Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: CFC Moves on Fees

  1. #1

    Default CFC Moves on Fees

    The Grassroots' Campaign is advised ( not given notice by the CFC - sigh - we've had to employ our moles ) that the Governors are considering 2 motions ( to be voted on by March 2 ) in which the GC has an interest ( we've been clamouring for the CFC to do something on fees for a while now, though we had hoped the Governors would take input from the membership, including us - not to be ):

    1. The GC wanted any junior rating fee increase capped at a maximum of 100% ( or $ 1 ). The one motion does this, though adds the condition that the organizer must use the new CFC automated tournament submission system. The motion does not raise the adult rating fee- stays at $ 3 - but again only if you use the automated submission system. Finally the motion penalizes those organizers not submitting using SwissSys - $5 per player ( whether adult or junior ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion ( though we do think the 400% increase in the penalty for junior organizers is unfair, when the increase for organizers of adult tournaments not using the system is only 66.7% ).

    2. The GC wanted the tournament playing fee ( TPF ) doubled ( to $ 20 ), if the Governors were going to refuse to eliminate it ( still our first choice ). The second motion does this, and introduces for the first time a " junior tournament playing fee " of $ 10 ( we're fine with that, if they are keeping the darned TPF ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion. But we will renew our motion for elimination some time in the future, when the new TPF has been gotten used to.

    Too bad the Governors didn't consult with the membership - we had some new ideas on reforming the junior memberships and introducing a special membership for full-time non-junior college and university students ( an initiative of Frank Dixon's in negotiation with the GC ). Oh well, maybe we'll try to introduce it some time in the future, as part of a GC Fees Reform Platform.

    Bob
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 02-22-2009 at 02:08 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Heck if he and some guys from Toronto want to bring forward a movement to change fees, I would too...

    I propose that we keep the Tournament Fees at $10, but limit it to once a year. This way the casual player won't feel like he isn't welcome. Local club players will feel welcome to play in their yearly CFC rated club tournament and we won't lose casual players... I know the toronto gang want to impose a solution that only works in toronto and screws the rest of Canada but I believe that a limit on usage would encourage people to continue playing tournament chess without dropping participation numbers in the areas that aren't in Ontario. Perhaps if the toronto gang actually talked to people who use the tournament memberships and to people who actually are active TD's they could think up an actual solution instead of trying to decrease the number of chess players in the rest of Canada... one can only wish

  3. #3

    Default TPF - One Time Limit

    Jason and I have our little disagreements. But here I agree with 1/2 of Jason's proposal, which may surprise him.

    I disagree to keeping the Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ) at $10. It should go to $ 20, as per the motion.

    But I agree with Jason that since we are keeping the TPF, " limit it to once a year ". In fact this is what the CFC and the Canadian organizers are supposed to be doing. The current CFC Handbook section states:

    375. Tournament Playing Fee: A tournament fee for first time players in CFC events, for foreign players, and for players whose name does not appear on the last Annual List, of $10.00 may be paid in lieu of CFC membership. The player will then receive a rating, one copy of the magazine, and an invitation to join the CFC

    The Governors should tack on an amendment to the motion to confirm that " the CFC will again start enforcing the section as written ". Will a governor move this amendment??

    It is really bad form guys to have laws saying one thing, and for the organization to ignore them and do the opposite. It makes the organization look Mickey Mouse in my view.

    The Governors are dealing with section 375, so clarify where the CFC stands on the " limit " issue, at the same time as they deal with the " amount " issue.

    Bob

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    375 was amended a couple of years ago to allow the fee as often as you like.

  5. #5

    Default TPF - One Time Limit per Year

    As usual, us plebs didn't know that since we can only rely on the CFC Handbook as it is on the website ( I know Bob G is to update it when he gets time, now that he has the special report from Govenor Maurice Smith ). It will be great when members can know the laws of the organization !

    But that doesn't change Jason's excellent point - he doesn't want it available " as often as you like ". He wants it now to be available only " once per year ". So if the Governors are to incorporate his idea, they will have to amend the " amended " section 375 that no one knows the wording of, outside of the select few. It will have to be changed from the TPF being indefinitely available, to being only available " once per year ".

    Bob

  6. #6

    Default

    The fee motions are undergoing vigorous debate on the Governors' section.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Craft
    The fee motions are undergoing vigorous debate on the Governors' section.
    I do hope that debate includes rewording the motion so that it does not attempt to set provincial dues. At the moment, the motion improperly sets provincial dues. Apart from upsurping provincial responsibilties, it sets provincial fees that are different than those set by BC (and collects provincial dues for regions that don't have provincial affiliations e.g. Quebec with no specification of what happens to thoses amounts).

    If passed, the executive director will have the choice of:
    a) ignoring the wishes of provinces with different dues or
    b) ignoring the motion of the governers.

  8. #8

    Default

    I'm guessing all of the motions currently being debated will see some revision prior to being voted on. Of course, I could be wrong...

  9. #9

    Default Junior Rating Fee Increase: GC Changes Position

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    1. The GC wanted any junior rating fee increase capped at a maximum of 100% ( or $ 1 ). The one motion does this, though adds the condition that the organizer must use the new CFC automated tournament submission system. The motion does not raise the adult rating fee- stays at $ 3 - but again only if you use the automated submission system. Finally the motion penalizes those organizers not submitting using SwissSys - $5 per player ( whether adult or junior ). We urge the Governors to pass this motion ( though we do think the 400% increase in the penalty for junior organizers is unfair, when the increase for organizers of adult tournaments not using the system is only 66.7% ).

    Bob
    I drafted the GC motion and the commentary on capping any junior rating fee increase on behalf of the Grassroots' Campaign ( GC ), and I intended that the GC actively support the CFC raising the junior rating fee, if it only went to $ 1.We assumed the CFC needed the money if they moved for an increase. I thought this was clear to the membership. It was on this basis that I made my post saying the GC urged the governors to pass the increase. I thought our position was clear in support. The Commentary to our motion capping the junior rating fee increase said:

    “ A raise in rating fee may be justified given the CFC’s financial situation, but a 100% increase in the junior rating fee is the maximum tolerable. “

    But subsequently 2 Governor GC Supporters questioned whether this position was understood by all GC Endorsers from the motion/commentary. They felt it was ambiguous. Consequently I went back to the GC membership to clarify the situation.

    An overwhelming majority of those voting, changed the GC position ( they had not understood my position as being set out clearly by the GC motion/commentary ). So the new position of the GC on the junior rating fee increase is :

    " The GC should take no position on a junior rating fee increase. We neither support it , nor do we oppose it. It is solely a CFC decision. They know their finances, and if they need an increase. All we maintain is that the increase not go over $1, and it hasn’t in the motion, so we are able to “ accept “ the motion if passed by the Governors. "

    In the light of this change, GC withdraws its active " support " for the motion, and no longer " urges " the Governors to pass the motion. But neither do we " oppose " it. It is up to the CFC to convince the Governors it is required. If it is passed, we can " accept " that.

    GC still urges the Govenors to pass the motion doubling the Tournament Playing Fee ( TPF ) to $ 20, and instituting the junior TPF of $ 10.

    Bob

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Smile Motions included in GL4

    The 2 motions regarding tournament fees and rating fees are now including in GL4 which has been sent to the governors this morning. We will post it on the website on the weekend.

    Voting deadline has been extended to March 6th.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •