PDA

View Full Version : Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees



Bob Armstrong
09-17-2008, 07:49 PM
Today, on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign, the " gang of 4 " governors ( Barry Thorvardson, Gary Gladstone, Nikolay Noritsyn and Natalia Khoudgarian ) sent 3 " binding " motions on CFC fees to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, to be included in the next GL, and voted on by the Governors. These arise out of the original Grassroots' platform, for which only " straw vote " motions were initially brought, and which items are still outstanding.

Here is the Motions/Backgrounder submitted:

Backgrounder to 3 Governors’ CFC Fees Motions September 17, 2008

( motions submitted by Bob Armstrong, with permission of mover/seconder; commentary prepared by Bob Armstrong, Grassroots’ Campaign Coordinator )

Motion # 1 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
CFC Tournament Membership Elimination – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by deleting from the fourth sentence the words “ the tournament membership shall be $ 10 per tournament for adults, and $ 5 per tournament for juniors. “ and shall be replaced with “ CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership “.

Commentary: From the minutes of the AGM, we reproduce for convenience the relevant motion:

The following is moved by Les Bunning and seconded by Peter Stockhausen.

Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, the tournament membership
shall be $10 per tournament for adults and $5 per tournament for juniors. Players
in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be
members but shall be required to submit the CFC rating fee of $5 per player.
Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC rating fee shall be $5 per player per
tournament or match.

Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of members, one subsidizing the other. Also, when tournament memberships were introduced, they were meant as a one-time only thing, to encourage first timers to play tournament chess – they were not meant to become a continuous use membership. Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships. This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem warranted.

Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen, did not eliminate tournament memberships, despite the prior straw vote.

Motion # 2 – Moved: Barry Thorvardson; Seconded: Gary Gladstone –
CFC Annual Membership Discount – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by adding after the third sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. “

Commentary: See original motion above under Motion # 1. Organizers have advised that the annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( especially when tournament memberships have been eliminated ); so the 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty. Even with the discount, the CFC will be collecting more than it did on tournament membership. Also, this replaces the tournament membership, which originally when introduced was meant to be a one-time only option.

Note: this motion, slightly amended, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008. Also, the CFC membership fees motion passed at the same Governors’ AGM in July, as can be seen above, did not incorporate the annual member discount, despite the prior straw vote.

Motion # 3 – Moved: Nikolay Noritsyn; Seconded: Natalia Khoudgarian –
CFC Junior Rating Fee Reduction – The Incoming Governors’ 2008 AGM Motion on CFC fees is amended by:
a) in the fifth sentence, the word “ junior “ shall be placed before the words “ rating fee “, and “ $ 1 “ shall replace “ $ 5 “;
b) in the last sentence, adding before the words “ rating fee “ , the word “ adult “; and
c) Adding at the end of the motion the sentence: “ Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match “.

Commentary :

In CFC’s 2007-8 financial year, CFC took in from rating fees approx. $ 25,000. It was originally proposed by the Grassroots’ campaign that this be doubled to $ 50,000 [ Junior rating fee would go to $ 1 ( from $0.50 ); regular rating fee would go to $ 6/ player/ event ( from $ 3 ) ],. This was to shift CFC’s general revenue burden from membership to rating fees, as a more acceptable way to get general revenue – basically, a more “ user-pay “ system. This would give CFC an extra $ 25,000 revenue.

In the same year, CFC took in approx. $ 50,000 from membership fees of all kinds. With the extra $ 25,000 from increased rating fees, CFC would now have to raise only $ 25,000 from membership fees, or a reduction of 50 %. This meant annual membership fees could be decreased by 50% [ annual adult membership could go to $ 18 ( from $ 36 ) and annual junior membership could go to $ 12.50 ( from $ 25 ) ].

What happened at the Incoming Governors AGM in July, was that the annual adult membership was reduced, but only to $ 30 and the annual junior membership to only $ 20 [ the reason was that the CFC wanted to increase the amount of revenue in redistributing the burden between membership and rating fee. It did not want the change to be revenue neutral ( what was gained by the rating fee increase, was lost by the membership reduction ) ]. Once restructuring is completed, if there is a surplus, the grassroots campaign will move to further reduce the annual membership.

Junior organizers have clearly indicated that the huge 900% increase in junior rating fee ( from $ 0.50 to $ 5 ) will seriously damage their junior programs, and cast doubt on holding CFC-rated junior tournaments. Since juniors are so important to the future of chess in Canada, and CFC wants to encourage them to take up the game, we propose to increase the junior rating fee only 100%, from $ 0.50 to $ 1 ( note that the adult rating fee was increased only 66 2/3 % ). Our motion appears to increase the junior rating fee, but this is only due to the nature of the motion. We are amending an existing , passed motion. In fact we are lowering it from the proposed $ 5 to $ 1 ( a reduction of $ 4 ). A raise in rating fee is justified given the CFC’s financial situation, and the reduction in annual membership, but the 100% increase is more reasonable.

[ Note : The CFC motion also did not quite double the adult rating fee. It increased it to $5 ( not $ 6 ). Given this increase, and the increase in revenue from the modest annual membership reduction, we feel that the adult rating fee can stay where the CFC motion placed it, and need not be increased to $ 6 ].

General 3- motion note:

The amended motion, if all three motions are passed, would then read:

Effective January 1, 2009, the membership fee for adult members shall be $30.
The membership fee for junior members shall be $20. The CFC will
discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships
effective January 1, 2009. Effective January 1, 2009, to encourage individuals to become CFC members, first time CFC members shall be given a 40% fee reduction for their first year. Effective January 1, 2009, CFC shall eliminate tournament memberships – if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament, s/he must purchase an annual/life membership. Players in a tournament in which all of the players are juniors shall not be required to be members but shall be required to submit the CFC junior rating fee of $1 per player. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFC adult rating fee shall be $5 per player per
tournament or match. Effective January 1, 2009, the junior rating fee shall be $ 1 per player per tournament or match


Revision 3

Egidijus Zeromskis
09-17-2008, 08:20 PM
I would suggest to improve this:
"if a player wants to play in a CFC tournament"

What do you know as "CFC tournaments"? (probably Open, Closed, Youth.)
Do you mean tournaments which are CFC rated?

Would you consider to use a term "CFC-rated events" as in Handbook's Section CFC RATING SYSTEM & FIDE RATED EVENTS including matches as well?
http://www.chess.ca/section_7.htm

Bob Armstrong
09-17-2008, 08:31 PM
Hi Egis:

We had meant both CFC and CFC-rated tournament. We hope it will be understood that way ( though technically you are probably correct ).

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
09-17-2008, 08:56 PM
As history teaches us - lets write what we mean without any other interpretations.

Peter McKillop
09-17-2008, 09:34 PM
If as you say (i.e. I haven't attempted to verify it) the Bunning/Stockhausen motion was for a straw vote only, then I don't understand why you need your three motions. Why amend a straw vote? Why didn't you just submit one motion containing the wording you're recommending? Perhaps there is some nuance of parliamentary procedure I'm missing?

Bob Armstrong
09-17-2008, 09:47 PM
Hi Peter:

Sorry - maybe something is unclear in the presentation. The Bunning/Stockhausen motion was not a straw vote, but a binding one, and it passed. It was the 7 Grassroots' Motions that were the " straw vote " motions. The fees set in the Bunning/Stockhausen motion are now going to come into effect on Jan. 1, 2009, unless amended.

Bob

Peter McKillop
09-17-2008, 09:53 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I see where I made my mistake.

Jonathan Berry
09-18-2008, 08:40 AM
As a former administrator, I'd say that the reduction in fees
to first-timers will cause unrest. Not only will it result in
players with expired memberships hiding the fact that they were
once CFC members ("That guy with the same name must be somebody
else, I've never been a CFC member.")--and why should the
organizer who wants this undecided person to enter the tournament,
why should this organizer follow up that statement too
rigorously?--thus affecting the integrity
of pairings and of the rating system itself, but there will also
be resentment by that same category of player. From the CFC's
point of view, administratively, it is cheaper to renew an old
membership than to create a new one, so with the proposed
measure the CFC would re-embark on the perilous path of artificial
(and complex) fee structures.

In Ye Olde Days, many organizers offered free or reduced entry
fees to players joining the CFC for the first time. Both entry
fees and CFC memberships have since inflated, but our brains may
still be stuck in 1975 prices. Or maybe it doesn't happen so
often simply because the idea was forgotten / not promoted. As an
incentive, the CFC could (as I have been suggesting for decades)
offer rebates / discounts / commissions on membership fees (and
perhaps also on rating fees) to organizers (those who collect
the fees on the CFC's behalf and remit them). That would create
a promotional fund in the organizer's pocket. Obviously, it is
good for the organizer to attract new CFC members, otherwise he
will never replace the ones who inevitably drop out.

When David Lavin first broached the possibility of his candidacy
for CFC President in the Spring, he stated that he could have,
within a couple of weeks, a restructuring plan for the CFC and
a business plan to go with it. I am not a Governor, but ... do
these plans exist, and what do they say? At the time, a popular
model on the forums was a CFC with no membership fee at all. I'm
not saying that I would support such a model, but if that is the
one that David Lavin has chosen, or if it is the one that the
Governors choose, the tidying up of current fees may be wasted
effort.


OT: There's something tricky about these boards. I noticed another
poster, at the chesstalk board, complain that the board had
swallowed his posting, and the same thing just happened to me.
To be exact, I was merrily typing away on the second paragraph
and maybe hit two keys at once and all the text above the cursor
suddenly disappeared. It was not on the Windows Clipboard!
Thus forewarned, I am composing this in a text editor and intend
to copy and paste. Since the forum text box, unlike HTML,
interprets line breaks as hard line breaks, this message may appear
with peculiar width and line breaking.

Bob Armstrong
09-23-2008, 09:35 PM
Posted on ChessTalk on Sept. 23 :

A member of the Executive has objected to the form of the motions. The motions amend the AGM CFC Fees motion passed in July. It is contended that the motions have to amend the CFC Handbook, not a passed motion.

But it appears the Handbook has not yet been updated by incorporating the passed AGM motion. So how are we supposed to amend the Handbook?

I have asked that the CFC immediately undertake to update the Handbook and give me the updated copy, so I can do as they request , and revise the motions to amend the Handbook. I want it ASAP because I want the motions in GL # 2 if at all possible.

I am still awaiting an answer as to whether anyone in the CFC has been charged to update the relevant section of the Handbook and send it on to me ASAP !

Bob

Eric Van Dusen
09-25-2008, 05:13 PM
It's strange but I was thinking what is the real world implication of the changes to the CFC Fee Structure.

From what I can read, the Annual Mermbership will decrease to $30.00 from $36.00 and the rating fee will increase to $5.00.

This season I should be playing in the following tournaments:
EOCA Grand Prix: 10
EOCA Active Mini-Prix: 4
Canada Day Hart House or Labour Day: 1
RA Club-Regular: 4 plus three pickups: 7
RA Club-Active: 3

Total: 25

Under the present scheme: 25*3 + 36 = $111.00
Under new scheme: 25*5 + 30 = $155.00
Increase: $44.00
%Increase: $40%

That increase is approximately one Chess DVD-ROM or two chess books.

That seems like a pretty hefty increase from the year before. It strikes me that you are penalizing people for playing chess.

It would be interesting to see who actually voted for the motion at the 2008 AGM. Are they governors who are playing a lot?

Eric

Bob Armstrong
09-25-2008, 05:35 PM
Hi Eric:

The mover of the CFC Fees motion at the July CFC AGM in Montreal did state when introducing the motion that one of the reasons for it was to increase revenue to the CFC, given its financial crisis. You have shown how the motion does this.

A number of posters on ChessTalk previously had suggested that rating fees were a more acceptable way to raise general revenue for the CFC, than higher annual membership fees. The motion reflects this view.

Finally, some have argued that the new system is a more " user-pay " system - if you cause the system more updating time, you contribute more to keeping the CFC running. From the CFC point of view, increasing tournaments means more $$ for CFC.

[ Note: this motion was not the Grassroots' position - it had called for a 50 % drop in annual membership fees ( adult to $18 from $ 36, and junior to $ 12.50 from $ 25 ), and 100% increase in rating fees ( adult to $ 6 from $ 3, and junior to $ 1 from $ 0..50 ). This would have been revenue neutral from the CFC point of view - no increased revenue to CFC on these changes. The mover of the July AGM CFC Fees motion was not willing to adopt the Grassroots' position. ]

Bob

Bob Armstrong
09-28-2008, 09:55 PM
The Grassroots' Campaign and the " Gang of Four " Governors moving/seconding the three CFC Fees motions are being caught in a catch-22.

We are being told we CANNOT amend the existing, passed July CFC AGM motion on CFC Fees. We are told to amend the CFC Handbook section on CFC Fees. But we CANNOT amend the CFC Handbook either - it is woefully out of date ( s. 328 on CFC Membership Fees was last amended at the 2003 AGM; here is what the Handbook says on " Tournament Memberships ": S. 375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events.....), and has not yet been updated to incorporate either the July AGM motion on CFC Fees. So how can we amend a section that is not yet up to date??

This is classic bureaucratic bafflegab - to stop these motions from going ahead. We have proposed 2 solutions to this conundrum. We wrote to the CFC Secretary, Lyle Carver ( copy to the CFC President, David Lavin, and to Chris Mallon, CFC Treasurer, who first raised the objection to our motions ) on Sunday, Sept. 21 ( a week ago ):

Hi Lyle:

Can you advise whether anyone has now undertaken to update the CFC Handbook to incorporate the July AGM CFC Fees Motion that was passed, and to send it on to me ( as per my last e-mail to Chris, copied to you and David ) ?

I need this if I am to do as Chris ( and I’m not sure if you feel it is required too ) has requested: to amend the Handbook, rather than the passed motion. I am willing to redraft the motions, but if I am to get them into the next GL, then I need the amended Handbook Sections ASAP.

If no one has undertaken to do this, then in the interest of getting these motions into the next GL, could the Executive decide to allow the motions as is ( amending the passed motion ), and then go on and LATER amend the handbook with the AGM motion ( either as amended or not )? Please let me know.

Thanks.

Bob

We have not yet received a reply to our inquiry. We wanted our motions to go into GL # 2, which is due out soon. We are concerned now as to whether these properly brought motions are going to make it to the Governors for vote ( deja vu all over again , given that 5 of our 7 Grassroots' Motions on CFC restructuring were ruled " out of order " at the July CFC AGM ). Surely the new CFC Executive can do better than this??

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
09-28-2008, 11:32 PM
We are being told we CANNOT amend the existing, passed July CFC AGM motion on CFC Fees. We are told to amend the CFC Handbook section on CFC Fees. But we CANNOT amend the CFC Handbook either ...

Just an idea: You reword your Motions in the similar way as July Motion. I.e.,


Motion # 1 {...}
The CFC will discontinue selling tournament memberships effective January 1, 2009.
aka

July Motion
{...}The CFC will discontinue selling family memberships and junior participating memberships effective January 1, 2009. {...}

Christopher Mallon
09-28-2008, 11:40 PM
... I'm not sure what the big issue was. I just said that your motions as worded were not legal and thus would have to be reworded. I never said the handbook had to be updated before that could happen.

Egidijus Zeromskis
09-28-2008, 11:51 PM
... I'm not sure what the big issue was. I just said that your motions as worded were not legal and thus would have to be reworded. I never said the handbook had to be updated before that could happen.

Chris, as the ex-president, Is it possible to question Motion as out-of-order, after it had passed the voting?

It would give the fresh start afterwords ;)

Bob Armstrong
09-28-2008, 11:59 PM
Hi Chris:

Early on, Bob Gillanders suggested to Lyle Craver, that in the interest of expediency, and to make it less complicated, perhaps the July AGM motion could be ignored in moving our motions forward. Lyle Craver, CFC Secretary responded to Bob and I that that could not be done. The July AGM motion was a duly passed Governors' motion, and could not just be treated as if it didn't exist.

Now you seem to be saying the same thing - just ignore the July AGM motion as if it didn't exist, and just amend the out-of-date and unupdated CFC Handbook. I think Lyle will disagree with your solution if you check with him.:confused:

Surely the Handbook must be updated so that we can amend a current version of the Handbook. If the Handbook cannot be immediately updated, then we have suggested the expedient solution of allowing us to amend the passed and in effect July AGM motion. Then LATER go and amend the Handbook by incorporating the July AGM motion ( whether amended by us or not ) when there is time and personnel to update it. Seems a possible solution to us.:)

Bob

Bob Gillanders
09-29-2008, 12:13 AM
Bob,

I was not suggesting that we ignore the AGM motion. I was suggesting that for clarity sake, you should compare your proposals to our current fee structure. That seems less confusing to me.

To help the process along, I have started a new thread starting with a summary of our current fees. A side by side by side comparison of the 3 fee schedules would be helpful I think!

Bob

Bob Armstrong
09-29-2008, 12:39 AM
Hi Bob:

Sorry about misreading you back then.

But Lyle's comments still carry great weight ( I think Lyle also got the wrong impression of Bob's earlier comments ), and I don't see how the July AGM motion can just be ignored, and we go on and try to amend an out-of-date and not updated CFC Handbook.

I think a comparison of the current fees, AGM motion fees, and the Grassroots' Fees proposal would be helpful.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-08-2008, 03:12 PM
Good news ! GL # 2 is now in the hands of the Governors, and Governor Ken Craft has confirmed that the 3 Grassroots' Campaign motions on CFC fees are included for voting ( initially for " first discussion " ).

Credits to the Executive for accepting the " common sense " solution to the impasse of the July CFC AGM motion on CFC fees and the unupdated CFC Handbook. The relevant Handbook sections can be updated later, with the whole Handbook updating, using the motion, either amended or unamended, depending on what happens.

It's now up to the Governors.

Bob

Peter McKillop
10-09-2008, 11:43 AM
Bob, regarding motion #1, were you able to locate any data on approximately how many dollars/year and how many people/year will be impacted by the proposed termination of the tournament membership? Maybe you've set the information out somewhere and I've missed it.

Thanks.

p.s. I just noticed that the header on my message says that I'm a junior member. Maybe I should do an early renewal! :)

Bob Armstrong
10-09-2008, 04:22 PM
Hi Peter:

On the important issue, I also had a description of " junior member ". I inquired of Chris if it could be fixed .......now I am " senior member " !!

As to tournament membership projections, I am not aware of any breakdown. I just know they are substantially used from input from organizers, and that annual members should not be subsidizing the tournament memberships. And it is more money for the CFC if they now will have to take out annual/life memberships.

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-09-2008, 08:43 PM
Hi Peter:

On the important issue, I also had a description of " junior member ". I inquired of Chris if it could be fixed .......now I am " senior member " !!

As to tournament membership projections, I am not aware of any breakdown. I just know they are substantially used from input from organizers, and that annual members should not be subsidizing the tournament memberships. And it is more money for the CFC if they now will have to take out annual/life memberships.

Bob

or they will most likely just stop playing in CFC events. I would count on a large drop in tournament participation. Most people I have talked to said they would just play in non CFC events.

Peter McKillop
10-10-2008, 01:21 PM
Bob, I guess I wasn't paying attention to the extent I should have been to your previous posts on this topic because I'm very surprised that you would move to cancel something with no data on how many people or $ will be impacted per year. Don't you think it would be advisable to have this data first? Also, could you please explain (or direct me to the post where you explained it previously) why regular CFC members are subsidizing the tournament memberships? I'm not sure I see a fixed connection between the two.

Tony Ficzere
10-10-2008, 01:37 PM
Hi Peter:

On the important issue, I also had a description of " junior member ". I inquired of Chris if it could be fixed .......now I am " senior member " !!

As to tournament membership projections, I am not aware of any breakdown. I just know they are substantially used from input from organizers, and that annual members should not be subsidizing the tournament memberships. And it is more money for the CFC if they now will have to take out annual/life memberships.

Bob

Annual memberships are not subsidizing tournament memberships. There is almost zero overhead with a T membership. Its clear profit as we no longer send these people a magazine. On top of the $10, add another $5 for ratings. So the CFC would kiss 90% of this money goodbye. Eliminate the T membership would be like dropping a rook, you loose. Eliminate the T membership and watch attendance drop at tournaments. That is a fact!!!

Ken Craft
10-10-2008, 01:45 PM
What interests me is how doid the tournament membership come to be the creature it is today? ie. people have multiple accesses to it. To the best of my understanding such a sytem has never been approved.

Tony Ficzere
10-10-2008, 01:57 PM
r54
What interests me is how doid the tournament membership come to be the creature it is today? ie. people have multiple accesses to it. To the best of my understanding such a sytem has never been approved.

I know why it was created, and I know it isn't being used the way it was intended. That doesn't bother me at all. The fact is there are players who are playing in one or two tournaments per year who wouldn't if they had to pay the full cfc fee. Its kind of like Zyban which was invented and marketed as an anti-depressent, and later they found out it helped you stop smoking.

I know what you are concerned about. Whoever made the decision to allow these memberships to be sold over and over should be commended. I blame the governors from the 90's for not creating a motion instituting the T membership as another anytime option, not the ED, or whoever it was that started processing them. In fact, I think it was Troy Vail.

With the reduction in services from the cfc, the T makes more sense today than in the 90's.

Mr T

Ken Craft
10-10-2008, 02:06 PM
Is that all covered in your membership report? I'd be interested in an analysisof T memberships vs O and L memberships. In most areas making unilateral policy decisions re. income is known as insubordination. I'm yet to be convinced one way or the other what our fee structure should be. Part of theissue is what doe sit mean to be a "member"? Is paying a fee to play in a tournament synonymous with membership? I don't think so personally. Membership entails financially contributing to the health of the organization to which you belong.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-10-2008, 02:15 PM
Annual memberships are not subsidizing tournament memberships. There is almost zero overhead with a T membership. Its clear profit as we no longer send these people a magazine. On top of the $10, add another $5 for ratings. So the CFC would kiss 90% of this money goodbye. Eliminate the T membership would be like dropping a rook, you loose. Eliminate the T membership and watch attendance drop at tournaments. That is a fact!!!

I would prefer to see no tournament memberships at all. The CFC must sell its rating and not the privilege to play in tournaments (except for Closed and CYCC). The rating fee can be different for members and non-members, or it can be even, juniors may have own fee in their only-juniors tournaments.

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 05:32 PM
Hi Ken:

Here is the relevant section of the CFC Handbook on " tournament playing fee " ( assuming it is up-to-date ):

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. [see Motion 90-9, as amended, GL, September 1990, p.1-12]

It says " in lieu of membership ". So you are right that " tournament membership " , which has become the popular handle for " tournament playing fee ", is really misleading. Someone paying the tournament playing fee does NOT become a member. However, because they get a rating, they are given a CFC membership no. as far as I can see, and this adds some confusion to the pot. So there is some administration to processing a tournament playing fee.

You stated: " Membership entails financially contributing to the health of the organization to which you belong. " Well those paying a tournament membership fee pay $10 vs $36 for an annual adult member. So who is paying for the CFC to run?? Yet both want the benefits of getting their games rated and having a CFC membership no. Why are there 2 classes, both using the CFC the same way, and paying differently?

All those playing in CFC-rated tournaments should join and help pay the costs of running the organization.

It is interesting to note that both CFC President David Lavin, and CFC Secretary, Lyle Craver, have come out publicly in favour of eliminating the tournament playing fee.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 05:35 PM
Hi Tony:

See my reply to Ken's post below - I set out why I say annual/life members subsidize tournament playing fee players.

Why shouldn't those paying a TPF be paying a regular membership, and helping to finance the organization that runs the national rating system for them?

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 05:43 PM
The $$ bottom line is that someone paying a tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " ) pays $ 10. Under the Grassroots' proposal, they will pay $ 30 ( according to the July AGM motion, so long as it stands ). The CFC makes money.

The issue is whether TPF players will stop playing chess if they have to join the CFC. There are different opinions on this, and no scientific evidence.

What we do know is chess players like playing chess games that get them a national rating. So I think that the majority of TPF players will indeed cough up the extra money to keep playing in CFC-rated events. It would be nice as well, if they understood that they were helping to support Canada's national chess organization. And in future, this will, it seems, get them access as a benefit, to an on-line Chess Canada e-zine - further justification for them joining.

Also, if you look at the TPF Handbook section, it clearly says that the TPF was to be a one-time only thing, and thereafter the player would have to join the CFC. The CFC proceeded to ignore the Handbook section, and allowed the TPF to become a life-style for many " shirkers ".

As to why I feel annual/life memberships subsidize tournament playing fee players, see my post below in response to Ken Craft.

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-10-2008, 07:29 PM
The $$ bottom line is that someone paying a tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " ) pays $ 10. Under the Grassroots' proposal, they will pay $ 30 ( according to the July AGM motion, so long as it stands ). The CFC makes money.

Bob

The bottom line is most will just stop playing CFC rated chess and the CFC will make exactly $0 The CFC will lose money and tournament chess in Canada will lose casual players. Just another barrier that the 'elitist' in this country wants to throw infront of the casual players.

Try talking to people who use the tournament memberships to play in the occasional chess tournament. I have and I have yet to have ONE player say that they would buy a CFC membership, they all would just stop playing in rated CFC tournaments.

Just another 'proposal' that is ill concieved and will harm Chess in Canada.

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 07:55 PM
Hi Jason:

It's simple.

If 2 tournament playing fee players refuse to play when " tournament memberships " are eliminated, then CFC loses $ 30 ( 2x$10 + 2x$5 [ rating fee ] ).

If 1 tournament playing fee player agrees to support the CFC and buys a CFC membership, CFC gets $ 41 ( adult annual membership of $ 36 + rating fee of $ 5 ).

So even if CFC loses 2/3 TPF players, it still makes a profit of $ 11 for each of the players that continues to play.

So even if you are right that 2/3 of TPF players will quit CFC chess ( which I dispute as much too high ), CFC will still make money eliminating the " tournament membership ".:)

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-10-2008, 07:59 PM
Hi Jason:

It's simple.

If 2 tournament playing fee players refuse to play when " tournament memberships " are eliminated, then CFC loses $ 30 ( 2x$10 + 2x$5 [ rating fee ] ).

If 1 tournament playing fee player agrees to support the CFC and buys a CFC membership, CFC gets $ 41 ( adult annual membership of $ 36 + rating fee of $ 5 ).

So even if CFC loses 2/3 TPF players, it still makes a profit of $ 11 for each of the players that continues to play.

So even if you are right that 2/3 of TPF players will quit CFC chess ( which I dispute as much too high ), CFC will still make money eliminating the " tournament membership ".:)

Bob

and how many of these players have you asked? I once again state that in the last couple of tournaments I've played in (both cfc and non cfc) not ONE player said that they would buy a CFC membership. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us on the people you have talked to that will buy a membership. If it is how I suspect that you haven't talked to ONE person who uses these tournament memberships then you are pissing against the wind with your pseudo numbers.

Tony Ficzere
10-10-2008, 08:00 PM
I said I know why they were created, and I said we should be glad we had them because without them, the majority of players who elect to pay the T wouldn't even participate. That is $15 for one tournament, not $10. It costs the CFC less than a dollar to administrate. That is a pretty good profit margin I would say. So now we eliminate this fee to increase memberships!

Again, let me see if I am getting this right. Reduce services and eliminate affordable option = increased revenues.

Hmm.

Good luck with that one.

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 08:12 PM
Hi Tony:

Here is an example I used to answer Jason in another post:

" If 2 tournament playing fee players refuse to play when " tournament memberships " are eliminated, then CFC loses $ 30 ( 2x$10 + 2x$5 [ rating fee ] ).

If 1 tournament playing fee player agrees to support the CFC and buys a CFC membership, CFC gets $ 41 ( adult annual membership of $ 36 + rating fee of $ 5 ).

So even if CFC loses 2/3 TPF players, it still makes a profit of $ 11 for each of the players that continues to play.

So even if you are right that 2/3 of TPF players will quit CFC chess ( which I dispute as much too high ), CFC will still make money eliminating the " tournament membership ". "

I think this scenario is very conservative from a CFC point of view, and even losing 2/3 of tournament playing fee players, CFC makes money.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 08:23 PM
Hi Jason:

Of course all tournament playing fee players are going to say " Hell I won't pay " when asked - they don't want to give the TPF Elimination forces any ammunition to support their cause.

But when they find themselves not playing tournament chess down the road, because of their position, will they keep their resolve?? I say they'll come around because they love playing chess and want to play competitive CFC-rated chess.

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-10-2008, 08:34 PM
Hi Jason:

Of course all tournament playing fee players are going to say " Hell I won't pay " when asked - they don't want to give the TPF Elimination forces any ammunition to support their cause.

But when they find themselves not playing tournament chess down the road, because of their position, will they keep their resolve?? I say they'll come around because they love playing chess and want to play competitive CFC-rated chess.

Bob

Once again, how many have you actually asked???

Most of the people I have talked to play one maybe two tournaments a year. Usually they play because a friend has conviced them to play or it is the one club cfc tournament... these people will NOT buy a membership and have told me as much. Basically you are calling these people liars.

Here in BC the 'non elite' casual players have an option. I played in the 'lasker-chernov invitiational' tournament which was a non CFC event. It was a very professionally run event and had a simul with a former BC Champion. The TD plans to run this event twice a year. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these non-cfc tournaments pop up across Canada. I know I will be playing in atleast two per year, that may be just enough tournament chess for me and if the amount of players drops off in CFC chess I will probably not renew. why would I bother, I have two different internet chess accounts and can play at my local club and in non-cfc events.

Aris Marghetis
10-10-2008, 08:37 PM
Hi Jason:

Of course all tournament playing fee players are going to say " Hell I won't pay " when asked - they don't want to give the TPF Elimination forces any ammunition to support their cause.

But when they find themselves not playing tournament chess down the road, because of their position, will they keep their resolve?? I say they'll come around because they love playing chess and want to play competitive CFC-rated chess.

Bob
Bob, I respectfully suggest that your previous post above is going down another slippery slope. Is there not a significant risk that some/many people will feel bitter towards the CFC by just reading that? Won't they find it manipulative on behalf of the CFC (whether the CFC intends to be or not) ??

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 08:50 PM
Hi Aris:

The issue is controversial.

I think tournament playing fee players are truly concerned about the loss of their cheap way of playing chess. And they do not like being forced into supporting the CFC as their national organization, even though they get all the benefits at the moment that an annual CFC member gets, at only 1/3 the cost ( the rating system; international and national competitions, etc. ). So yes I expect some TPF players to be upset.

But the annual/life members have to end their subsidizing of the TPF players. The 2 groups are at loggerheads, and their will be some emotions flying around.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 08:56 PM
Hi Jason:

I'm not calling them Liars. I believe they firmly believe what they are now saying, and that they feel strongly about it.

But what I am saying is that they also love chess. And down the road, when they miss the good competitive CFC-rated tournaments, they will re-evaluate their position. They will see that supporting the CFC as their national organization is a worthwhile expenditure of funds, and they will decide that they do in fact wish to return to competitive CFC-rated chess. They will then decide to take out a membership.

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-10-2008, 09:16 PM
Hi Jason:

I'm not calling them Liars. I believe they firmly believe what they are now saying, and that they feel strongly about it.

But what I am saying is that they also love chess. And down the road, when they miss the good competitive CFC-rated tournaments, they will re-evaluate their position. They will see that supporting the CFC as their national organization is a worthwhile expenditure of funds, and they will decide that they do in fact wish to return to competitive CFC-rated chess. They will then decide to take out a membership.

Bob

why would they. Especially when there is a far cheaper non CFC option. Ive talked to many people (especially at my home town club) who love chess but have stopped playing in CFC tournaments (they were all CFC members at one point) These are the sorts of people who you are driving away with your proposal. And with good quality cheap non CFC tournaments they have an option.

I love chess, I play/practice aproximately 3-4 hours a day (my friends say im obsessed). I am seriously considering dropping my CFC membership because the alot of the people I have made friends with will stop playing CFC rated chess. I play in CFC rated tournaments because of the great people I have met, not for a rating and certainly not to 'support a national organization' If your proposal goes through I will have absolutely NO reason to renew. Internet based chess, Club play and non CFC events will be just fine.

Once again how many of these people have you actually talked to??? The difference between your 'hopeful wishes' and me is that Ive actually talked to these people. Until then you have listened to these players you have zero credibility.

Bob Armstrong
10-10-2008, 09:37 PM
Hi Jason:

It seems clear that " supporting the CFC financially through membership as the national chess organization " is not something you consider worthwhile.

So it may be nothing I could say will change that.

CFC will be sorry to lose you. CFC must have a strong and vibrant membership base to survive as a small non-profit corporation with no other significant source of revenue ( outside of rating fees , which is related ). I do believe that there are many other TPF players who think differently.

Bob

Jason Lohner
10-10-2008, 10:23 PM
Hi Jason:

It CFC will be sorry to lose you. CFC must have a strong and vibrant membership base to survive as a small non-profit corporation with no other significant source of revenue ( outside of rating fees , which is related ). I do believe that there are many other TPF players who think differently.

Bob

Once again how many of these people have you actually talked to? Why don't you just admit that you haven't talked to any of these people??? You have NO idea how much your proposal will affect CFC tournament participation because you haven't even done a straw poll at a local tournament. This is the height of folly.

Garland Best
10-11-2008, 12:12 PM
I personally don't like the gist of this last statement. Personally, I think the last thing the CFC can afford is to lose members, even if they are only "tournament members". Perhaps a rethink is necessary, but I don't think abolishing the fee is it.

If those 2/3 players decline to play, more is lost than the $4 to the CFC. The tournament organizer also lost two players to contribute to the prize fund. Thus cash prizes drop, tournament play further declines, and the spiral continues.

John Coleman
10-11-2008, 12:28 PM
Even more, in a small chess community like this one, if you lose two players, you lose two players. It's not just the CFC that loses, fit's not just the reduced prize fund, it's two players who won't be participating, reducing our tiny group even further.

Jason Lohner
10-11-2008, 08:03 PM
Hi Jason:

It seems clear that " supporting the CFC financially through membership as the national chess organization " is not something you consider worthwhile.


Bob

I would gladly support an organization that promotes chess in Canada. The problem is that I see the CFC hindering chess in Canada under this proposal. You have made it very clear that you are willing to lose 2/3 casual players. This is not the kind of organization that I would want to support. If I chose not to renew my CFC membership I would still give to the BCCF. They atleast are promoting chess in a constructive way. I will also support local clubs. My last two CFC rated tournaments I have won a 'class prize'. A small amount but not completely insubstantial. I have donated both of these prizes to the local club that held the tournament because they are trying to promote chess. The CFC is only hindering casual players and thats why I don't thing supporting a bureaucratic national chess organization is worth the money.