroots' Campaign hopes it can get your vote, if you are still a governor for 2009-10, when we bring the following motion in September:

First Time CFC Member Introductory Discount –

Section 375 ( Tournament Playing Fee ) of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted. Substituted for it is:

“ 375. An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ). “

This would encourage new players to sign up, because of the discount, and as you note, right to play in unlimited number of tournaments, and at the same time it would make them full members.

Bob

Hi Bob,

Please read carefully my previous post as it says a lot about what I believe and stand for. Each one of us can contribute to this society to the best of our abilities and this is what I can contribute to chess life in Canada. It remains to be seen how much support I will ever get from CFC since so far I have received very little!...

Do not mind to be the only one voting "No" to what I regard as detrimental motions to chess life in Canada. However I would prefer to see more stop and have another look at what happens around us!

After becoming a federation without an office, the next step down this dangerous slope is to reach the point of a federation without members (since everyone could theoretically pay JUST tournament fees...).

Personally I am very disappointed with the direction we move toward to!

Regards,
Eugen

Ken Craft
03-17-2009, 09:07 AM
Since Governors are asked to debate motions in the Governors' site, will the results of motions be posted in this site in a timely manner? ie. who voted which way on each motion. There is no reason to way for a GL to publish this information.

Bob Armstrong
03-17-2009, 09:33 AM
Hi Ken:

On March 9, above, ED Bob Gillandes wrote:

" The official votes count will be in GL5 with governors voting for and against listed. "

The discussion was around earlier presentation of results and voting record, than GL # 5.

So at that time the answer was apparently " NO ".

Bob

Bob Gillanders
03-17-2009, 09:39 AM
Since Governors are asked to debate motions in the Governors' site, will the results of motions be posted in this site in a timely manner? ie. who voted which way on each motion. There is no reason to way for a GL to publish this information.

Ken,

I am not going to print the voting list on the each motion here on the discussion board because it is a waste of time. You know the results of the votes. I posted the results here for a compelling reason, to give everyone the maximum amount of time to adjust to the new rates. As to how each governor voted on each motion will be in the next GL. There is no urgent need for this information.

The reason for not printing the voting list here is that it is a waste of time. There are many urgent matters requiring attention.

Bob

Ken Craft
03-17-2009, 09:51 AM
And why isn't the Secretary posting it there? I disagree with you Bob. Providing the results of votes to Governors in a timely manner in an electronic worls is not a waste of time. If someone wanted to forward me the emails of Governors votes, I'm sure I could compile it in under 10 minutes per motion.
If we have the website for rapid debate rather than debating in the GLs, then we deserve rapid reporting of the voting records.

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-17-2009, 08:26 PM
If we have the website for rapid debate rather than debating in the GLs, then we deserve rapid reporting of the voting records.

+64


Just checked the submission dates for GLs (it correlates with a publishing date of the previous GL by -1-2 weeks ):
3 - October 17
4 - January 5
5 - March 6

Thus the #5 probably will be distributed in May :eek:

Peter Stockhausen
03-18-2009, 11:55 PM
Test Test Test Test

Peter Stockhausen
03-19-2009, 08:33 PM
Hi there,

This has been a rather astonishing revelation. So, here I am, a Governor of the CFC and I do not have any notification of the result of these votes:

1, No posting
2, No GL
3, No e-mail

Only reason I have to believe that those motions passed, is a posting or two by the head of the lawn mowers association (or is it grass mowers association) who, to the best of my knowledge, is not a Governor.

Talk about transparency



And why isn't the Secretary posting it there? I disagree with you Bob. Providing the results of votes to Governors in a timely manner in an electronic worls is not a waste of time. If someone wanted to forward me the emails of Governors votes, I'm sure I could compile it in under 10 minutes per motion.
If we have the website for rapid debate rather than debating in the GLs, then we deserve rapid reporting of the voting records.

Paul Leblanc
03-19-2009, 10:53 PM
Hi Peter. Bob Gillanders posted here on March 9th that both motions passed.
I was disappointed in the increase of the tournament membership fee but that's democracy for you.
See you at the Grand Pacific Open next month?

Peter Stockhausen
03-20-2009, 08:04 PM
Hi Paul,

I missed that one!!

I will miss that one but hopefully I can swing by in July.

All the best.
Peter