PDA

View Full Version : 7D. Seniors Memberships (Barron / Armstrong)



Lyle Craver
01-04-2014, 01:28 PM
Moved by Michael Barron, seconded by Bob Armstrong:

"Add to the CFC Handbook after paragraph 9 in By-Law Number One:

10. Any person ordinarily resident in Canada who has reached the age of 65 by January 1st of the current year, shall be granted a Senior membership.
Replace the next paragraph:

10. The Per Capita Fee for Ordinary Members shall be $36 per Annum, $24 for Junior Members, $12 for Participating Members, and $18 for Family Members;provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by ordinary resolution.

by the following paragraph:
11. The Per Capita Fee for Ordinary Members shall be $36 per Annum, $24 for Junior and Senior Members, and $18 for Family Members, provided that these fees may be changed by the Assembly of Governors by ordinary resolution.
Re-number remaining paragraphs accordingly."

Paul Leblanc
01-05-2014, 01:15 PM
I don't think the CFC has accurate age data but I'm going to make an assumption that 10% of our members are over 65. That would be about 180 senior players. Nationally, according to the last census there are just over 5 million seniors out of 34 million for a proportion of 15% but in chess, youth seems over-represented.
If my assumption is correct, the cost to the CFC of this motion would be 180 x $12 per year = $2,160. This might be offset somewhat by an increase in senior membership resulting from the $12 saving in dues.

Hugh Brodie
01-05-2014, 01:44 PM
You would have to subtract those seniors who are already Life members - not sure how many that would affect.

Lyle Craver
01-05-2014, 03:59 PM
While not against the theory as such, I want to point out that date of birth would have to be submitted with any membership.

This has been a problem with some junior organizers who collected junior memberships both without address information and/or date of birth. These organizers have completely failed to grasp that the whole point of the CFC granting free rating fees and no membership charges in junior events is to give the CFC the ability to market to their parents. (This was more of an issue when we were in the books & equipment business). When talking to some of these organizers I got major "attitude" from some of them who felt that it was obvious they were juniors as it was a junior event - whereas from the CFC's point of view the whole proof of how useful this program was was how many of these kids are still playing in events as young adults.

Obviously that's not a factor with seniors but no question we would need to be extremely strict with directors who took type "S" memberships without date of birth info.

Christopher Mallon
01-05-2014, 04:23 PM
I can't support this. We have only wild guesses as to how much this might cost the CFC, and we don't even have wilder guesses as to how many more seniors might join with a cut in membership fee.

My question for the movers is: If in fact no new seniors do join, from which budget item do you propose to take away the potentially thousands of dollars in losses from this motion?

Bob Armstrong
01-05-2014, 06:37 PM
My question for the movers is: If in fact no new seniors do join, from which budget item do you propose to take away the potentially thousands of dollars in losses from this motion?

Hi Chris:

I seconded this very positive motion to expand our membership into that mega-boomer population, that now has both the time and money to play chess.

What you suggest - not one senior joining in 2014 is a straw man - not going to happen.

And as Paul posted, and his projections seem reasonable, it will likely be a wash for CFC financially at least. I personally project many new senior members, especially ones on lower-income, which is the case for many Canadian seniors, women more than men.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
01-05-2014, 07:20 PM
Hi Chris:

I seconded this very positive motion to expand our membership into that mega-boomer population, that now has both the time and money to play chess.

What you suggest - not one senior joining in 2014 is a straw man - not going to happen.

And as Paul posted, and his projections seem reasonable, it will likely be a wash for CFC financially at least. I personally project many new senior members, especially ones on lower-income, which is the case for many Canadian seniors, women more than men.

Bob

Paul never actually posted saying it would be a wash.

Bob Armstrong
01-05-2014, 08:09 PM
Paul never actually posted saying it would be a wash.

Hi Chris:

Re-read it - you are right. He implied any financial loss to CFC was trivial, and it might well sell Senior Memberships (right interpretation Paul?).

Bob A

Vladimir Drkulec
01-05-2014, 08:37 PM
Hi Chris:

Re-read it - you are right. He implied any financial loss to CFC was trivial, and it might well sell Senior Memberships (right interpretation Paul?).

Bob A

I did not read that the financial loss would be trivial. I read that the financial loss would be approximately $2160 based on certain assumptions. If we don't find incremental revenue to counteract the loss then we would have a $2160 deficit relative to what it would be without the price cut. For the decrease in price to be offset by the increased revenues you would need 90 new senior members based on 180 current senior members as Paul estimated or a 50% increase. We would have to lose one or two governors since I assume that the number of governors based on senior membership would be prorated as they are for junior members.

The actual result will depend on the price elasticity of demand for CFC memberships.

Paul Leblanc
01-05-2014, 10:19 PM
I didn't say that $2160 minus any fees from new seniors was trivial. I was only trying to introduce at least a rough estimate of the cost to the discussion.

Christopher Mallon
01-05-2014, 11:24 PM
I find even the $2160 figure to be grasping at straws. We have how many annual adult members? If each Governor were given a list of 20 from their province we could probably establish how many might be seniors.

Or even take a random sampling of 100 members and determine what % of those are seniors to have a rough guess.

Paul Leblanc
01-06-2014, 03:07 AM
There are 323 players on the CFC list for BC. I know about half of them and I counted 17 that I believe are over 65. Probably of the ones I don't know, most are juniors. I did not include the life members, many of whom are over 65. Let's call it 6% non life member seniors for BC.

Aris Marghetis
01-06-2014, 06:25 PM
For the record, I'm philosophically opposed to ANY special memberships. I believe EVERYONE should pay the same, regardless of age.

Halldor P. Palsson
01-06-2014, 07:45 PM
Can we get some idea of how many CFC members are over 65? Is the 6% estimate for B.C. applicable for other regions?

I continue to dislike financial proposals that have no cost estimate attached to them. What are we exactly agreeing to do? There are helpful hints about cost and there may well be a reserve of seniors that will join the CFC at the new membership. These folks are not known to me. Therefore I cannot support this.

Organized chess is already an inexpensive activity. Are there some financial hardship cases among chess playing seniors? I would let the Executive & the Executive Director deal with those individuals on a case-by-case basis rather than changing the membership rates for everybody.

Christopher Field
01-06-2014, 10:10 PM
I think that the idea may have merit.
Paul's estimate may depend upon how many current senior members are life members.
Of course we do not currently collect birthdates for adult members. We may have dates on file for those who first joined as juniors.
Since a life member's payment depends on age, I guess we would have dates of birth for life members.
Can we determine from this the number of life members who are seniors?

Garland Best
01-07-2014, 12:29 AM
I also fail to see CFC membership fees as something stopping significant numbers of seniors from playing. Reducing their rates in Ontario (for example) from $48 to $say $30/year is nothing. Other cost factors (memberships to clubs, transit costs, tournament rating fees, weekend tournament fees, etc), make up so much more of the cost of playing chess, that the CFC membership fee is trivial in comparison.

If you want to get more seniors to play chess, then provide easier access by providing transit, clubs where they play their age peers instead of juniors and so on. Reduced CFC memberships are not the way to go.

Hal Bond
01-07-2014, 10:23 AM
Yikes! I find myself agreeing with the Ottawa boys!

Chess for Seniors with its Alzheimers mitigation properties is ringing louder each year and the demographic is growing so I can understand the appeal of doing something. I would prefer to see a specific campaign/promo like "seniors month" or a free trial/tournament permit for unrated seniors.

Keep in mind that the World Seniors Championship splits this year into a +50 and a +65, and this will be reflected in the Canadian Senior. This is not a huge carrot but it is a nod of sorts to our senior players.

Lyle Craver
01-07-2014, 02:25 PM
One thing I haven't heard yet is how the proponents plan on collecting date of birth information. Presumably as part of membership renewals on the same basis as juniors BUT just like juniors it needs to be clear to organizers that the fact that an event has the word senior or junior in the number necessarily "proves" a particular date of birth. In other words it needs to be crystal clear that memberships taken at the discounted rate won't be accepted without date of birth and if that holds up rating of their event? Well we are truly sorry.

I'm still undecided on whether offering a new class of membership is a good thing or not but am definitely not satisfied by what I'm not hearing on the administrative side.

For what it's worth the USCF has two catagories of regular membership (both with and without print magazine ($46 and $40 respectively) a seniors membership ($40 but with print magazine) and two catagories of youth memberships (for U24 and U15). They also have 2 and 3 year memberships which is something I've always felt we erred in getting rid of. (https://secure2.uschess.org/webstore/member.php)

Bob Gillanders
01-07-2014, 03:13 PM
Ever since I first got involved in chess politics back in 2007 there has been a persistent constituency determined to lower membership dues in the belief that it will drive up memberships and revenues. (and I would guess the argument has been raging longer than that). Anyhow, I have always argued against it, believing that our already cheap membership rates are not a significant barrier to participation. A few new members is plausible, but a drop in overall membership revenues is likely. I still believe that,……

But, I am actually considering voting Yes! (but undecided at this time)

My reasoning is that maybe we treat this as an experiment. Since the seniors are a small group of the CFC membership, our financial risk is limited to the 2k (+/-). If hordes of new members don't appear, then we have our answer, and we can stop having this argument every year.

So, if I do vote Yes, that is why. It has nothing to do with my age! :)

Christopher Field
01-07-2014, 06:36 PM
Ever since I first got involved in chess politics back in 2007 there has been a persistent constituency determined to lower membership dues in the belief that it will drive up memberships and revenues. (and I would guess the argument has been raging longer than that). Anyhow, I have always argued against it, believing that our already cheap membership rates are not a significant barrier to participation. A few new members is plausible, but a drop in overall membership revenues is likely. I still believe that,……
But, I am actually considering voting Yes! (but undecided at this time)
My reasoning is that maybe we treat this as an experiment. Since the seniors are a small group of the CFC membership, our financial risk is limited to the 2k (+/-). If hordes of new members don't appear, then we have our answer, and we can stop having this argument every year.
So, if I do vote Yes, that is why. It has nothing to do with my age! :)

It has been suggested that the CFC membership fee is actually a small part of the cost for any active chess player.
Hal points out that it is certainly a good idea to encourage seniors to play chess, but there may be better ways to do this, such as "seniors month" or a no-fee trial/tournament for unrated seniors.

It deems to be a bad time to introduce a new category of membership.
It's complicated to introduce collecting the player's date of birth.

I think that Lyle suggested waiting at least until the NP situation is resolved.

I shall vote no.

Marcus Wilker
01-07-2014, 11:17 PM
I'm not sure that seniors are a group waiting to join tournament chess. If they are, and cost is a factor, chess is already cheap - compared to other possible hobbies. And I agree with others that CFC costs are not a significant line item in a tournament player's overall costs.

Nevertheless... A senior discount might encourage current players who are older (and perhaps play much less often than they used to) to keep renewing their CFC memberships (since they would now have a discount or could look forward soon to having one) rather than letting it lapse. I think a decrease in attrition, though, would take a while to compensate for the sudden drop in revenue.

What method of proof of age is being proposed? What proof is required for other senior discounts - transit, etc.?

Michael Barron
01-07-2014, 11:31 PM
One thing I haven't heard yet is how the proponents plan on collecting date of birth information. Presumably as part of membership renewals on the same basis as juniors BUT just like juniors it needs to be clear to organizers that the fact that an event has the word senior or junior in the number necessarily "proves" a particular date of birth.

Lyle, you're absolutely right - the person, who is willing to buy a Senior membership has to prove his age - on the same basis as juniors.
Just to clarify: what is needed is not date of birth (some people see revealing it as a privacy concern), but year of birth.
The proposed Motion says:
"Any person ordinarily resident in Canada who has reached the age of 65 by January 1st of the current year, shall be granted a Senior membership".
So, if a person was born in 1948 or earlier, he has reached the age of 65 by January 1st 2014, and could buy Senior membership in 2014 and later.
You could see that FIDE publish year of birth for every player in the FIDE rating list.
We could do the same in the CFC rating list.

Bob Armstrong
01-08-2014, 01:33 AM
Hi Marcus;

All over 65 years old get an OAS card from the federal government. It is a blue one (no photo), with a picture of the federal Parliament Building. I have mine.

I could easily show it, along with my driver's licence (photo) to show identity - no problem to get a discount (but not relevant to me personally, as a LIFE member).

Bob A

Fred McKim
01-08-2014, 08:37 AM
I think a better approach is to let organizers have a reduced entry fee for seniors. $2,000 loss of revenue is significant considering that we generally only have $5-8,000 of discretionary funds.

Michael Barron
01-08-2014, 10:10 PM
I think a better approach is to let organizers have a reduced entry fee for seniors. $2,000 loss of revenue is significant considering that we generally only have $5-8,000 of discretionary funds.

Fred, at the Toronto Seniors Championship, where this issue came up, the entry fees are:
$20 - for seniors 50+,
$15 - for seniors 60+,
$10 - for seniors 70+.

How much would you reduce such entry fees? :confused:

Paul Leblanc
01-09-2014, 11:49 AM
I'm still uneasy about the loss of income in an organization that barely breakes even financially.

Marcus Wilker
01-09-2014, 11:56 AM
There are some additional consequences that have not yet been addressed. For the purposes of allocating funding, and determining numbers of governors representing various regions, I understand that Junior memberships count less.

Would this mean that Senior memberships would also count less - i.e., regions that had a relatively greater number of Senior members would now have less representation (fewer CFC governors) under the proposed change?

Lyle Craver
01-09-2014, 02:32 PM
Governors have always been allocated according to the Per Capita Fee method outlined in the Handbook so I would expect a reduced fee would be reflected there. This is how it currently works on the Family Membership class. (Which was originally intended so to give multiple members in the same household the option to get only one copy of EP)

The only time something like this has come up in recent years was in relation to Honorary Members who are mostly FIDE title-holders. Several of them (mostly the IAs) were already Life Members and by the formula then in use Honorary members did NOT count towards Governor allocation. (In two years in the 1990s BC lost a Governor for this reason - as then BCCF Secretary I was somewhat perturbed on this!) Besides this we have numerous FIDE title holders who under our rules are entitled to Honorary Membership which has never been granted since the individuals were already Life Members - Lynn Stringer and myself are two and I know there are others.

We eventually came to the rule that Honorary members would be treated in all respects including the Governor calculation in the same manner as a Life Member who for the Governor count is the same as a Regular member.