13. Membership / Rating Fee Restructuring Committee

[Stuart Brammall]

First, the CFC is a federation of Provincial Associations. Provincial Associations set their fee and require their members to also be CFC members.
Second, I became a Life Member while not playing rated chess. I can't remember the last time I played CFC rated chess (2000?). I still play OTB five days a week. I bought a CFC membership without intending to play in rated events.

And you are in the minority. Let the affiliates set their fee at whatever they wish, just don't force me to pay it when all I won't is to have my games rated.

Also, your life membership contributes no provincial dues.... have you been keeping up an active provincial membership

[Fred McKim]

I understand your point Fred, but what I am saying is that the two cost the same... Gerry does the same work for both. If you were to charge less for active you would not be reducing the cost, you would only be forcing the players of the regular events to subsidise the cost of the actives.

The point is the following: Right now the rating fees are a slight income maker for us. If they go up to let's say $15 the CFC event has to be worth holding or else there will be a whole slew of events that turn unrated (including Active tournaments) -this is why you might want to set the tournament memberships at say $10 and $20 (assuming there wasn't an annual fee).

I just think this is too much for the parts of the countries that aren't used to huge entry fees.

[Stuart Brammall]

The point is the following: Right now the rating fees are a slight income maker for us. If they go up to let's say $15 the CFC event has to be worth holding or else there will be a whole slew of events that turn unrated (including Active tournaments) -this is why you might want to set the tournament memberships at say $10 and $20 (assuming there wasn't an annual fee).

I just think this is too much for the parts of the countries that aren't used to huge entry fees.

The total revenue the CFC collects will remain the same... I think that individuals who play more, be it active or regular, should pay more... they should not have the costs associated with having their events rated subsidised by those who play less.
I also think the average member is intelligent enough to realize two things:
Firstly, that what we currently call the "rating fee" does not even come close to paying for the costs of rating events.
And Secondly, that people would realize that paying $8 per event is not a burden, considering they no longer have to pay $35 per year.

For the sake of comparison, I suggest everyone do a calculation and see what the difference in cost to them is if we were to only charge an $8 tournament fee.

For example Fred played 8 events in 2010, which would cost $64 in my proposed system, as opposed to $59 ($35 membership + ($3 rating fee * eight events)). Since you play more then the average player your total cost has increased, but it is only five dollars.

[Fred McKim]

Well this is a useful discussion, at least.

I'm still not sure if $8 is breakeven (I was using much higher figures, like $15).

As well, some consideration would have to be made for Life Members.....

[Paul Leblanc]

And I having played in only 6 events paid $54 to the CFC ($36 membership + $18 rating fees). Under Stuart's system I would pay only $48.
And of course I paid the BCCF $16 for the four BC events that I played in. That would not change.

[Stuart Brammall]

I'm still not sure if $8 is breakeven (I was using much higher figures, like $15).

The fee should be between $8 and $10, in order to be revenue nuetral.

Calculated from the budget:

$31,288 from rating fees for 2011 implies that ~10,300 rating fees will be paid, at $3 each.

Total income from memberships and rating fee = $83,159

$83,158/10,300 =~ $8.07

[Lyle Craver]

Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

[Fred McKim]

Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

Life members (I'm one too) would be expected to contribute something. Right now we contribute $3 per tournament.

Any new system would have to err on the conservative side. In this case, that tournament participations went down. Perhaps by 10%.......

I have to admit it would be nice and simple, if we simply submit $10 or $12 to the CFC for each participant (and half that amount for Active or Junior only tournaments).

We could consider someone a member for two or three years (for example) from the last time they paid.

Someone could "buy" a membership by simply paying the business office the appropriate tournament fee. This would provide access to membership content at the website.

[Stuart Brammall]

Stuart, don't be so quick to jump on life members - while many have not kept up their provincial memberships you'd be surprised how many have.

Mark me down as one of them.

As I said my experience is generally restricted to the OCA, which I do not think even has the apparatus to collect fees from life members.

[Stuart Brammall]

Life member fee could remain a $3. That should satisfy?