Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: 13. Membership / Rating Fee Restructuring Committee

  1. #61

    Default

    It's a fundamental change in the nature of membership. How would a player become a member if s/he did not wish to play in rated events?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    I think that the idea of a player only contributing to the association when they play is flawed. I think that there will be ample benefits to members, once the new web page is ready.

    If we put the rating fees up to $5, then the CFC membership could possibly be reduced to $20-22 (based on current numbers).

  3. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I think that the idea of a player only contributing to the association when they play is flawed. I think that there will be ample benefits to members, once the new web page is ready.

    If we put the rating fees up to $5, then the CFC membership could possibly be reduced to $20-22 (based on current numbers).
    I think the idea of a player who plays one event per year subsidizing your costs is flawed.

    Here is a further possibility: Rating fee is set at $8, membership fee remains at $36, but you don't need to buy a membership to get your events rated.
    How many people do you think would buy a membership?
    ------ Just trying to demonstrate what has value and what does not.

    I think there will still be no benefits, besides having your rating, to being a member when the new website is done.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    I guess you place no value in the Monthly newsletter

  5. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I guess you place no value in the Monthly newsletter
    Nothing close to what it costs us, that's for sure.

    I view it more as a set of patronage appointments...
    Something to deal with at a later date.

    However... I feel that I represent the majority of members on that account.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Brammall View Post
    I view it more as a set of patronage appointments...


    However... I feel that I represent the majority of members on that account.
    1) Patronage appointments..........That's the funniest thing I've heard for a long time !!

    2) How would you know you represent the majority of members ? Do you take surveys ?

    Ok. I'm just teasing... you sound like you are ready to take the next step in CFC politics. We need some young blood on the Executive.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    2) How would you know you represent the majority of members ? Do you take surveys ?
    No, but I think I play in more events per year then any of the other governors besides Bob G.; I feel that puts me more in touch with the membership-- and the opinion I have given is the one which I hear most commonly expressed, except perhaps the following: "We have a Newsletter?"
    Last edited by Stuart Brammall; 01-19-2011 at 06:40 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    3

    Thumbs down In touch

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Brammall View Post
    No, but I think I play in more events per year then any of the other governors besides Bob G.; I feel that puts me more in touch with the membership-- and the opinion I have given is the one which I hear most commonly expressed, except perhaps the following: "We have a Newsletter?"
    So this puts you in touch with the small fragment of the chess population you come in direct contact with. You hear "those" opinions. Don't think we should start competing to see who is "more" in touch with the membership in order to validate our ideas...

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valer Eugen Demian View Post
    So this puts you in touch with the small fragment of the chess population you come in direct contact with. You hear "those" opinions. Don't think we should start competing to see who is "more" in touch with the membership in order to validate our ideas...
    Perhaps not; but even so, being a regional governor it is them I am elected to represent... and so I do.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    No - Fred makes a valid point.

    I know one player of 2100 strength who is a regular correspondence player but has not to my knowledge played over the board in 35 years and who has kept up his membership year by year continuously.

    There's no question in my mind that Harry contributes to the CFC.

    Similarly I know a couple of 'chess parents' who don't play in chess events but direct junior tournaments. Nationally there are probably more of these than my friend Harry but again, I'm not sure it's a good idea to so tightly couple CFC Membership to tournament play.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •