Presidential Debate: Increasing Membership!

[Christopher Mallon]

Almost every CFC President talks about this, however most years still see a decline in memberships.

What steps will you, as CFC President, take in the first three months of your term to increase membership?

[Michael von Keitz]

There are clubs across this country attracting live bodies that the CFC isn't even aware exist. I think the CFC might stand to gain some members by seeking these clubs out and making contact. That is exactly how I was brought into the CFC fold - direct contact with my school club. In talking with John R. Brown, I think I have a volunteer willing to spearhead the campaign, which we can discuss in greater depth as an incoming assembly.

[Pierre Dénommée]

A lot of Chess is being played outside of the CFC. This includes more then 90% of all Quebec Chess, all Optimist Club Youth Chess and all CMA Youth Chess.

We can involve the CMA in the CYCC in exchange for a membership of its junior participant and the rating of those tournaments by the CFC.

Having the Quebec members pay a full CFC membership is daydreaming in the short term. I am also in contact with the FQE and I have seen no sign that their membership has any will to switch to the CFC. The best we could do is the creation of another category of members for Quebec in exchange for an Olympic contribution. Oddly enough, with a CFC membership, I can play in France without paying a membership, but I cannot play in FQE events. Mutual recognition of our memberships could be achieved, allowing us to count the Quebec members officially as CFC members. I would go to the Governors before doing this because this is Constitutional amendment.

[roger patterson]

A lot of Chess is being played outside of the CFC. This includes more then 90% of all Quebec Chess, all Optimist Club Youth Chess and all CMA Youth Chess.



and a lot of active chess (at least in BC). The CFC has priced itself out of this market.


. Oddly enough, with a CFC membership, I can play in France without paying a membership, but I cannot play in FQE events.

You cannot play in the US (and vice versa) for them without paying a membership thing. Seems like a North American difference in viewpoint.

[Pierre Dénommée]

As a Governor, I have moved a motion to abolish the rapid rating fee and to create a less expensive recreative membership for playing rapid chess. The motion has been defeated.


and a lot of active chess (at least in BC). The CFC has priced itself out of this market.



You cannot play in the US (and vice versa) for them without paying a membership thing. Seems like a North American difference in viewpoint.

[roger patterson]

As a Governor, I have moved a motion to abolish the rapid rating fee and to create a less expensive recreative membership for playing rapid chess. The motion has been defeated.

I missed that one but I am not too too surprised to hear of it's defeat. It is consistent with the governors attitude on raising the tournament membership fee - that any activity associated with the CFC requires a full membership or something close to it. There is no recognition of the possibility of catering to occasional players who are not interested in the CFC per se or it's national programs.

[Christopher Mallon]

The main issue with the rating fees is we never achieved fully automated rating updates.

We had - approved! - a motion on the books for years that would allow any "affiliate" such as a club to pay a once per year rating fee and have all their events rated under that fee, provided that they submitted the events in the automated format.

I believe that that went bye bye sometime in the last year or so, but it's a moot point since we still, in 2011, have to do so much of the rating and membership work by hand effectively (albeit with computerized tools to assist us).

[roger patterson]

The main issue with the rating fees is we never achieved fully automated rating updates.

We had - approved! - a motion on the books for years that would allow any "affiliate" such as a club to pay a once per year rating fee and have all their events rated under that fee, provided that they submitted the events in the automated format.

I believe that that went bye bye sometime in the last year or so, but it's a moot point since we still, in 2011, have to do so much of the rating and membership work by hand effectively (albeit with computerized tools to assist us).

well, the last word on that (rating costs) was that Fred calculated the CFC's cost for rating at about $2 per player. It's hard not to believe that there is something wrong with what's being done if it costs that much.

[John Coleman]

CMA charges 40¢ per player, if results are entered by the TD, 75¢ per player if results are entered by the office. I fail to see why it should cost the CFC more.

It is possible that CMA regards ratings as a loss leader, but since they charge no membership fee, what the loss is leading people towards is unclear.

[Aris Marghetis]

CMA charges 40¢ per player, if results are entered by the TD, 75¢ per player if results are entered by the office. I fail to see why it should cost the CFC more.

It is possible that CMA regards ratings as a loss leader, but since they charge no membership fee, what the loss is leading people towards is unclear.
And it seems SO MUCH EASIER for the TD to have the CMA rate something. I can either upload a Swiss-Sys file, or enter by hand into a table that cross-checks for accuracy.

And the cost, only 40c per, is something I can pull out of my own pocket. When rating a CFC event, that is my single highest expense. And at >$3 per, I feel we are gouged! :(

[John Coleman]

And it seems SO MUCH EASIER for the TD to have the CMA rate something. I can either upload a Swiss-Sys file, or enter by hand into a table that cross-checks for accuracy.

And the cost, only 40c per, is something I can pull out of my own pocket. When rating a CFC event, that is my single highest expense. And at >$3 per, I feel we are gouged! :(The CFC membership management and rating system is mostly busy-work for the office. For example, if member information changes, with CMA I just make the change. With the CFC, I have to write an email to the office, which makes the change.

Sad really. A paid employee could do so much, and instead we busy him with office work which could be done better and easier by the organisers and TDs.

[Fred McKim]

And it seems SO MUCH EASIER for the TD to have the CMA rate something. I can either upload a Swiss-Sys file, or enter by hand into a table that cross-checks for accuracy.

And the cost, only 40c per, is something I can pull out of my own pocket. When rating a CFC event, that is my single highest expense. And at >$3 per, I feel we are gouged! :(

The CMA system is good if you don't want to have membership fees or be able to contact members directly.

[John Coleman]

The CMA system is good if you don't want to have membership fees or be able to contact members directly.Don't be silly, how difficult would it be to add a field "email address" to the CMA online membership form, which the TD completes for each new player.

Likewise for a fee for registering each new player (which the TD could collect from the player, if he chose.)

[Ken Craft]

We really do need to discuss our membership model. The goal should be increased numbers which probably will ensue a change to our current membership and rating fee model.

[Paul Leblanc]

Personally, I welcome the opportunity to contribute $3 per event to have my games rated and to support the CFC.
It would be great to automate the system and free up the E.D. for more important duties. However, unless we are willing to cut some other expense or find a new source of revenue the CFC will still have to collect the $3 fee to balance the books.