PDA

View Full Version : WYCC Funding for CYCC Winners



Bob Armstrong
04-28-2009, 01:36 PM
In relation to whether the CFC should authorize players, who do not participate in the CYCC, to attend the WYCC ( with a rating and activity criteria ), John Coleman noted on ChessTalk the following:

" The youth co-ordinator, Ellen Nadeau, has introduced this motion in GL 5:

... (may) participate in the CYCC, only:

1) the qualifiers from that years YCCs

2) the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year

3) the highest rating of each age category as of May 1st (open and female) of each province.

The CYCC is more-or-less self-supporting, I think, so whether or not the CFC can live with the possibility of reduced attendance is an open question. "

As far as I am aware this motion would drastically reduce the no. of players in the CYCC traditionally, and the entrance fees ( though definitely increase the quality of tournament ).

My question is what percentage of travel expenses to the WYCC to the winners would come under this motion from registration fees, and what from CFC general revenue? How does this compare to this past year?

Bob

Note: this is motion 2009-13 ( Nadeau/Lavin ); also it is in relation to CYCC 2010.

Christopher Mallon
04-28-2009, 04:58 PM
The point of that motion is not to reduce overall participation, but to move a lot of the participation to provincial-level YCCs.

Bob Armstrong
04-28-2009, 05:03 PM
Hi Chris:

Thx. That clarifies the intent.

But what about the result financially in terms of what the CYCC will take in? What percentage of the WYCC funding will the CFC general revenue have to bear now, with decreased CYCC participation?

Bob

Ellen Nadeau
04-28-2009, 08:33 PM
Hi Bob,

The CYCC was designed initially to have qualifier events. Those events do more than just bring in money, they advertise and build up the CYCC. Presently, we have a system where the CYCC has a regular crowd of players coming from the few areas that have provincial YCCs. The YCCs bring players to the CYCC, and prepares them for a national event.

The CFC tried the carrot approach this year: for the traditional entry fee, we decided that we should give something to organizers. I then approached all organizers in Canada and most of the time, was not even answered. The few who showed interest essentially told me: good idea but since it is not mandatory, we will not participate. Furthermore, many of the areas that organized YCCs did not even tell the Youth Coordinator or pay the traditional fee for such an event. I suspect that if we want to be respected, we, the CFC have to put standards in place and maintain them. Otherwise, the CYCC is just another Open tournament.

Now, I get approached regularly by players telling me that the CYCC is not mandatory to participate in WYCC. I guess the next step will be to tell us that Canada should treat the WYCC as just another Open tournament, obviously raising our international chess profile...?

Back to basics. The proposal is on the floor to be debated: YCCs would become mandatory next year with this proposal and I invite governors to get involved in this matter to decide, not on the basis on one player they know, but how a national organization should monitor our selection of the players that represent Canada. I hope that this vote will have many voters as it should not be decided by 3 for, 2 against!

Ellen Nadeau
CFC Youth Coordinator

Bob Armstrong
04-28-2009, 08:52 PM
Hi Ellen:

Thanks for the extended explanation of what CFC is trying to achieve.

Making Provincial YCC's the entrance way to the CYCC, and trying to enhance their turnout seems reasonable to me. And thereby at the same time making the CYCC a quality tournament of top Canadian competition makes sense.

But the CFC has never had money to fund the winners of the CYCC to my knowledge. The CFC has relied upon the CYCC to be self-sufficient, and , from the registration fees, and attracting numerous players ( even if not strong ), raise sufficient money to fund the prizes to the WYCC.

My problem is that it seems the CFC will drastically reduce the income-generating potential of the CYCC with this motion. This means the CFC has to make up the shortfall out of general revenue. How can we do that, given our financial situation?

Or is the funding of the winners to the WYCC going to be drastically reduced by this motion?

Or do you have ideas on some other source of funds for prizes?

Sorry to repeat myself a bit, but I like the ideas behind the motion, but don't understand the economics of it.

Bob

Ken Craft
04-29-2009, 07:30 AM
I'll be voting "No". Not every province hs the infrastructure necessary to implement this proposal. The CFC messed up royally when it took this event out of the hands of the CMA.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-29-2009, 09:55 AM
I think motions should be improved by clarifying:
"-the qualifiers from that years YCCs" - 20th place still qualifies? :D

I would suggest to add/amend " - players to be chosen by their provincial associations"

Patrick McDonald
04-29-2009, 11:32 AM
* ARRRGGHHH * (I had just typed out a lengthy response and am in a hotspot and my time timed out just before I posted ... lost it all!)

I will try to reconstruct:

I think that I see Ellen's intent here:

The Provincial YCC events will be helping to raise funds for the WYCC Official Representatives:

The Provincial YCC events will - in order to be officially recognized to be able to qualify players to the CYCC - have to submit YCC fees which are substantially more than the rating fees.

The ultimate intent is that there will be several "Regional YCC" events which will qualify players to the Provincial YCC.

The current structure has official Regional YCC events paying from $3 - $6 per player to be a YCC, the Provincial YCC event then pays $7 - $10 per player (this year changed to $6 per player) ... all these YCC fees are supposed to go into the WYCC "kitty" and then the CYCC raises the remaining funds.

In all the years that I was Youth Co for the CFC I constantly was trying to get out of the office an exact accounting of the YCC funds raised through these "lead-up" events but NEVER once managed to get a proper accounting.

For the past 10 years or so, the OYCC (the Ontario Youth Chess Championships) has been an official YCC event and has submitted the YCC fees (excepting one year) but I am still not sure that these fees were properly attributed to the WYCC fund.

I am glad to see Ellen working towards rectifying all this.

BTW: the OYCC 2009 is coming up on May 23/24 and already - more than 3 weeks to go still - has 75 pre-registered entries! see: www.psmcd.net/oycc2009 (http://www.psmcd.net/oycc2009) for more info ... pass the word on to the youth players in your area (in Ontario that is) ... this one is shaping up to be one of the most successful! :D

Bob Armstrong
04-29-2009, 11:46 AM
Hi Patrick:

Thanks for the financial analysis. I was unaware of the provincial/regional YCC fees remissions to the CFC CYCC fund, and was going to suggest a surcharge of some kind on the YCC's to help raise prize fund money. Nice to know my idea is re-inventing the wheel.

Are the regional CYCC fees remitted to the provincial association, or directly to the CFC?

Do you know how the amount of funds raised by the $X / per head at the YCC's, compares to the $$ raised by entrance fees at the CYCC the way it is currently structured? I seem to have the impression that the CYCC registration fee was fairly substantial, and it will take quite a few players at $ 6/head to make up one current CYCC entrance fee, won't it? And there were quite a large number of entrants at the last CYCC, no??

Again, I'm trying to see that the new motion system will generate sufficient funds for the prizes for all the CYCC groups.

Bob

Ellen Nadeau
04-29-2009, 09:54 PM
Hi Bob,

Apologies for not responding faster: we are preparing two simultaneous tournaments over three days with a total of 350 players in Kapuskasing. Friday will be especially crazy since we add a blitz tournament and bughouse tournament... Enough said!

I don’t quite get your fear that there will be less money with the proposed changes in the CYCC qualification. The majority of players who participate at the CYCC would qualify this way anyway and last time that I checked, the only province without a youth program - as far as I could tell, is New Brunswick - someone, please correct me fast if I am wrong... With advertised YCC’s there will be more participants progressively for the CYCC. Any income from the YCC will be returned to the youth program in form of help towards WYCC funding. One thing I have support of from this executive, is to have a separate Youth account so that the financing is clear.

Furthermore, if we decide that a change has to be profitable before doing the right thing, I suspect that it will not evolve very quickly.

I encourage all those who can participate in the OYCC to do so. It is a good tournament and provides quality training for CYCC and Patrick has a proven track record.

Ellen Nadeau

Bob Armstrong
04-29-2009, 11:23 PM
Hi Ellen:

It appears a rather hectic time for you at the moment. Thanks for squeezing out some time to answer.

I guess my concern is with the new restrictions on the CYCC, how many do you reasonably expect at the 2010 CYCC from the provinces? For example, I understand that the CFC gets $ 100 per CYCC player. If there were 150 players, CFC would get $ 15,000. From what I can gather, that would be fairly close to the average the CFC has gotten over the last 5 years under the old system ( the stats show a 5-year attendance average at the CYCC of 153 ).

Does my " guesstimate " of 150 2010 CYCC players seem to accord with your projections under the new motion?

Also, is it only the first place finisher in the Provincial YCC that " qualifies " to come to the CYCC? Or do the 2nd and 3rd place finishers also get the right to come to the CYCC?

You can answer after the weekend - no rush on this. Thanks.

Bob

Ellen Nadeau
05-04-2009, 03:27 PM
Hi Bob,

We made it through the tournaments and have almost finished reports, cleaning and finances. It was a great party!

Your Financial info is off somewhat. The CFC receives a minimum of $125 per player(early registration) and after that it is $150.

Probably the most influential reasons for many or few players are:
1) location(is it close to a large youth playing population?) and
2) are the organizers aggressive with publicity and organizational amenities. So in response to your question, I have no problem believing that there will be as many players next year as this year if the tournament is located in a popular area and the organizers work hard at bringing people out.

It is the first three places (ties included) which qualify for the CYCC. Each Province has 12 qualifying youth.

One thing that might be interesting is to allow some places for the organizers to offer to their local players who may not have qualified in other ways. This is a common practice on the International level to encourage those interested in organizing the event.

Ellen

Bob Armstrong
05-08-2009, 12:04 AM
Hi Bob,

It is the first three places (ties included) which qualify for the CYCC. Each Province has 12 qualifying youth.

Ellen

Hi Ellen:

Just so I'm clear, each province can send the first 3 finishers ( + ties ) in each of the 12 groups. So there is a minimum of 36 players that a province can qualify into the CYCC. That seems a lot of players for a province to send. I doubt many provinces would be likely to achieve this - it would be a total of 360 players if all provinces complied - over twice the last 5-year average number of players in the CYCC ( 153 players ).

Do you have any projections on what each province is expected to send, on average? ( I take it from your post, that you see no problem hitting the 153 players average. )

Bob

P.S. I have been working on some $ calculations, which seem to suggest the new system will at least equal the fund raising of the prior CYCC's , on average, removing anomalies like Ottawa, which was unusual. I'll post them after I consult a bit more.

Bob Armstrong
05-21-2009, 01:39 PM
I am going to be voting in favour of Motion 2009-13 ( Nadeau/Lavin ) on reform of the CYCC.

It seeks to restrict entry to the 3 top qualifiers from each age/gender group from each province, rather than being open to all as in the past.

So the main point of the motion in my mind seems to be an attempt to push participation down to the provincial level. I suppose it is hoped that there is greater chance of participation if a major junior YCC is held in the province, where it is more accessible to parents, and less costly, than having to travel perhaps half way across the country to attend a CYCC. It is hoped, I believe that the motion will greatly increase the YCC attendances, since it will now be a qualifier for the CYCC. It is felt that the total no. of participants in all provinces, will be much greater than the total attending the current CYCC, even if the new CYCC itself imight be somewhat smaller ( though this is not clear ).

Is this hope realistic? If it is, then is not this “ promoting chess “ for the CFC, by increasing overall junior participation in CFC-sponsored junior events? The CYCC itself, in a sense, will become the champion of provincial champions tournament. Is this not a worthy goal of the new proposal ? I realize it is taking a chance with what has recently proved to be a successful product, but is it worth the chance, to improve overall Canadian junior participation? I think so.

I have done some rather basic financial caluclations to try to determine the financial reasonableness of the new system, and whether it can be expected to generate at least the same amount of prize funding for the WYCC as the old system. It seems that at minimum it will. Here is my calculation:

A CYCC Revenue Comparison: Old System vs Reformed System
( prepared by Bob Armstrong )
Revision 2, May 21, 2009

Attempt at Reconstructing CFC Revenue from Past CYCC’s

The average no. of players in a CYCC, using the last 5 year stats, is approx. 150 players.

Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 100

Revenue: 150 X $ 100 = $ 15,000

Projected CFC Revenue Under Proposed Reform ( Motion 2009-13 )

Motion 2009-13 Re: CYCC Qualifiers
(Ellen Nadeau / David Lavin)
The motion to replace the Articles 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 of the CFC handbook is as follows:
Will participate in the CYCC 2010 and subsequent CYCCs, only:
-the qualifiers from that years YCCs
-the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year
-the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province(as of May 1st prior to
the CYCC)

Calculation:
A) from CYCC

Item 1 : Top 3 qualifiers from that year’s YCC’s = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners x 10 provinces = 360 players.
Item 2 : Top 3 qualifiers to WYCC from CYCC previous year = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners = 36
Item 3 : No. of Highest Rating from Provinces = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 10 provinces = 120.

Maximum Total ( If all eligible attend ): 360 + 36 + 120 = 516

Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 125 ( minimum starting in 2009 )

Revenue : 516 X $ 125 = $ 64.500

B) from YCC’s

Assume an average of 6 players ( admittedly a somewhat random number ) per 12 groups X 10 provinces = 720 players

Remitted to CFC per YCC player - $ 6 per player X 720 players = $ 4,320
( Note: it may be slightly less than this because there is a maximum remittance per YCC of $ 400; also there is a cheaper remittance option of $ 4 per player ).

C) Total Revenue: $ 68,820 !!??

Questions: We are expecting each province to send approx. 48 players or a total of approx. 480 ( a few less due to overlapping ) players. How realistic is that? How can this be when the average has historically been over the last 5 years, 150 players. And a large portion of the 150 have been from the home province of the CYCC. Moreover, Governor Ken Craft has raised the concern about this motion that some provinces do not have the infrastructure to hold a provincial YCC. Is he right? Will some provinces not participate? We have also seen that some groups ( especially female ) have difficulty getting participants – will that affect numbers? And how many parents of the “ qualifiers “ will be willing to bear the cost of attending the CYCC, wherever it is held. The figure of over 450 players in the CYCC is obviously wildly optimistic, though these are the numbers who can qualify.
The main issue though is whether the new system can at least generate as many funds towards prizes as the old system. So lets assume , rather than over 450, a number less than the average no. of the last 5 years, which is 150. I will choose 100 players – it is below the average because players are limited to at least 3 per group from each province, eliminating those home province players who now would not be entitled to play. I feel 100 is achievable under the new system ( it would be approx. 22% of the number entitled ).

Revised Reform Revenue Projection Based on Lower Anticipated Turnout

A ) from CYCC – 100 players @ $ 125 = $ 12,500 ( note: the average CYCC has been 153 players )
B ) from YCC’s - $ 4, 320
C) Total Revenue - $ 16,820.

Revenue Comparison:

Old System - $ 15,000
Reformed System - $ 16,820

Conclusion

The reformed system will produce at least as much prize funding toward the WYCC as did the prior system.

Bob

Andrei Botez
05-23-2009, 04:54 AM
Last year one of the sections was won by a Canadian citizen who lives outside of Canada. Are those kids admitted directly to CYCC?

Also if one of the top 3 in YCC is declining to go to CYCC, is the next one on standings list allowed to replace him/her?

Jason Manley
05-23-2009, 10:35 PM
I suppose this isn't as fast as you were hoping for, but a New Brunswick procincial YCC event is organized each year in Moncton (or has been as long as I've been playing). Having players go to the CYCC from this is another story; I believe we send about 6 players each year and 2-3 of them don't even play the provinvial event. The predictions on participation are a lttle high, then, for New Brunswick; we had 20-30 players at last year's provincial tournament, when you combine all sections.

There's no way you could know about the event, though; it's nowhere to be seen on the internet, hasn't been rated in three years and the only reason I know about them is because I played in them.