PDA

View Full Version : Ag. Item # 11 – Discussion on Motion 2010-06 – Discounted Membership/TPF



Bob Armstrong
04-08-2010, 08:27 AM
In this thread, we will debate this motion. But we will not vote on it here in this thread. The voting is not to start ‘til 6:00 PM EDT on Sunday, April 11 – I will at that time post a new thread on this as a poll, so we can all vote – it will record the names of the governors voting.

Here is the motion/commentary ( without the notes ):

Motion 2010-06 on CFC Fees

- submitted on behalf of the Grassroots’ Campaign, a group of about 15 CFC members and former members ( named in the notes below ); filed by the mover, Governor Bob Armstrong, and the seconder, Governor Gary Gladstone; “ commentary “ by Bob Armstrong, Grassroots’ Campaign Coordinator, CFC Life Member & CFC Governor .


Motion : Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Gary Gladstone

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 ). “


Commentary:

The current CFC Handbook section 375 states that there is a tournament playing fee ( TPF ) ( adult - $20; Junior -$ 10 ), that can be used in registering for CFC-rated tournaments, as an alternative to membership.
We propose to eliminate this alternative to membership, and substitute for it a first-time CFC member discount, that will both encourage new players to enter tournaments, and at the same time, make them CFC members.
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 players, each paying different amounts to support the CFC ( annual member pays $ 36; tournament fee player pays: adult - $ 20; junior - $ 10 ). 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 alternative to membership. It is sometimes now being used by players twice per year, instead of taking out a membership – an adult can play twice and pay $ 40 TPF, whereas the membership in Ontario would be $ 43. But from another point of view, one could say our discount approach is better financially for the TPF player than the current TPF:

1. For the TPF player who plays only 1 tournament per year: An adult now pays $ 20. Under our proposal, it is true he has to pay a bit more – approx. $ 26. But with our method, he becomes a member – he will get the Chess Canada Electronic Newsletter ! And he gets the right to play in an “ unlimited “ number of tournaments at no extra cost. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( $ 43 ).
2. For the TRF player who plays 2 tournaments per year: he pays $ 40. Under our proposal, he will pay just $ 26, and get the right to play in “ unlimited “ number of tournaments. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( Ont. - $ 43 ).

The figures set out below ( modified ) are from the 1st half 2008-9 financial statements in the 2008/9 GL 3:

Analysis of Membership fees

1st half 2009 Year 2008

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

It shows that in 2007-8, the tournament memberships formed 6.2% of the total collected. In the 1st half 2008-9, they formed 5.9% of the total. Since then the TPF has been doubled. But the issue remains virtually the same. These figures show that the elimination of tournament memberships affects a very small portion of CFC's income. Some organizers have argued that over 2/3 of TPF players will quit tournament chess forever if we substitute our first-time discount for the TPF. We do not believe this. However, we do not want to lose the tournament membership players. This is the reason for the discount. But there is an issue of fairness between TPF players and annual membership players. All play in the tournament, and all should equally support the national organization. This is why the Grassroots' Campaign is supporting a substitution for the tournament playing fee.

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

Organizers have advised that the full annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( this will be especially so 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.

Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships ( e.g. Quebec ). 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, in addition to the first-time discount..

Gordon Ritchie
04-08-2010, 12:11 PM
An alternative would be to offer the choice between a tournament membership of $20 or a first-year discount on CFC. This would resolve the problem of exceptions, etc.
Also, 40% seems a bit steep. Perhaps 25 or 30% would be appropriate.

John Coleman
04-08-2010, 12:24 PM
"first time CFC members" assumes the TD will have access to the TDlist at the site, and there wil be no issues with

"you were a member back in 1972"
"no I wasn't, that was someone with the same name"

I dunno, maybe this won't be an issue.

Ken Craft
04-08-2010, 12:31 PM
I prefer the status quo and probably will be voting accordingly.

Paul Leblanc
04-08-2010, 01:25 PM
I'd like to see a both a discount for new members AND continuance of the tournament membership. In fact, I believe the tournament membership should be returned to the $10 level. Looking at the Grassroot Committee's anaylsis, it seems to me that the revenue loss of doing so would not be significant.

Hugh Brodie
04-08-2010, 05:22 PM
Unless something is done for tournament memberships for CFC-rated tournaments held in Quebec (one or two a year) - that number will drop to zero. There has usually been a "friendly agreement" (nothing in writing) that a valid CFC or FQE membership is sufficient.

Aris Marghetis
04-08-2010, 07:27 PM
Unless something is done for tournament memberships for CFC-rated tournaments held in Quebec (one or two a year) - that number will drop to zero. There has usually been a "friendly agreement" (nothing in writing) that a valid CFC or FQE membership is sufficient.
That "friendly agreement" might (I really don't know) have been employed for some big CFC events held in Quebec, but when I hold a CFC-rated event in Ottawa, players from across the river in Gatineau, Quebec, need to secure CFC membership. As I have whined (LOL) before, this discourages them! :(

Jason Lohner
04-08-2010, 08:46 PM
I'm with Paul on this, I want the TM to drop back to $10 and a discount for first time members.

Christopher Mallon
04-08-2010, 09:41 PM
I am completely against this motion.

It adds another potential layer of headaches for TDs and for the Office (has anyone even asked the office about this?)

Then there is the fact that people who have been inactive since 1991 or so aren't even on our members list anymore.

We have had (minor) issues in the past with people having fake membership names. Would this not potentially encourage this behaviour?

I prefer the status quo over any other option presented so far. What I'd actually like is a flat $30 membership (including provincial dues) for ALL members - no discounts of any kind for youth/senior/anything like that. That would make the TPF pretty much redundant.

Aris Marghetis
04-08-2010, 10:52 PM
I am completely against this motion.

It adds another potential layer of headaches for TDs and for the Office (has anyone even asked the office about this?)

Then there is the fact that people who have been inactive since 1991 or so aren't even on our members list anymore.

We have had (minor) issues in the past with people having fake membership names. Would this not potentially encourage this behaviour?

I prefer the status quo over any other option presented so far. What I'd actually like is a flat $30 membership (including provincial dues) for ALL members - no discounts of any kind for youth/senior/anything like that. That would make the TPF pretty much redundant.
OMG, as Org/TD, I would absolutely love a low single flat membership fee! :)

Christopher Mallon
04-08-2010, 11:12 PM
I had suggested it last year to the Exec, but they decided as a whole to pursue the $20 TPF instead. Of course at the time it made more sense as we didn't know exactly how the financials would shape up. Now we do.

Fred McKim
04-09-2010, 12:03 PM
Most of the tournament membership people (at least at the adult level) from before the rate hike are now becoming full members. I think we should continue for a couple of years with the present situation.

Bob Armstrong
04-09-2010, 12:15 PM
Hi Aris:

I just wanted to draw to your attention that you are attending, but have not yet dealt with Agenda Item # 1 - Governor Sign In. Please sign in so we don't lose you in the Governor attendance list at the end of the meeting. Thanks.

Bob

Fred McKim
04-09-2010, 01:01 PM
I would favour not changing the rules again so soon. Doubling the tournament
membership has resulted in more regular memberships in my tournaments.

Hugh Brodie
04-09-2010, 04:02 PM
Aris wrote:

That "friendly agreement" might (I really don't know) have been employed for some big CFC events held in Quebec, but when I hold a CFC-rated event in Ottawa, players from across the river in Gatineau, Quebec, need to secure CFC membership. As I have whined (LOL) before, this discourages them!


Some years ago, I played in tournaments in Hull/Gatineau that accepted either a vaild CFC or FQE membership, and was rated by both organizations. I'm not sure how that was agreed on.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-09-2010, 04:12 PM
Some years ago, I played in tournaments in Hull/Gatineau that accepted either a vaild CFC or FQE membership, and was rated by both organizations. I'm not sure how that was agreed on.

Is there a way for a new agreement that for tournaments at the borderland only one membership would be enough? Even collaborating with the USCF.

Vlad Rekhson
04-09-2010, 06:30 PM
OMG, as Org/TD, I would absolutely love a low single flat membership fee! :)

I agree. I wouldn't know how to check whether someone was a member 20 years ago or not and I don't think that TDs need extra headaches!

Paul Leblanc
04-09-2010, 07:52 PM
I think we could agree to only go back as far as the CFC website goes to determine if someone has already been a member. It would then be simple to check.

Bob Armstrong
04-09-2010, 09:08 PM
I think a practical consideration like that can easily be made by the executive in implementing the new first-time membership discount. The intent is not to make it impossible for the organizers to function.

Bob

Christopher Mallon
04-09-2010, 09:50 PM
Your figures in the initial motion discussion are also a bit misleading Bob. You compare $26 under your proposed change to $43 for regular Ontario membership, however the $26 does not include the $7 Ontario fee.

Technically the provinces get to set their own fees on any kind of membership so there's no guarantee an enterprising province might not decide to fundraise and simplify things at the same time by tacking an extra $10 onto the first-year fee, thus making it the same as a regular fee.

Bob Armstrong
04-09-2010, 10:34 PM
Hi Chris:

You have hit on an assumption we are making, that maybe is not valid.

First year membership in Ontario will be 60% X $ 43 ( $ 36 + $ 7 ) = $ 25.80 ( rounded up to $ 26 ).

Assumption - just like CFC is giving a 40 % discount, so will OCA give the 40%discount on their annual membership.

Is this an unwarranted assumption by the Grassroots' Campaign?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
04-09-2010, 11:09 PM
Given that I don't support this motion at all and in fact have yet to see any really strong support from Ontario Governors, yes that would be an unwarranted assumption.

Bob Armstrong
04-09-2010, 11:27 PM
Hi Chris:

The motion will still proceed. The wording is such that it only refers to the CFC portion of the annual membership collected or the $ 36. The commentary is slightly off in its accounting though, for the reason you give, that the provinces have not agreed to also give the 40 % discount.

So a first time member in Ontario will pay:

Discounted CFC Portion - 60 % X $ 36 = $ 21.60.
Full OCA Annual Fee.............................$ 7.00
Total............................................. ..$ 28.60 ( rounded up to $ 29 ).

So the first time CFC'er will pay $ 29, instead of $ 43. Effectively, CFC will be subsidizing the provinces in getting members, by CFC making the total more palatable, by giving the discount on their portion.

This is not so attractive as our original proposal of the provinces giving the discount as well, and first timers paying $ 26 in Ontario, instead of $ 43, but we can live with it - it will still help get new CFC'ers into tournaments. And get CFC new members.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-10-2010, 01:47 AM
Hi Aris:

I'm sorry, but I don't have you as a Governor on my list - you also are not shown on the list of 18 Ontario Governors on the CFC website. When did you become a governor? Were you elected at the last EOCA AGM? Sorry to have to ask this, but I am confused at the moment. Thanks.

Bob

Stijn De Kerpel
04-10-2010, 11:03 AM
I too am totally against this motion. I would prefer to see a blanket/flat fee for all rather than all of the different fees we need to collect for each province. The Office is overloaded as is.

Christopher Mallon
04-10-2010, 10:47 PM
This is of course based on May 2009 membership numbers.

We had 1492 paying members that year, and the average income from each of them was $28.70

So to break even on that or even come out slightly ahead, a flat $35 membership fee, with $5 to the provincial association, would work. Any provinces without associations, plus any foreign players buying memberships, the extra $5 could either go into general revenue or into a special fund (Pugi/Foundation/Olympiad/etc).

Michael Barron
04-10-2010, 11:55 PM
I too am totally against this motion. I would prefer to see a blanket/flat fee for all rather than all of the different fees we need to collect for each province. The Office is overloaded as is.

I would prefer to see a blanket/flat fee for all as well.

Bob Armstrong
04-11-2010, 12:14 AM
If someone were to bring a motion to try to implement a flat across the board fee, one big problem I see is that first they have to get all the provinces/territories to agree among themselves on one provincial fee - good luck on that one !

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-11-2010, 12:42 AM
It is generally seen in chess circles, that juniors are given a financial benefit in comparison to adults - for example, the Scarborough CC has a lower annual fee for Juniors, than for adults.

I am not sure of the exact rational for this, but I think it is based on the assumption that families wiith kids have less disposable income than adults generally, and so even if the parent has to pay a modest fee to play, they should be charged less for their child to play, to give that family a financial break. Are there other rationales for this discrimination in favour of juniors?

And if there are legitimate reasons for the practice of junior discount, what reasoning do the flat-fee'ers give for taking away this financial break to families with kids?

Bob

Christopher Mallon
04-11-2010, 09:38 AM
My reasoning is there is very little difference between what the Juniors pay now - $27 in many provinces - compared to $35, for a whole year of service. Plus the Juniors are still subsidized by low rating fees and no membership requirement for all-Junior events, so we're just eliminating one of the three subsidies.

Technically, you don't have to get all the provinces to agree, you just need a constitutional amendment at the AGM that removes the ability of the provinces to set their own fees (with the stipulation that they are guaranteed $5 per member). Which means you need to convince the Governors, although having the provinces on-board would be a big help.

Bob Armstrong
04-11-2010, 09:47 AM
Hi Chris:

Sorry but I see a constitutional mess here.

CFC is a federation. So the CFC can set its own membership fee structure. But the provinces have the absolute right to set their own provincial fee structure.

All CFC can do is start to refuse to collect the provincial portion when they sell memberships.

Bob

Les Bunning
04-11-2010, 11:09 AM
This matter has been a problem for years. Having to pay a large fee to join the CFC for a new member certainly discourages new members. The difficulty with the tournament membership fee is that it enables existing CFC members to pay less if they are less active. In one sense I agree with Gordon Ritchie that we should offer Tournament memberships and Reduced fees for first timers. However I also agree with Chris Mallon that our fee structure is too complicated. I also agree that scrapping Tournament memberships will effect those few events that we have in Quebec. I do not believe that organisers have to collect a provincial membership fee when collecting tournament membership fees as this in reality is not a membership fee but a usage charge to cover the cost of setting them up in the CFC rating system. Perhaps the tournament membership should be set at $15 and there would be no provincial fee. With respect to the province of Quebec we should reduce the CFC membership fee to $10-$15 provided that the Quebec resident was also a FQE member. This would help to defray the cost of sending top Quebec players to international events.
Les Bunning

Jason Lohner
04-11-2010, 04:09 PM
Most of the tournament membership people (at least at the adult level) from before the rate hike are now becoming full members. I think we should continue for a couple of years with the present situation.

Here in BC this is just the opposite, most tournaments are becoming unrated events. In the interior of BC all events have become unrated events. Down in the lower mainland I just received another invitation to a non CFC rated event. Just look at the BC Chess Federation web page... 9 events listed only TWO of them are CFC events now.

Christopher Mallon
04-11-2010, 05:55 PM
I lived in Vancouver for a year and other than the Keres and the UBC weekly events which I couldn't attend, there wasn't a single adult CFC rated event for the whole year. So I don't see how it's really any different?

Patrick McDonald
04-12-2010, 12:28 AM
BTW: most juniors that I know of pay $14 in Ontario ... Not $27 ...

John Coleman
04-12-2010, 01:04 AM
BTW: most juniors that I know of pay $14 in Ontario ... Not $27 ...In GL3, there was a motion to discontinue the participating junior menbership (in Ontario, the $14 option), and IN THE SAME GL the ED advised "By order of the CFC President, effective immediately the Junior Participating membership option has been eliminated."

Garvin Nunes
04-12-2010, 11:33 AM
I agree with those who are saying to keep the fee structure the same except reduce the single tournament fee to 10 dollars. Raising it to 20 was a mistake imho.

Let new chess players pay 10 dollars and see what a tournament is like. If they think they will play in 4 more events they will get a CFC membership. This also resolves the issue of Quebec players crossing into Ontario for an occasional tournament.

I will not support a more complicated solution than this when this one is easily available.

--

I disagree with the idea of having a 30 dollar fee and the elimination of the single tournament fee. This will simply lead to a big drop in CFC income. I quite frankly do not understand the "compensation' in return for this loss of material.

--

I strongly oppose the elimination of the "Junior Participating membership option" ($14 fee In Ontario). In this situation we already have a low fee structure in place so lets just keep this one the way it is.

I should note the differences here to the above debate are 1. You have a competitor (Chess and Math Association). 2. You already have a fee structure in place. (So don't mess with a good thing.)

While we aren't in "direct" competition with the Chess and Math Association I do think we should keep things comparable (ie. relatively cheap for juniors).

Because Hamilton has quite a few low income kids who play chess it will definitely be hard to move me on this one.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-12-2010, 11:48 AM
It is generally seen in chess circles, that juniors are given a financial benefit in comparison to adults - for example, the Scarborough CC has a lower annual fee for Juniors, than for adults.

I am not sure of the exact rational for this, but I think it is based on the assumption that families wiith kids have less disposable income than adults generally, and so even if the parent has to pay a modest fee to play, they should be charged less for their child to play, to give that family a financial break. Are there other rationales for this discrimination in favour of juniors?

And if there are legitimate reasons for the practice of junior discount, what reasoning do the flat-fee'ers give for taking away this financial break to families with kids?


I think that Juniors can do less within the CFC:


"13. Any Ordinary or Life Member, who is a Canadian Citizen or a landed immigrant in Canada, and who is 18 years of age or over, is eligible to be nominated and elected to the position of Governor .... "

Christopher Mallon
04-12-2010, 11:50 AM
That's for legal reasons Egis; minors are not allowed to serve on the board of corporations in Canada, I recall it being an issue back around 2005 when someone (Eric Lawson?) won a Governor spot as a top-2 finisher in the Closed.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-12-2010, 06:40 PM
All play in the tournament, and all should equally support the national organization.

I think this is totally wrong approach to a game of chess. It should be that the national organization must support in all its power and possibilities to prosper the tournament chess by eliminating all kind of obstructions for people to play and enjoy chess. While the CFC must survive financially, I think, there are other ways to do this without creating "complicated" discounts.

I am not supporting this motion and vote NO.

Jason Lohner
04-12-2010, 07:14 PM
I lived in Vancouver for a year and other than the Keres and the UBC weekly events which I couldn't attend, there wasn't a single adult CFC rated event for the whole year. So I don't see how it's really any different?


I don't know when you lived in Vancouver, but in the few years before they screwed up the TM there were several CFC rated tournaments in the Vancouver area and at least 3 if not 4/5 in the interior... now they are pretty much gone. I know that there isn't one CFC event in the interior left.

Now there are 3 maybe 4 CFC rated events in the whole year.

- Langley open
- Keres open
- Grand Pacific open.

The rest are now non-cfc events.

all you have to do is check the BC Chess Federations website
http://www.chess.bc.ca/index.shtml

Valer Eugen Demian
04-12-2010, 07:18 PM
I don't know when you lived in Vancouver, but in the few years before they screwed up the TM there were several CFC rated tournaments in the Vancouver area and at least 3 if not 4/5 in the interior... now they are pretty much gone. I know that there isn't one CFC event in the interior left.

Now there are 3 maybe 4 CFC rated events in the whole year.

- Langley open
- Keres open
- Grand Pacific open.

The rest are now non-cfc events.

all you have to do is check the BC Chess Federations website
http://www.chess.bc.ca/index.shtml

The reasons for having so few adult tournaments are more than just participation fees. Some other reasons are:
a) reduced number of playing facilities for decent rental fees;
b) reduced number of adult players showing up at these events (month after month you basically see overall the same 20-30 names)
c) reduced number of organizers dedicated for adult playing

I know you have been vocal about CFC membership fees, but let's be honest here. I live in Vancouver too and know the current (and past since 1994...) chess community at least as good as you do!...

Jason Lohner
04-12-2010, 07:28 PM
The reasons for having so few adult tournaments are more than just participation fees. Some other reasons are:
a) reduced number of playing facilities for decent rental fees;
b) reduced number of adult players showing up at these events (month after month you basically see overall the same 20-30 names)
c) reduced number of organizers dedicated for adult playing

I know you have been vocal about CFC membership fees, but let's be honest here. I live in Vancouver too and know the current (and past since 1994...) chess community at least as good as you do!...

Well I probably know the interior better... the tournaments up here were all CFC rated, same facilities, same players, same organizers... I told one TD of the proposal to change the TM and his response was shock and he emphatically said 'they can't do that'... since then ALL interior events have become non-cfc events. Even on the coast, I get an invitation to a bi-yearly event that is non-cfc rated.

so

a) doesn't apply in the interior
b) who cares if they are the same names??? they still come out to play
c) organizers have become fed up and now are running non-cfc rated events... all you have to do is check out the BC Fed web page to see the list of events

Valer Eugen Demian
04-12-2010, 07:34 PM
Well I probably know the interior better... the tournaments up here were all CFC rated, same facilities, same players, same organizers... I told one TD of the proposal to change the TM and his response was shock and he emphatically said 'they can't do that'... since then ALL interior events have become non-cfc events. Even on the coast, I get an invitation to a bi-yearly event that is non-cfc rated.

so

a) doesn't apply in the interior
b) who cares if they are the same names??? they still come out to play
c) organizers have become fed up and now are running non-cfc rated events... all you have to do is check out the BC Fed web page to see the list of events

I will strongly challenge you on point "c" especially because of what is listed on the BC Fed website and people I know and used to be organizers; also in your answer to Christopher you did not list any BC Interior tournaments!... That is the reason I considered I had to reply to your post :)

It is important they are the same names over and over again because:
1. After a while people lose interest to play the same players over and over again
2. It shows that in reality the activity is not as vibrant, nor has the potential you imply. A good activity ALWAYS atracts new people! ;)
None of the above has anything to do with the CFC membership fees!

Christopher Mallon
04-12-2010, 07:39 PM
For the record I lived there from February 2002 to February 2003.

Michael von Keitz
04-13-2010, 01:21 AM
I like Chris' idea of a single, standard membership fee for all. There was also some mention of tournament directors being able to accept more than one type of membership (e.g. FQE, USCF, etc), while still rating the event with the CFC. I feel that CFC-rated events should be offered to CFC members exclusively, and under Chris' proposed membership structure. For instance, however, when the FQE hosts the Canadian Open, would the CFC like to see all participants be forced to take a CFC membership, or is a compromise to be preferred?

Bob Armstrong
04-13-2010, 08:23 AM
Hi Michael:

There seems to be some movement towards a single, standard membership fee for all - I am being convinced this is a good idea.

But it does leave open the question of whether we are putting an undue financial burden on chess families who have juniors. It has been the tradition to give juniors discounts in chess - CFC memberships; CFC rating fees; club memberships ( eg. Scarborough CC ); tournament entry fees ( except they have not done it for the upcoming Can. Open ). Can we justify taking away this benefit to juniors that has been the tradition?

As to CFC tournaments in Quebec - I think the CFC should be entitled to some revenue from CFC-rated tournaments, beyond the rating fees submitted. CFC Members effectively contribute part of their membership in each CFC-rated tournament they play in - this is a main reason for them taking out a membership. I think that CFC should also get some revenue from Quebec players in CFC-rated events ( and as I understand it, there are not many ). So I would be against recognizing an FQE membership as the equaivalent of a CFC membership for the purposes of registering for a CFC-rated tournament in Quebec. It appears that the Tournament Playing Fee is going to stay ( Motion 2010-06 is going down to defeat !! ), and so I see no reason Quebec players cannot pay it - this way CFC gets some revenue from Quebec CFC - rated tournaments.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-14-2010, 06:05 PM
A number of points were raised:

1. the tournament playing fee is working, and should be kept – it encourages players to join tournaments
2. the new discounted membership will make all tournament players equal, and will generate CFC memberships.
3. the membership fee system is too complex, and a flat fee should be used.
4. in some parts of the country, the recent doubling of the tournament playing fee is leading players to take out full memberships instead of buying the TPF; in other parts, it is leading to more Non-CFC tournaments, so players don’t have to pay anything beyond the entry fee.

Is this summary generally satisfactory?

Bob

Jason Lohner
04-14-2010, 08:10 PM
also in your answer to Christopher you did not list any BC Interior tournaments!... That is the reason I considered I had to reply to your post :)



Silverstar Classic - gone
Apple blossom open - gone
Ogopogo Summer - gone
Monashee Open - gone
Kelowna Winterfest - gone

Now the interior has non-cfc events that have replaced these tournaments. I am on a mailing list of interior chess players and when one of these non-cfc events are run, we are all informed.

Sad part is the Silverstar Classic was run for 25 years as a CFC event.

Valer Eugen Demian
04-15-2010, 02:46 PM
Silverstar Classic - gone
Apple blossom open - gone
Ogopogo Summer - gone
Monashee Open - gone
Kelowna Winterfest - gone

Now the interior has non-cfc events that have replaced these tournaments. I am on a mailing list of interior chess players and when one of these non-cfc events are run, we are all informed.

Sad part is the Silverstar Classic was run for 25 years as a CFC event.

Well, it is a shame all these players do not consider supporting CFC with their membership. I came here 16 years ago and paid my CFC membership ALL these years even if I have 1 active game played in the past 10 years. Should I add my donations to the Canadian Olympic team?... Why am I doing this differently? Maybe I have been brought up in a chess culture where players were taught from an early age to support their federation first and ask for help second. It is THEIR federation afterall...

"Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" John F. Kennedy

The above is so true and it perfectly applies to chess here!... ;)

Christopher Mallon
04-15-2010, 05:55 PM
In some countries (Ukraine comes to mind) your home chess club gets as much as 50% of your tournament winnings, and the federation gets a cut out of that too.

Michael Barron
04-15-2010, 11:51 PM
In some countries (Ukraine comes to mind) your home chess club gets as much as 50% of your tournament winnings, and the federation gets a cut out of that too.

Chris,

Could you please disclose a source of that information? :confused:

Christopher Mallon
04-16-2010, 08:14 AM
I got that information directly from a Ukrainian IM. He needed copies of the receipt for his prizes to show them.