Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Candidate for CFC President

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roger patterson View Post
    as an addendum to my previous post - why do you think clubs will sign up? There are 26 or so clubs listed on the BCCF website. AFAIK, only 2 or perhaps 3 of them offer CFC rated play. The club I am president of, the Victoria Chess Club, has 15-20 people every club night but probably only 1 person present who is a CFC member - me - and I'm not always a CFC member either.
    Perhaps the plan should be that each club gets the existing provincial dues.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Perhaps the plan should be that each club gets the existing provincial dues.
    not sure what your point is or how you envisage provincial activities being funded but in any case, provincial dues are not within the jurisdiction of the CFC.

  3. #13

    Default

    [QUOTE=roger patterson;13135]well, I suppose if I can't find a local club that wants to become affiliated (the Victoria Chess club would not) and I want to play tournament chess then I can always find 10 random people from across Canada to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club. After all, there is no reason why we should ever actually meet or play. Then we put up a website showing all the members of the club so that when we play in a tournament it can be verified that our membership is current. The problem is, I already belong to such a group - it's called the CFC. How is what you suggest an improvement? I know that this is the European model but so what? Why do you think putting impediments in the way of people who live in small towns, anti-social, or who are just plain not interested in a local club is going to help the CFC grow membership?

    The way I look at it, the CFC would simply be offering an option to existing clubs, at least the ones who run many CFC rated events. Using the Calgary Chess Club for example, such a program would work for us. We run many CFC events each year, so saving money is a good thing.

    I don't see such a program as an impediment at all. I see it as an enhancement. Whether it will provide an incentive to existing clubs is the question. Will it make us work harder to get more members?

    Frankly, I don't think the CFC needs to re-invent the wheel here. The Affiliate program from the 80's would work perfectly. For every membership the club submits, you get a rebate. Simple and effective. You could enhance that model to include some sort of price break on rating fees. Personally, I would work harder to recruit new CFC members under this sort of model.

    Just a thought.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roger patterson View Post
    not sure what your point is or how you envisage provincial activities being funded but in any case, provincial dues are not within the jurisdiction of the CFC.
    I thought it was inherent in Michael's model that provincial associations would essentially disappear.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Newsletter

    Michael: Thanks for such a detailed platform. I noticed that our largest discretionary budget item (the newsletter) was not mentioned by you.

    What side of the fence are you on ?

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Ficzere View Post
    The way I look at it, the CFC would simply be offering an option to existing clubs, at least the ones who run many CFC rated events. Using the Calgary Chess Club for example, such a program would work for us. We run many CFC events each year, so saving money is a good thing.

    I don't see such a program as an impediment at all. I see it as an enhancement. Whether it will provide an incentive to existing clubs is the question. Will it make us work harder to get more members?

    Frankly, I don't think the CFC needs to re-invent the wheel here. The Affiliate program from the 80's would work perfectly. For every membership the club submits, you get a rebate. Simple and effective. You could enhance that model to include some sort of price break on rating fees. Personally, I would work harder to recruit new CFC members under this sort of model.

    Just a thought.
    AFAIK the CFC affiliate program is still in place - so I wonder why your club is not already an affiliate.

    I was reading Michael's proposal as being that clubs are the exclusive route into the CFC, not an alternate route. He seems to make that fairly clear. e.g.

    In other words, if you aren't a demonstrable member of a club (e.g. possessing a membership card, having an exec vouch for you, etc.), then you can't join the CFC.
    And he is not thinking of this being a price break as in the existing (?) CFC affiliate program. In my region, the people who go to clubs (usually not CFC members) and the people who play in tournaments (often CFC members but not always) are largely two different sets of people. While I have no particular issue with providing incentives for clubs, I can't see making it an exclusive arrangement as being helpful.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I thought it was inherent in Michael's model that provincial associations would essentially disappear.
    Also not within the CFC's jurisdiction.

    Not to mention, this would then be a proposal to do away with provincial championships or any other activity currently organized by the provincial body.
    Last edited by roger patterson; 07-01-2011 at 05:23 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,932
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roger patterson View Post
    Also not within the CFC's jurisdiction.

    Not to mention, this would then be a proposal to do away with provincial championships or any other activity currently organized by the provincial body.

    I think he mentioned qualifying by Canadian Champioships via club champions.

    Of course provincial membership could still exist, but I still think that increasing the linkage between the CFC and clubs will weaken a number of smaller provincial associations.

  9. #19

    Default

    I have to confess I didn't read his proposal from top to bottom and was responding more to emails I had received from him.

    If the CFC was to go this route, they would lose many many members. If the only way into the CFC is by a club, that would be a shot in the foot. There are tons of players who simply play in tournaments and are not members of a club.

  10. #20

    Default

    well, I suppose if I can't find a local club that wants to become affiliated (the Victoria Chess club would not) and I want to play tournament chess then I can always find 10 random people from across Canada to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club. After all, there is no reason why we should ever actually meet or play. Then we put up a website showing all the members of the club so that when we play in a tournament it can be verified that our membership is current. The problem is, I already belong to such a group - it's called the CFC. How is what you suggest an improvement? I know that this is the European model but so what? Why do you think putting impediments in the way of people who live in small towns, anti-social, or who are just plain not interested in a local club is going to help the CFC grow membership?
    Before I say anything else, just to be clear, I am proposing the elimination of individual memberships in favour of club memberships, as opposed to the introduction of a fee over and above those the CFC already charges. So, let's say the fee charged to the club by the CFC comes out to an average of $50/player, there is now some degree of local autonomy regarding the distribution of CFC membership dues. For instance, if you want juniors to be cut some slack, you might charge them $40 and adults $60. In turn, rating fees might also be modified.

    What use is a club-affiliate model in the first place? Well, in my experience, it proves a useful tool for the individual player to seek out clubs. When I was in Germany, if I wanted to find a club, I simply went on the German Federation's website and searched for clubs in the area. This search provided membership lists, along with player ratings (both FIDE and DWZ). Not only was I able to find a club, but I was also able to determine the approximate level of opposition and how many members were associated with the club. Obviously, this sort of tool is of use to the roaming chess player, but even think of the 2000-rated Internet wizard that has never formally played OTB in hir life. They might be more inclined to visit a club, if they were able to see where they might fit in before ever opening the door. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this sort of system is a potentially potent tool for recruitment.

    You are right, there are people that may not want (or have the ability) to participate in a local club. If those people want to participate in CFC-rated activity, however, I envision them being added to the roster of the club hosting the rated event they wish to take part in, as a "pseudo-member."

    From the CFC's perspective, this membership model gives a more micro view of our membership activity, providing some guidance on where we might wish to focus recruitment efforts and who we might wish to contact. I don't see this as a bad thing, though I do invite further constructive criticism.

    The reality is that there are not sufficient numbers of organizers (and TDs) of any kind - good or bad. Beggers can't be choosers and proposing a program which implies that you will not accept some clubs and organizers until they have paid you a fee, passed a test, whatever - just means that you will have fewer clubs and organizers. What you propose is not a positive step in the sense of a program to train, encourage, and support new organizers and TDs but is rather framed in a negative sense of a gateway through which hopeful candidates to become organizers or TDs must pass.
    Essentially, I'm saying that those endorsed by a club to run events are welcome to do so, but we are willing to provide support to those that need/want it. If that help is declined, we will simply monitor your activity and provide feedback as required. No test, no certification fee, just support.


    Is there something wrong with having people who are not part of a club organize tournaments? If I were unable to form the "Friends of Roger Patterson" club and hence not part of a club, why would you object if I organized a tournament? Seems like there should be no objection - I would be running an event that brings in revenue for the CFC and provides a service to it's members.
    This is a fairly simple vetting process that I feel we can afford to make. No, I don't want the Roger Patterson that just floated in on a log from Siberia to decide that he's going to run a CFC-rated tournament in Victoria tomorrow. At the very least, I first want a group of 10 people in the area saying that they think he is competent to run an event.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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