Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Grassroots' Campaign - " Gang of 4 " Targets CFC Fees

  1. #41

    Default

    Hi Jason:

    I'm not calling them Liars. I believe they firmly believe what they are now saying, and that they feel strongly about it.

    But what I am saying is that they also love chess. And down the road, when they miss the good competitive CFC-rated tournaments, they will re-evaluate their position. They will see that supporting the CFC as their national organization is a worthwhile expenditure of funds, and they will decide that they do in fact wish to return to competitive CFC-rated chess. They will then decide to take out a membership.

    Bob

  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    Hi Jason:

    I'm not calling them Liars. I believe they firmly believe what they are now saying, and that they feel strongly about it.

    But what I am saying is that they also love chess. And down the road, when they miss the good competitive CFC-rated tournaments, they will re-evaluate their position. They will see that supporting the CFC as their national organization is a worthwhile expenditure of funds, and they will decide that they do in fact wish to return to competitive CFC-rated chess. They will then decide to take out a membership.

    Bob
    why would they. Especially when there is a far cheaper non CFC option. Ive talked to many people (especially at my home town club) who love chess but have stopped playing in CFC tournaments (they were all CFC members at one point) These are the sorts of people who you are driving away with your proposal. And with good quality cheap non CFC tournaments they have an option.

    I love chess, I play/practice aproximately 3-4 hours a day (my friends say im obsessed). I am seriously considering dropping my CFC membership because the alot of the people I have made friends with will stop playing CFC rated chess. I play in CFC rated tournaments because of the great people I have met, not for a rating and certainly not to 'support a national organization' If your proposal goes through I will have absolutely NO reason to renew. Internet based chess, Club play and non CFC events will be just fine.

    Once again how many of these people have you actually talked to??? The difference between your 'hopeful wishes' and me is that Ive actually talked to these people. Until then you have listened to these players you have zero credibility.

  3. #43

    Default

    Hi Jason:

    It seems clear that " supporting the CFC financially through membership as the national chess organization " is not something you consider worthwhile.

    So it may be nothing I could say will change that.

    CFC will be sorry to lose you. CFC must have a strong and vibrant membership base to survive as a small non-profit corporation with no other significant source of revenue ( outside of rating fees , which is related ). I do believe that there are many other TPF players who think differently.

    Bob

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    Hi Jason:

    It CFC will be sorry to lose you. CFC must have a strong and vibrant membership base to survive as a small non-profit corporation with no other significant source of revenue ( outside of rating fees , which is related ). I do believe that there are many other TPF players who think differently.

    Bob
    Once again how many of these people have you actually talked to? Why don't you just admit that you haven't talked to any of these people??? You have NO idea how much your proposal will affect CFC tournament participation because you haven't even done a straw poll at a local tournament. This is the height of folly.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I personally don't like the gist of this last statement. Personally, I think the last thing the CFC can afford is to lose members, even if they are only "tournament members". Perhaps a rethink is necessary, but I don't think abolishing the fee is it.

    If those 2/3 players decline to play, more is lost than the $4 to the CFC. The tournament organizer also lost two players to contribute to the prize fund. Thus cash prizes drop, tournament play further declines, and the spiral continues.

  6. #46

    Default

    Even more, in a small chess community like this one, if you lose two players, you lose two players. It's not just the CFC that loses, fit's not just the reduced prize fund, it's two players who won't be participating, reducing our tiny group even further.

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
    Hi Jason:

    It seems clear that " supporting the CFC financially through membership as the national chess organization " is not something you consider worthwhile.


    Bob
    I would gladly support an organization that promotes chess in Canada. The problem is that I see the CFC hindering chess in Canada under this proposal. You have made it very clear that you are willing to lose 2/3 casual players. This is not the kind of organization that I would want to support. If I chose not to renew my CFC membership I would still give to the BCCF. They atleast are promoting chess in a constructive way. I will also support local clubs. My last two CFC rated tournaments I have won a 'class prize'. A small amount but not completely insubstantial. I have donated both of these prizes to the local club that held the tournament because they are trying to promote chess. The CFC is only hindering casual players and thats why I don't thing supporting a bureaucratic national chess organization is worth the money.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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