Replacing the Tournament Playing Fee ( = Tournament Membership ) - Motion 2010-06

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

I also find it difficult to find a way to deal with the one-tournament-a-year CFC member. My initial reaction is that there are numerous tournaments around, and that generally members can play in more than one if they want to travel and make the effort ( for example in rural Southwestern Ontario, members can get to numerous tournaments in Kitchener, Elora, Guelph, London, etc. if willing to travel a bit ).

Secondly, I fear that trying to develop an exception on this basis will be an administrative nightmare ( though maybe not with computer programs these days ).

Thirdly, the CFC has many faithful continuing members, who often don't play any tournament in some years, yet faithfully renew their memberships. This is their choice, and appreciated by the CFC. Others may play only one tournament some years , and more other years ( depending on " busyness " ). I fear the CFC could lose a substantial chunk of membership revenue if your idea was implemented. Some type of statistical analysis of existing records would have to be done to see how problematic such a solution might be from a revenue point of view.

Of course, the new First Time CFC Member Discount ( 40 % ), will deal with NEW CFC members who are only going to play one tournament in their first membership year.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

I personally think we're better off first making sure the finances stay stabilized for a year to 18 months after the May reorganization, then simply replace ALL membership options with a single flat rate, probably around $25 per year. At that point there will be no further need for the tournament memberships.

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

It is most difficult to devise a membership fee schedule that we can afford and that appears fair. Here's a few new thoughts after I have slept on it.

1st timers will likely be very eager and play numerous tournaments in their first year. They don't really need a discount except that it will entice them to dip their feet in the tournament waters.

Thank God for all those faithful patrons that pay their dues each year even thou they rarely play tournaments. At least they are getting a newsletter now.

A "one size fits all" fee is not fair given our geography, and so it just will not work. We simply cannot afford Chris's suggestion of a lower fee of $25. We must hold the line, no reductions. We must sell the idea that membership is worth it, and yes it is!

My new suggest is:

Replace the current single tournament fee $20 ($10/juniors) with
a 3 month membership option for $15 ($8/juniors).

What do you think?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

It is worth considering - it does get CFC new members ( albeit short term ones ), which is the whole point of the Grassroots' Campaign changes.

The problem I see is that if a member is going to play only 2 tournaments a year, he'll just take out the 3-month option before each tournament. He pays only $ 30. But if we only have the one-year membership, he'll pay the $ 42, and likely be quite happy with that. The CFC will have lost revenue.

It is our experience with the tournament playing fee ( - tournament membership ), that if there is a way to exploit the system, to save $$, chessplayers will take it. There is not a great will to spend $$ to support the organization's multiple tasks, that do not directly benefit the individual member ( as Tony has pointed out in earlier posts on this ).

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

The fee of $25 is higher for Juniors. Overall yes you lose a little money, but the idea is to get more members that way and have them play in tournaments. A lot of the tournament membership people currently paying $20 for one event per year would probably sign up, and maybe play extra events.

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

It is commonplace for people to complain that fees are too high, but they will complain even more vehemently if they perceive them to be unfair. I believe it is unfair to expect the 1 tournament a year player to pay the same dues as someone who plays unlimited tournaments each year. Also, most would agree the regular tournament player should get a better deal on a per tournament basis. We need to strike a balance. My suggestion of a 3 month membership seeks that balance.

I think the net effect on revenues would be negligible, plus or minus. The goodwill to our TD's and rural players would be worth the risk. Hopefully 3 monthly newsletters would convince them to get a full years membership!