STRAW POLL: FIDE Rep on Olympic Fundraising

[Michael von Keitz]

Whereas the fundraising for the 2012 Olympiad may not cover all costs of sending our teams, and that every effort will be made to minimize the costs of our delegation, BIRT that the CFC will cover any shortfall associated with the project.

Discussion - the Olympic fundraising is underway, but the outcome is uncertain. We can no longer issue tax receipts. For the previous Olymiad we asked the Women's team to basically underwrite their own costs, and in the end we were able to pay for them. However this decision was contraversial and at least two elite players declined because of this risk.

I believe that demonstrating our commitment to the Olympiad will have a favourable impact on the fundraising campaign. Bob Gillanders estimated a $5,000 shortfall in the 2013 budget which is reasonable. We are looking at 10 players and one funded captain (a second captain may accompany the delegation and receive free room and board). Today Transat Airlines has tickets for less than $1100.

A rough sketch of the budget is:

11 tickets $12100
entry fees 540
visas @$170 1870
FIDE Rep 1100
total $ 15610

I have reasonable chances at a Sector Arbiter position, which will cover my plane ticket. If I am re-elected as FIDE Rep the budget may be reduced accordingly.

Hal

[Michael von Keitz]

Hal has requested a straw poll to get a sense of the governors' position on this important question.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob Gillanders estimated a $5,000 shortfall in the 2013 budget which is reasonable.


Michael, the wording here is "awkward" at best,

to clarify,

The proposed 2013 Budget presented for discussion (see thread "Treasurers' Report") at this meeting predicts we can accommodate a $5,000 contribution to the Olympic fund and maintain a balanced budget.

FYI - The budget was a collaborative efforts between Michael, Fred, and myself. I am both surprised and disappointed there has not been more governor discussion of it, which was the point of presenting it at this meeting.

What does BIRT mean?

[Paul Leblanc]

I'm OK with the $5k in the 2012/2013 budget. I really believe the Olympiad team is important - the Victoria Chess Club has already raised money and I will be making a personal contribution - but I can't support going in the red or spending the capital that the CFC has invested in the Foundation.

[Michael von Keitz]

Michael, the wording here is "awkward" at best,

to clarify,

The proposed 2013 Budget presented for discussion (see thread "Treasurers' Report") at this meeting predicts we can accommodate a $5,000 contribution to the Olympic fund and maintain a balanced budget.

FYI - The budget was a collaborative efforts between Michael, Fred, and myself. I am both surprised and disappointed there has not been more governor discussion of it, which was the point of presenting it at this meeting.

What does BIRT mean?

Bob, I left Hal's original wording untouched. Thanks for throwing in your clarification!

BIRT = be it resolved that

[Pierre Dénommée]

Does this means that the CFC will be paying the airfare of the FIDE rep?




FIDE Rep 1100

[Hal Bond]

So what happens Paul, when $5K doesn't cover it? We have to make a commitment before we have the funds raised. We could have kept quiet about this and just said "oops" when it came time to pay up.

[Kevin Pacey]

So what happens Paul, when $5K doesn't cover it? We have to make a commitment before we have the funds raised. We could have kept quiet about this and just said "oops" when it came time to pay up.

How serious would it be to break such a commitment, by not sending team(s), if $5K doesn't cover it?

The CFC is still relatively cash starved. That's serious too.

[Christopher Mallon]

It's foolish to even think of going back to deficit spending after finally taming the CFC's budget.

Now, my counter-proposal:

Cancel the newsletter as it currently exists ($18k per year?)

Pay someone say $3000 a year to do a much more modest newsletter with chess community contributions ie tournament reports.

Take the remaining $15k. On Olympiad years, that pays for the team (roughly). On non-Olympiad years, the money goes towards the Canadian Closed.

You may not like my plan, but at least it's financially viable, rather than just "hoping" we'll have the money.

[Kevin Pacey]

Assuming we don't lose too many members because of it, your plan seems viable, Chris.

[Christopher Mallon]

Assuming we don't lose too many members because of it, your plan seems viable, Chris.

I see it as a viable starting point for a discussion anyway.

I suggested earlier that we conduct a poll via the newsletter to see what member's opinions of the newsletter were - along with other options for spending the money. Another Governor thought that was ridiculous as many people don't even get the newsletter and thus wouldn't respond to the poll.

However, that really proves my point in a way... if they don't get the newsletter now, they won't miss it either.

[Kevin Pacey]

For those who haven't seen it, here is a link to a thread from the Governors Private Forum that I believe Chris is refering to (in his post above) concerning a previous discussion about scaling back/axing the Newsletter:

http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=2358

[Michael von Keitz]

If you would like, if you were to open a poll on this topic in the English Forum on or about May 1st, I could point the members to it on the next distribution of the newsletter. Just so everyone is aware, approximately 70% of members receive the newsletter directly. Exactly how many of the remaining 30% receive it by indirect means is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but I know there are at least a few.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I think funding the Olympiad teams makes more sense than spending $18k on an email newsletter that few seem to care about.

[Michael von Keitz]

I think funding the Olympiad teams makes more sense than spending $18k on an email newsletter that few seem to care about.

We just need to be careful that we're not underestimating the newsletter's popularity. Shooting first and asking questions later could be disastrous.

[Christopher Mallon]

I'm not sure a public poll is the best way to go. Using actual poll software, feeding in all the email addresses which receive the newsletter, would be far better. I'll look around and see if there's anything free we can use.

[Aris Marghetis]

It's foolish to even think of going back to deficit spending after finally taming the CFC's budget.

Now, my counter-proposal:

Cancel the newsletter as it currently exists ($18k per year?)

Pay someone say $3000 a year to do a much more modest newsletter with chess community contributions ie tournament reports.

Take the remaining $15k. On Olympiad years, that pays for the team (roughly). On non-Olympiad years, the money goes towards the Canadian Closed.

You may not like my plan, but at least it's financially viable, rather than just "hoping" we'll have the money.
I have heard Chris, and others, float similar ideas before, but we don't seem to cut to the chase about what we are spending on our newsletter, that we could potentially spend elsewhere, or not spend at all. In my humble opinion, the newsletter is actually a BETTER product than what I expected for that cost. However, and unfortunately, that does not necessarily mean that we should spend that much on it. I believe that a really good poll would be the sensible next step. I know for myself, I barely have time to work through the great articles in it, but maybe the majority of people do? I have no idea! :(

P.S. A risk in announcing the CFC covering a shortfall this year, is that it will dampen the usual genuine efforts by the greater chess community to raise that much money in time.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

We all pay a yearly fee to be members of CFC. What do we get in return of the membership fee if now you want to dilute the value of the existing newsletter? What is left to offer anyone across Canada for their membership?

A member already pays tournament fees (to cover for rating, etc) outside the membership one. What gives? Will you reduce the amount of membership proportionally with the dilution of the newsletter? How come we could pay for it, but we should also contribute for its content?

This smells bad...

[Christopher Mallon]

We all pay a yearly fee to be members of CFC. What do we get in return of the membership fee if now you want to dilute the value of the existing newsletter? What is left to offer anyone across Canada for their membership?

I don't consider our current newsletter to have "value" personally. In fact it's just a little bit embarrassing.


A member already pays tournament fees (to cover for rating, etc) outside the membership one. What gives? Will you reduce the amount of membership proportionally with the dilution of the newsletter?

That's certainly another option. The newsletter is somewhere between $10 and $15 of each member's fee.


How come we could pay for it, but we should also contribute for its content?

So you are saying that you are offended that TDs might be asked to submit reports about their own tournaments? Even though that was happening for years already?

[Paul Leblanc]

The alternative to sending a team when we can't afford it is not to send a team, or perhaps only send the men's team or the women's team. This is sad, I agree.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

So you are saying that you are offended that TDs might be asked to submit reports about their own tournaments? Even though that was happening for years already?

No; that last remark was triggered by the suggestion to create a simpler newsletter only with contributions from around the country. This seems silly to me: we pay for it and then we also create it...

Respectfully disagree when you consider this newsletter embarrassing. The electronic format of it (the main beef of chess lovers across this country) is something organizations with more financial power than CFC do for years. Ask the new generation/ juniors what they prefer...

Not sure how many of you access electronic chess newsletters outside Canada, or this opinion here might be in an overwhelming minority. Please do not sell short this effort!

[Hal Bond]

If we do that Paul we may also contravene the wishes of some donors. $800 of our fund, for example, is derived from the Women's Championship in Toronto last October.

I believe that the ground has shifted - our membership dearly wants representation at the Olympiad but may feel put apon when asked to cough up yet more money to pay for it. Victoria has held a fundraiser (thank you!!) and Guelph will next month, but this method has not proved very popular either.

We need to send both teams to this Olympiad and then secure a stable funding model going forward. Those of you at the annual meeting last year may recall that RBC is interested in a multi year deal for sponsoring many of our properties, and Brian Fiedler was putting this deal together. We were hopeful that such a deal will be in place for 2012 but Brian has had some health issues and 2014 is a more likely target date.

[Michael Barron]

The alternative to sending a team when we can't afford it is not to send a team, or perhaps only send the men's team or the women's team. This is sad, I agree.

Paul,
I respectfully disagree.

We should send both teams in any case.

Financials - is a separate issue.

The alternative to sending a fully funded team is sending only players who are willing to pay shortfall (if any) from their own pockets - as it was in 2010.

In this case, however, we should agree that Yuanling and Natalia won't play for Canada... :(