The issue of provincial dues dawned on me before Paul posted, though I am glad he took the time. Despite some apparent dissent, the BCCF system seems perfectly acceptable to me and I am sure the OCA could successfully implement a similar model.
Bishop
The issue of provincial dues dawned on me before Paul posted, though I am glad he took the time. Despite some apparent dissent, the BCCF system seems perfectly acceptable to me and I am sure the OCA could successfully implement a similar model.
Knight
Lyle,
Can you elaborate on why you think the BC system is a mistake?
Can you give an example of "Value added"?
I strongly agree with your recogintion of clubs and organizers as the base on which the CFC stands, however this seems to have led me to having an opposing position.
I do not see how the streamlining of revenue collection through an amalgamation of such fees could possibly be bad.
CFC Voting Member
He kind of contradicting himself as he is quoted "we need to be constantly on the lookout for ways to make things easier for them.". Would not this make it easier as the TD/organizer does not have to remember the expiry dates of the membership as it is paid every single tournament they play in.Originally Posted by Stuart Brammall
As for me I would be in favour of the concept. As for it being considered a hidden tax I do not believe that it should not be an issue if one were to disclose how the funds are distributed at the tournament (i.e. prize fund, CFC fee, Provincial /club fee, TD fee, etc.).
Knight
I agree. Whenever a tournament flier was to be circulated it would simply state "$60 Entry fee + $10 rating fee" or something thereabouts.
CFC Voting Member
Philosophically, I could be talked into just a per-tournament fee. The problem is in the optics. I fear that "$60 entry fee + $10 rating fee" just looks so bad, that it would really push many more people to consider non-CFC rating!
Rook
Hi Aris:
You hit the nail on the head - the CFC does not make any claim that its rating fees reflect real rating maintenance cost. It is a way of generating general revenue to run the organization, and is fixed according to CFC revenue need. And rating fees form almost 40% of the CFC revenue I believe ( the other major revenue being membership fees ).
So attempting to meld membership fees into rating fees makes the optics worse than they already are, and will lead to many more " rating fee gouging " charges. I like the revenue division between membership fee and rating fee. It seems to have worked relatively OK to now.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 10-03-2010 at 05:36 PM.
CFC Treasurer
It makes sense that each province might want to have a fee model similar to the CFC model (fixed and variable cost) although this adds to the CFC's admin costs in making the rebates more complex.
The CFC cannot switch to only a variable rate model, although it might be possible to reduced the fixed cost and increase the variable cost.
So for example consider dropping the Membership fee to $20. This would be a loss in revenue of around $20k. We would have to put the rating fee to maybe $7 to correct for this. Effectively entry fees would go up by $5 to compensate.
As well there are EKG contract issues.
CFC Voting Member
Yes, maybe my ideas above were misconstrued. Here are my current takes :
1) The elimination of any discounted CFC membership (i.e. Junior ones, etc.) In other words, each province has a single annual CFC membership rate. That would be an easy first step towards CFC membership rate rationalization, and will result in regular adult members paying a lower and more fair (IMHO!) rate.
2) When I mentioned the possibility of eliminating tournament memberships, it was with the idea of forcing annual memberships. Note this would be easier if point 1) above is implemented, as the new annual rate would be lower! After considering the optics, I cannot at this time support increasing rating fees.
My preference would be to vote on 1) first, and if it passes, then after we determine the new annual (<$36) rate, we vote on eliminating tournament membership, which would be at our next Governors meeting, or so I predict.
Rook
Bringing Motions Arising at the Meeting
Hi Aris:
I just draw to your attention that under the meeting procedures, motions must be brought before 9:00 PM EDT on Monday, Oct. 4. This is when voting starts on all motions, and so none can be filed after that time.
If a member wants to initiate a motion, they need only find a seconder, and then post under the relevant thread the exact wording of their motion. I will then separate it out into a new " voting thread " of its own for Monday night. This has already happened under the Elimination of Life Governors thread, where Les Bunning/Lyle Craver have now launced a motion.
Bob
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 10-03-2010 at 10:36 PM.
CFC Voting Member
OK then, in order to file a specific motion, I would like to know exactly how many of each type of member the CFC has now. This is to ensure that I calculate and propose a new annual rate that is at least revenue-neutral.
How would I get that information by Monday morning?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote