10B. CYCC Free Entries (Felix Dumont / Edward Porper)

[Lyle Craver]

Moved / Seconded by Felix Dumont and Edward Porper:

Be it resolved that the following be added to the CYCC regulations:

''The organizer shall provide free entry to winners of each category of the previous CYCC, as well as free accommodation as long as they reside no closer than 50 km of the venue.''

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I'll move that the motion is split in TWO.

1. The organizer shall provide free entry to winners of each category of the previous CYCC.
2. The organizer shall provide free accommodation to winners of each category of the previous CYCC as long as they reside no closer than 50 km of the venue.

Seconder?

I assume the motion is an amendment to
711. Players Expenses:
Each player will be responsible for paying his own travel expenses, accommodation and meal expenses. [Amended, see Motion 2003-02, 02-03GL3, December 2002]

[Félix Dumont]

It makes sense to split both ( altough I'd vote yes for both). I second your motion.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Can the movers of this motion cost out what they are proposing?

It is not trivial to forgo the entry fees of up to 12 players. What is expected when providing free accommodation to up to 12 players? To what standard? One per hotel room etc.

Liability could be:
entry fees $225*12= $2,700
Hotel for four days at $100 per night: accommodation $100*4*12=$4,800

The CYCC is not an easy tournament to stage. I am reluctant to put what I estimate to be a $7,500 cost on future tournament organizers.

I will vote against this.

[Ken Craft]

I agree with Halldor.

[Fred McKim]

Can the movers of this motion cost out what they are proposing?

It is not trivial to forgo the entry fees of up to 12 players. What is expected when providing free accommodation to up to 12 players? To what standard? One per hotel room etc.

Liability could be:
entry fees $225*12= $2,700
Hotel for four days at $100 per night: accommodation $100*4*12=$4,800

The CYCC is not an easy tournament to stage. I am reluctant to put what I estimate to be a $7,500 cost on future tournament organizers.

I will vote against this.

Just to do the math correctly. The organizers are losing $75 and I think the CFC would be losing $150 per player, but the exact intent of the movers isn't clear on this point.

[Félix Dumont]

Can the movers of this motion cost out what they are proposing?

It is not trivial to forgo the entry fees of up to 12 players. What is expected when providing free accommodation to up to 12 players? To what standard? One per hotel room etc.

Liability could be:
entry fees $225*12= $2,700
Hotel for four days at $100 per night: accommodation $100*4*12=$4,800

The CYCC is not an easy tournament to stage. I am reluctant to put what I estimate to be a $7,500 cost on future tournament organizers.

I will vote against this.

This is not at all the realistic cost.
1) winners of the U18 will most likely be too old, so we are talking about 10 players.
Let's say 8 decide to play, including 2 that live in the area and 4 that would have played anyway.
The cost for the organizer is then of $75x 4 + 400x6=2700 $. Organizers can definitely afford it and it might even attract more players. We need to take such decisions if we want truly national championships and not only money-maker tournaments that are used to finance the Canadian Open.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Thanks Fred.

This notion that organizers are making out like bandits on the $75/per player and what they need from Governors are additional items to spend money on should be off the table.

Worst case scenario on entry fee is $2,700, CFC WYCC travel fund gives up $150 per player OR $1,800. Which WYCC participants do not need given the already high level of funding by the CFC, NOT. Movin on, the CYCC $75 or $900 towards CYCC costs is probably money they do not need.

The accommodation, local organizers eats $4,800 or less. $4,800/75= 64 entrants. If it was only half or $2000/75=26.66 or 27 entries.

If you do not like my math - mover says use $2700/75=36 entries would pay for this worthwhile initiative.

I will vote against this.

[Félix Dumont]

Thanks Fred.

This notion that organizers are making out like bandits on the $75/per player and what they need from Governors are additional items to spend money on should be off the table.

Worst case scenario on entry fee is $2,700, CFC WYCC travel fund gives up $150 per player OR $1,800. Which WYCC participants do not need given the already high level of funding by the CFC, NOT. Movin on, the CYCC $75 or $900 towards CYCC costs is probably money they do not need.

The accommodation, local organizers eats $4,800 or less. $4,800/75= 64 entrants. If it was only half or $2000/75=26.66 or 27 entries.

If you do not like my math - mover says use $2700/75=36 entries would pay for this worthwhile initiative.

I will vote against this. And how many Gms will you lodge at the 2013 CO with this money instead? It's all about priorities. I prefer to invest money in the youth, but I imagine it's far from being the case for everyone.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Mr. Dumont, I find your sniping at us in Ottawa utterly unseemly. Last time out this group donated over $40K to the CFC for youth chess after the 2007 CYCC and CO. We do not feel any need to defend our priorities or commitment to youth chess in Canada.

[David Gordon]

We have a difficult enough time encouraging bids on National Championships without adding up to $7500 extra uncosted dollars upon volunteer organizers.

I will be voting against this motion

[Bob Gillanders]

And how many Gms will you lodge at the 2013 CO with this money instead? It's all about priorities. I prefer to invest money in the youth, but I imagine it's far from being the case for everyone.

The Ottawa crew did a splendid job of both the CYCC and Canadian Open in 2007, and I'm confident they will do it again. If they want to spend some money on GM's, that's their choice. They raised a lot of money for the youth fund coffers back in 2007, and with 197 entries to date, it looks like about 30k this year. That more than most CYCC's raise.

As I scan the CYCC registered players, I see only 9 players from Quebec. Felix, can you tell me where are all the Quebec kids? Is youth chess not a priority in Quebec?

As for your motion, I will vote NO. We struggle every year to secure organizers for the CYCC. Adding additional burdens on organizers is not wise. If we ever get competing bids, then they could sweeten the pot with additional goodies. But until then, forget it.

[Félix Dumont]

The Ottawa crew did a splendid job of both the CYCC and Canadian Open in 2007, and I'm confident they will do it again. If they want to spend some money on GM's, that's their choice. They raised a lot of money for the youth fund coffers back in 2007, and with 197 entries to date, it looks like about 30k this year. That more than most CYCC's raise.

As I scan the CYCC registered players, I see only 9 players from Quebec. Felix, can you tell me where are all the Quebec kids? Is youth chess not a priority in Quebec?

As for your motion, I will vote NO. We struggle every year to secure organizers for the CYCC. Adding additional burdens on organizers is not wise. If we ever get competing bids, then they could sweeten the pot with additional goodies. But until then, forget it.

Most parents feel insulted by the format ( 6 rounds, huge entry fee, a first prize that only covers half of the travel costs and huge profit on the back of the kids). There is already 3 times more player registered for the NAYCC, even though it's further and in August. I have no doubt the CYCC could get at least 75 players from Quebec if it stopped being a tournament only for rich kids.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I liked-disliked the original motion. Champions should be praised - and there should be no exceptions (like 50 km). Therefore I moved to split the motion to two.

I'll support the (1) free entry, but NOT (2).

[Félix Dumont]

Egis, the idea is that there would be no point in offering free accommodation for a player if the tournament is in his hometown... That said, I still support spliting the motions, but I don't know what happenned with it.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Egis, the idea is that there would be no point in offering free accommodation for a player if the tournament is in his hometown... That said, I still support spliting the motions, but I don't know what happenned with it.

Where I live a 50-km gives you many many towns and cities.

I assume President and Secretary should take care of motions, as in the normal meeting.

[Lyle Craver]

I am unclear why it was necessary to say the President and Secretary should take of motions. After all the President has the right (subject to appeal) to rule any motion in or out of order as well as to certify whether a motion is or is not a constitutional amendment while the Secretary posts all motions received and conducts the vote. Beyond that I routinely e-mail the President when I am doubtful about whether a motion is in/out of order or a constitutional change usually giving my recommendation which by no means is always followed.

Seems to me that if you support the intent of a particular motion you vote FOR it and if you don't then you vote AGAINST it.

To me I'm stating the obvious and thus I'm confused about Mr. Z's point.

Speaking personally I have not yet decided how I will vote on this motion.

[Les Bunning]

Unfortunately Felix Dumont has his facts wrong. The CYCC entry fee is mandated by by CFC rules. First prize will cover the cost of winners travelling to the WYCC not 50% as indicated be Felix. As organisers of this years CYCC we decided to run the event as 6 rounds plus playoffs so the extra day could be used for fun chess events for the kids. We believe that this will be more welcome to most of the kids but we will conduct a survey to see what they would prefer for future events. The entry fee is only a small part of the cost of sending a youth to ottawa for 4 days. Accordingly felix's comment about rich kids seems inaccurate.
With respect to the motion if some players do not have to pay the entry fee it will reduce the money available to fund travel to the WYCC. Few organisers will commit to providing free accomodation for some of the participants.
Les Bunning

[Félix Dumont]

First prize will cover the cost of winners travelling to the WYCC not 50% as indicated be Felix.
With a flight that cost in average $4000 at that time of the year, I really hope there will be a lot of participants this year, otherwise the first prize will never cover the full cost of the flight. I've talked with a few past winners, and their first prize never managed to cover all of the flight (even though it was more around $2000 when they won).

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Unfortunately Felix Dumont has his facts wrong. The CYCC entry fee is mandated by by CFC rules. First prize will cover the cost of winners travelling to the WYCC not 50% as indicated be Felix. As organisers of this years CYCC we decided to run the event as 6 rounds plus playoffs so the extra day could be used for fun chess events for the kids. We believe that this will be more welcome to most of the kids but we will conduct a survey to see what they would prefer for future events. The entry fee is only a small part of the cost of sending a youth to ottawa for 4 days. Accordingly felix's comment about rich kids seems inaccurate.
With respect to the motion if some players do not have to pay the entry fee it will reduce the money available to fund travel to the WYCC. Few organisers will commit to providing free accomodation for some of the participants.
Les Bunning

My understanding is that the winners get $1000 towards travel to the WYCC plus designation as official representatives which entitles them to free accommodation and food in normal years. This year everyone gets free accommodation and food at the WYCC from the United Arab Emirates hosts.

[Félix Dumont]

Also, this year's CYCC is heading for over 260 participants.
This means that the organizer will have $20 000 plus all the money from sponsors to cover its expenses* . I hardly see how we can't fit $3000 in that to make it a true national championship.


*i.e. Canadian Open

[Michael Barron]

Unfortunately Felix Dumont has his facts wrong...
Les Bunning

Les, you could easily prove it - please post your budget here.
It's not a secret, isn't it? ;)

[Les Bunning]

My understanding is that the winners get $1000 towards travel to the WYCC plus designation as official representatives which entitles them to free accommodation and food in normal years. This year everyone gets free accommodation and food at the WYCC from the United Arab Emirates hosts.

Last years event may have only contributed $1000, this was because it was the only bid and the governors accepted the bid instead of insisting on the usual rules which say that $150 of the entry fee is to fund the cost of travel to the WYCC. We are confident that the $150 per player that we are collecting and will be given to the CFC will be sufficient to pay travel for the whole team especially as the airfare for that time period from Toronto is approximately $1500 per person. About a year ago I chaired a committee which looked into this whole matter. Perhaps somebody with grater technical skills than I can find this report and post it here.
Les Bunning
Les Bunning

[Félix Dumont]

The FQE has some discounts for flights, so when it was time to decide between sending kids to the NAYCC or the WYCC, we went to our travel agency (non-profit organization) and asked them how much the flight would cost at that time of the year. Their answer was that it would cost between $3000 and $4000 if booked in advanced, but could be more expensive at the last minute. There are some ways to save money by having stops in Africa then taking a cheap flight with an unknown company (and for a total time of about 30 hours), but I wouldn't recommend that for kids.

I would be really extremely happy to be wrong, but a quick glance on Expedia and many companies seem to confirm this (actually most flights cost between $4000 and $5000).

[Les Bunning]

The FQE has some discounts for flights, so when it was time to decide between sending kids to the NAYCC or the WYCC, we went to our travel agency (non-profit organization) and asked them how much the flight would cost at that time of the year. Their answer was that it would cost between $3000 and $4000 if booked in advanced, but could be more expensive at the last minute. There are some ways to save money by having stops in Africa then taking a cheap flight with an unknown company (and for a total time of about 30 hours), but I wouldn't recommend that for kids.

I would be really extremely happy to be wrong, but a quick glance on Expedia and many companies seem to confirm this (actually most flights cost between $4000 and $5000).

The WYCC is being held in Al AIN U.A.R. which is about 60 miles from Dubai. It is being held Dec17 to Dec 29. Expedia .ca shows the current airfare from Toronto to Dubai , by British Airways changing in London England , leaving Toronto Dec 15 and returning from Dubai on Dec 30 as $1,086 return.
Les Bunning

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I am unclear why it was necessary to say the President and Secretary should take of motions. After all the President has the right (subject to appeal) to rule any motion in or out of order as well as to certify whether a motion is or is not a constitutional amendment while the Secretary posts all motions received and conducts the vote. Beyond that I routinely e-mail the President when I am doubtful about whether a motion is in/out of order or a constitutional change usually giving my recommendation which by no means is always followed.

Seems to me that if you support the intent of a particular motion you vote FOR it and if you don't then you vote AGAINST it.

To me I'm stating the obvious and thus I'm confused about Mr. Z's point.


It was my answer to the F.D. question: "...but I don't know what happenned with it. ". and I assumed that the F.D. question was due to lack of any response from President/Sectretary smth like "thnx, we noted your motion".

[Ellen Nadeau]

I believe it is detrimental to organizers to force offering free entry and lodging to previous champions. It can be difficult to get organizers on board already and these motions may make it harder. As Félix, I believe it is imperative to put all monies raised at CYCC back into youth chess(WYCC, Youth fund...)
Ellen

[Christopher Mallon]

There is no way here to make one rule that can apply equally well to all possible situations.

The current rule is, in my opinion, a fine balance between protecting the CFC/Champions and protecting the organizer.

So what if it happens once in a while that some of the CYCC entry fees get spent on an attached event. The organizer would be within their rights to just pay themselves that money, would you prefer they did that? The same rule that allows them to do that allows a smaller or more out-of-the-way city to actually have a chance at running a CYCC without a massive potential loss.

[Félix Dumont]

There is no way here to make one rule that can apply equally well to all possible situations.

The current rule is, in my opinion, a fine balance between protecting the CFC/Champions and protecting the organizer.

So what if it happens once in a while that some of the CYCC entry fees get spent on an attached event. The organizer would be within their rights to just pay themselves that money, would you prefer they did that? The same rule that allows them to do that allows a smaller or more out-of-the-way city to actually have a chance at running a CYCC without a massive potential loss.

What I prefer is to have honest organizers that care about the youth. Obviously, some organizers could keep the surplus as a salary, but this is even worse.
How much does it cost to run a 6 rounds CYCC? $6000? $10 000 if we are really generous? Now, this means that at least $10 000 will disappear from youth chess. This money would have been enough to launch a national coaching program! Instead what? It's used to pay foreign GMs. Yes, it could have been worse. But it's still incredibly frustrating for those who actually try to help the youth.

More than how much the WYCC costs or how many rounds the CYCC has, this is the real problem at this point. Kids are used to make money so other tournaments can be organized. And after that people wonder why we have so much troubles having a decent youth program.

I understand the lodging can be hard. But there's no way organizers can't even afford free entry fees for winners (most of which wouldn't have participated anyway!). By the way, the motion was indeed separated into two different motions (entry fees and lodging).

[Les Bunning]

$150 of each entry fee goes to the CFC to finance the team to the WYCC. $75 goes to the organisers to run the event. Of this $75 about $25 is our cost for each competitor who will each receive a Tee shirt and a commemerative medal. There will be medals for the top 3 players in each category and a trophy for the winner in each category. Our break even point is about 200 players. Based on current enrollment we expect to receive about 250 players. This will give us a surplus of approximately $2,500. We may be able to spend this on additional events at the CYCC but if not we will decide what to do with it after the event is over. In 2007 when we had substantial sponsorship $ we gave over $40,000 to the CFC youth program. Unfortunately this year there is very little sponsorship money.
Les Bunning

[Michael Barron]

$150 of each entry fee goes to the CFC to finance the team to the WYCC. $75 goes to the organisers to run the event. Of this $75 about $25 is our cost for each competitor who will each receive a Tee shirt and a commemerative medal. There will be medals for the top 3 players in each category and a trophy for the winner in each category. Our break even point is about 200 players. Based on current enrollment we expect to receive about 250 players. This will give us a surplus of approximately $2,500. We may be able to spend this on additional events at the CYCC but if not we will decide what to do with it after the event is over. In 2007 when we had substantial sponsorship $ we gave over $40,000 to the CFC youth program. Unfortunately this year there is very little sponsorship money.
Les Bunning

Thank you, Les, for clarification!

So, we all agree that CYCC will have a surplus this year.
The question is: How you're going to spend it?

I believe, it's not too late to have a seventh round on Saturday morning.
Looking on the pre-registered list, I see some sections with 7 and 8 players.
How they will play?
In a 6-round Swiss?

[Félix Dumont]

$150 of each entry fee goes to the CFC to finance the team to the WYCC. $75 goes to the organisers to run the event. Of this $75 about $25 is our cost for each competitor who will each receive a Tee shirt and a commemerative medal. There will be medals for the top 3 players in each category and a trophy for the winner in each category. Our break even point is about 200 players. Based on current enrollment we expect to receive about 250 players. This will give us a surplus of approximately $2,500. We may be able to spend this on additional events at the CYCC but if not we will decide what to do with it after the event is over. In 2007 when we had substantial sponsorship $ we gave over $40,000 to the CFC youth program. Unfortunately this year there is very little sponsorship money.
Les Bunning
These most be very, very nice medals for $25 per person (!). One can easily find customized t-shirts for about $5 per participant (especially for kids). Customized medals very often cost less, but I guess these are made of precious metal :)

I won't be convinced until I see the final budget and how it really required $15 000 to run the event (unless it covers many shared expenses of the CO, like the venue and the arbiters). It costs much less to run a tournament like the Quebec Open, which is on 8 days, has more participants, many side events and lots of non-paying participants.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

These most be very, very nice medals for $25 per person (!). One can easily find customized t-shirts for about $5 per participant (especially for kids). Customized medals very often cost less, but I guess these are made of precious metal :)

I won't be convinced until I see the final budget and how it really required $15 000 to run the event (unless it covers many shared expenses of the CO, like the venue and the arbiters). It costs much less to run a tournament like the Quebec Open, which is on 8 days, has more participants, many side events and lots of non-paying participants.

The expenses are very different in different cities. One reason that they had such a surplus two years ago in Thornhill was because they got some sponsorship and they had a hotel which gave them a free playing venue if the hotel rooms reserved reached a certain critical number. Windsor had certain breaks in the rent on their tournament room rental but the reservations did not come anywhere near reaching the level which would have significantly reduced the cost. The people who make out like bandits at CYCC are not the organizers but rather the hotels. If we could use this fact to our advantage maybe we could put on less expensive CYCC's which don't require such significant investments on the part of the kids and parents.

[Michael Barron]

One reason that they had such a surplus two years ago in Thornhill was because they got some sponsorship and they had a hotel which gave them a free playing venue if the hotel rooms reserved reached a certain critical number.

And one reason that they reached this critical number was because they provided free entry for some players and discounted entry for other players.

[Edward Porper]

The expenses are very different in different cities. One reason that they had such a surplus two years ago in Thornhill was because they got some sponsorship and they had a hotel which gave them a free playing venue if the hotel rooms reserved reached a certain critical number. Windsor had certain breaks in the rent on their tournament room rental but the reservations did not come anywhere near reaching the level which would have significantly reduced the cost. The people who make out like bandits at CYCC are not the organizers but rather the hotels. If we could use this fact to our advantage maybe we could put on less expensive CYCC's which don't require such significant investments on the part of the kids and parents.

I still fail to understand why the organizers couldn't try to lodge the current champions with local families?
A typical win-win situation as everybody profits in that or other way.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

I find this whole discussion totally disconnected from what the CFC is facing. There are no bids for 2014 CYCC [a cannot miss money maker!!] or the 2014 CO [a challenging task] for this meeting to consider.

The movers of this motion did not provide any cost estimate for this proposal. On that basis I ask the Chair, on a point of order, to defer the motion to the next meeting. I do not think the discussion of the proposal helped much to clarify those costs.

Those running CYCCs & COs in recent years have been at break-even or have lost money. We do not need to add mandatory costs to CYCCs because we have a huge lineup of organizers bidding on them.

[Paul Leblanc]

If Ottawa makes a small profit, I believe they have the right to decide what to do with it and I don't even want to know.
After all, they did all the work and assumed all the risk.

[Félix Dumont]

I did provide an estimate cost.

This is not at all the realistic cost.
1) winners of the U18 will most likely be too old, so we are talking about 10 players.
Let's say 8 decide to play, including 2 that live in the area and 4 that would have played anyway.
The cost for the organizer is then of $75x 4 + 400x6=2700 $. Organizers can definitely afford it and it might even attract more players. We need to take such decisions if we want truly national championships and not only money-maker tournaments that are used to finance the Canadian Open.

The CO does often create a deficit, not the CYCC. The CYCC in Toronto had a profit of nearly $20 000, even by having enormous expenses.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Paul:

I think the issue some governors are concerned about is the tying of the CYCC to the CO.

If expenses are to be shared by both tournaments, then the CYCC share should show on its financial records, and be paid over to the CO organizers if they are the ones paying the common bills.

But if the CYCC, after paying common expenses, and its own expenses, generates a profit, what then??

Our bid from the Ottawa group committed CFC to the position that any profit goes to the CYCC organizers, to do with it what they want. In past years, Ottawa organizers have donated it to the CFC "for youth chess". This year, if I have understood the organizers correctly, they anticipate having to use some/all of that profit by giving it to the CO organizers, to help them pay their costs. If the CO turns a profit, then the organizers get it.

What some governors want is that CFC not agree to this in future. The finances of the CYCC shall be kept separate from CO finances (and CYCC will pay its share of common expenses). Then the question is whether the organizers must hand over any CYCC profit (aside from money due CFC for prizes) to the CFC for a "Youth Fund". Is this better than it going to the CO organizers to subsidize the CO?? Or better than it just going to the CYCC organizers? Or are the CYCC organizers entitled to all profit ?- they took the risk.

The governors need to decide a policy on this. Then they have to bite the bullet and decide what to do , when organizers don't follow this policy in their bids.

Bob A

[Félix Dumont]

What some governors want is that CFC not agree to this in future. The finances of the CYCC shall be kept separate from CO finances (and CYCC will pay its share of common expenses). Then the question is whether the organizers must hand over any CYCC profit (aside from money due CFC for prizes) to the CFC for a "Youth Fund". Is this better than it going to the CO organizers to subsidize the CO?? Or better than it just going to the CYCC organizers? Or are the CYCC organizers entitled to all profit ?- they took the risk.

The governors need to decide a policy on this. Then they have to bite the bullet and decide what to do , when organizers don't follow this policy in their bids.

Bob A

This is exactly what I am thinking. However, I was afraid that a policy on the bids would simply not work. The answer I keep getting, when I ask to the bidders, is the same : if we are not allowed to make a profit, what prevents us from paying ourselves a salary of the amount of the profit? Although it shows an incredibly bad faith (and lack of respect for the players), it's true. We'll never be able to really watch all the expenses. If they don't pay themselves a salary, they could also say that sending the flyers cost $3000 (while we all know it should cost a few hundred dollars, maximum), and we would hardly be able to verify.

As an organizer, I know it can be annoying to have more requirements (like free entries). But in absence of a better way to prevent organizers from making money on the back of kids, I find it better than nothing.

[Bob Gillanders]

This is exactly what I am thinking. However, I was afraid that a policy on the bids would simply not work. The answer I keep getting, when I ask to the bidders, is the same : if we are not allowed to make a profit, what prevents us from paying ourselves a salary of the amount of the profit? Although it shows an incredibly bad faith (and lack of respect for the players), it's true. We'll never be able to really watch all the expenses. If they don't pay themselves a salary, they could also say that sending the flyers cost $3000 (while we all know it should cost a few hundred dollars, maximum), and we would hardly be able to verify.

As an organizer, I know it can be annoying to have more requirements (like free entries). But in absence of a better way to prevent organizers from making money on the back of kids, I find it better than nothing.

So, Felix. I think this post is very revealing on your thoughts towards organizers.
Just to clarify, correct me if I am wrong, you believe that tournament organizers should receive absolutely nothing for their efforts. No salary, no fees, no profits, whatsoever. Is this your position?

[Félix Dumont]

Yes, this is my position. National tournaments should be organized by volunteers. Organizers are free to organize other tournaments or clubs and to make money if they want to, but national tournaments should not be used to make money. I have organized lots of tournaments, and never had a salary or a profit. I probably spend over 20 hours every week volunteering for different organizations, clubs and projects. Still, I never asked for anything (and actually pretty often donated money, but this is another thing).

Please note that I didn't accuse anyone of ''stealing'' money. I just say that if we force organizers to give back all the profit, then such a thing might happen.

[Bob Gillanders]

Okay Felix, thanks for the clarification.
My position is that all organizers should be allowed to bid on national tournaments. Personally, I feel it is completely reasonable for organizers to be compensated for their efforts. How much?, well I guess we need to let the market decide. The current system provides for the CFC to set minimum standards, and since we often have only one bidder, the minimums are sometimes negotiated. I don't think the alternative of not having a tournament is a good solution, but some of you disagree.

Until and if we ever get some healthy competition for national tournaments, I will vote against raising minimum standards.

[Garland Best]

I would agree. If the persons bidding on the various tournaments include some amount to be included as profit or salary to themselves, then it's fine as long as it is open and accounted for in the proposals. Maybe some stipulation that the the bidder sets a maximum amount in his bid and that profits in excess of the cap go towards the youth program somehow, but that is all I would consider necessary. It's entirely likely that without this we will not get bidders on different tournaments.

[Félix Dumont]

A couple of years ago, it was common for organizers in Quebec to have small salaries. However, new people arrived and the situation changed. Volunteers tend to be much more efficient, as they do not count their hours and are truly dedicated to their tournament. As a result, we have at least 5 or 6 weekenders in Quebec with a guaranteed prize fund over $5000 (there was only one only 5 years ago), while entry fees are still at about $50 in average. Salaries simply seem to kill organized chess...

[Paul Leblanc]

I'm with Bob Gillanders completely on this issue. Those who step forward, do the work and assume the risk should be entitled to decide entirely on their own what to do with any profits unless of course they have signed a contract that states otherwise. If they re-direct any profits to make another tournament a success, that's even better.

[Edward Porper]

I'm with Bob Gillanders completely on this issue. Those who step forward, do the work and assume the risk should be entitled to decide entirely on their own what to do with any profits unless of course they have signed a contract that states otherwise. If they re-direct any profits to make another tournament a success, that's even better.

Paul, the gist of the motion has nothing to do with looking into the organizers' pockets and binding their hands.
As far as I am concerned, let them be rewarded for their hard work, indeed.
BUT, shouldn't the same be true regarding the kids who manage to win such an important event? Shouldn't their talent and hard work be rewarded - and NOT symbolically (like covering _some_ of their expenses towards the WYCC - and this _some_ is even less if we consider that younger kids would normally travel with a parent)? Don't you agree that if our message is "You are essentially on your own - win or lose - the incentive to stay in chess will evaporate in a blink? Do we want to stick to the same policies and lose more and more Bluvshteins to Canadian chess?!
It all starts with little things like this lack of distinction for winners...

[Bob Armstrong]

If they re-direct any profits to make another tournament a success, that's even better.

Hi Paul:

Do you hold this re CYCC's that generate profit? The organizers just have to remit the required prize money to CFC, and the rest should be theirs, to do with what they wish?

The concern I hear from parents of youth players, is that the registration fees are higher than required and they are being ripped off. The profit is substantial (look at Ottawa 2007), and beyond that required for reasonable organizer and arbiter salaries, and payment of all other expenses. In addition, families feel taken advantage of, because they have high accomodation, travel and meal costs, since youth players need parent/adult accompanyment, driving up their total costs. Given their total expenses to have their children play chess, is it not fair that at least the CYCC not make a profit (beyond expenses, organizer and arbiter salaries, and amount owing to CFC for prizes)?

Is it necessary to get organizers, that they not only be paid, but make a profit, on a National Championship for Youth?

And if there is a profit beyond all expenses/prize money, including organizer/arbiter salaries, is there any legitimate claim of youth/youth parents, that it be somehow used for future youth chess promotion by the CFC?

Bob A

[Félix Dumont]

I get the same kind of complaints every year... Parents are extremely upset about the entry fees and the profit made... At least, some years the profit is given back (like Toronto 2011 where $18 000 was given back)... If it was a normal tournament, then they would simply laugh and not pay attention to it anymore... However, since it's the way to send their kid to the WYCC, they feel like they don't have the choice, but are still being abused. In the end, they still register, but see the CFC as an organization that only wants to make money on their back (although it's more the organizers). Such a bad publicity is extremely damageable for the CFC.

[Garvin Nunes]

Felix,

You have expressed many aspirations for junior players in this thread that I agree with but its unclear to me how your motion supports these aspirations.

If you create a situation where the organizers are force to take in less money don't we simply have less money for plane tickets and so on? (Its not just their profits you reduce!)

(Let me suggest that your motion would basically put the focus on previous winners going to the CYCC, and the WYCC would become less important...because we would have less money to send people to it...but maybe that's your point - to put the focus on the cycc?)

The motion isn't in a direct way micromanaging the organizer to have lower entry fees or cheaper plane tickets, rather its focusing on the previous years winners. Why are they more important than lower entree fees or cheaper plane tickets etc. Would you be willing to have free entree fees for last year's winners while others pay 500 dollars for example?

I think when you sit down and try to balance fund raising for plane tickets (which is what I personally see as the primary goal of the cycc) vs high entry fees (needed to fund everything) its not so easy to figure out a formula that's going to balance these principles in a satisfactory way. Does the focus on last year's winners somehow do that for you? If so please explain how it does.

And it's not clear to me how your motion, which reduces income, will do this better than the current handbook formula. (But I invite you to explain how it will.)

[Félix Dumont]

First, I'd like to say the loss for the WYCC tickets is very small. If 5 players would have participated anyway, then we talk of $750. On a $20000-$30000 amount allocated to the WYCC, it's definitely not much.

The goal is :
1) Offer more than just the WYCC flight for the winner. Free entry and/or free accomodation (since the motions are separated) is a nice addition, and might even bring more players.
2) Most players I know don't have the financial means to participate every year. Even those who win will most likely not come the year after (a good example is Olivier Kenta Chiku-Ratté, who won the 2011 CYCC 1.5 ahead of everybody, but didn't play at the 2012 CYCC and might not even play at the 2013 CYCC). I'm sure he would have played in the 2012 CYCC if he had won free lodging, and he would have had good chances to win. Instead, he simply didn't play. Those who win the CYCC are most likely among the best kids in their age, so they have great chances of winning it the year after.

A good example of free lodging is the 2012 Canadian Junior (in Toronto). Many players that would not have played in the event were there because of this (which is of course not that much compared to the overall cost).

I understand it can be annoying to force the organizers, but sometimes it is necessary. For example, if there is no bid for the CYCC, I'll make a potential budget and present it to the FQE, so we can organize it in Montreal. Now, if at the end I present it with a surplus of $10 000 and tell them we should give it back to the kids, the first thing they will ask me is : what the others do? And if I tell them that others very often keep it or reinvest it in another tournament, I'll have a hard time convincing not to the same... It's the same for all the organizers. Why would they be the ones to suddently complicate their life and offer better conditions? If it's mandatory to give back the money or to lodge the best kids, then they will deal with it and still organize it (and the past CYCCs definitely show that organizers can afford $3000 more in prizes).

[Garland Best]

Ottawa 2007 was a unique event, where we had a person with very good connections realize major sponsorship money. Hence the large "profit". It would be wonderful if we could repeat that, although that money was given over to the CFC and wasted terribly. But I don't see it (a large profit) happening this year, and we cannot expect it to occur every year. Name one group who has stepped up to the plate for 2014.

Quite frankly, if I have a pool of money to work with and my options are to either put as much as it as possible into further reducing costs for player to go to the WYCC or to pay the winners from the previous CYCC to attend this year's CYCC, then I would rather see it go into the WYCC funds. I don't care how large or small that pool of costs are.

And I disagree strongly with Mr. Porper. How can covering the costs (or a very large portion of the costs) for a trip overseas to a World Championship be considered symbolic? That is what these kids are playing for. The right to represent Canada in a world event. I don't think the kids are thinking "I won! This means I can come back next year for free!" The trip to the worlds IS the reward.

[Michael Barron]

I'm with Bob Gillanders completely on this issue. Those who step forward, do the work and assume the risk should be entitled to decide entirely on their own what to do with any profits ...

Does Bob Gillanders really say that? :confused:

"Those who step forward, do the work and assume the risk should be entitled to decide entirely on their own what to do with any profits"

Bob, could you please confirm that? ;)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I find this whole discussion totally disconnected from what the CFC is facing. There are no bids for 2014 CYCC [a cannot miss money maker!!] or the 2014 CO [a challenging task] for this meeting to consider.

The movers of this motion did not provide any cost estimate for this proposal. On that basis I ask the Chair, on a point of order, to defer the motion to the next meeting. I do not think the discussion of the proposal helped much to clarify those costs.

Those running CYCCs & COs in recent years have been at break-even or have lost money. We do not need to add mandatory costs to CYCCs because we have a huge lineup of organizers bidding on them.

Here is a cut and paste of the previous discussion on this very issue on the private governor's forum by myself:
************************************************** ***********************************************
Free entry for 12 kids = $225x12= $2700
Hotel for 12 kids for 4 nights = $500 x 12 = $6000
Total potential extra cost for organizer $8700

I know when John Coleman organized the Windsor CYCC he was looking at a potential loss of around $15,000 or more which was averted by Ontario Government Trillium funding. The funding came through very late in the process and was not certain at any point until he learned his application had been successful. I fear that if this proposal is adopted that only Toronto, Montreal and perhaps Ottawa will be able to afford to bid on this event. In any case I don't think that this could apply to the Ottawa CYCC as it would be rather unfair to apply such a condition so late in the process.

In fact since the organizer gets only $75 from the entry fee the organizer would need an extra 116 entries to pay for this requirement.
************************************************** ************************************************** *********

The movers of this motion have pointed out that a more realistic scenario is that a maximum of ten players might take advantage of this provision in which case the costs of the proposal to the organizer are
Free entry for 10 kids = $225x10= $2250
Hotel for 10 kids for 4 nights = $500 x 10 = $5000
Total potential extra cost for organizer $7250

It is not clear to me that the proposal states that the organizer will no longer be responsible for the CFC portion of the entry fee though the later discussion seems to imply as much. If so, most of the money for the free entries comes out of the funds going to the WYCC fund so the loss to the organizer will be less but this will be offset by reduced money for WYCC players.

Free entry for 10 kids = $75x10= $750 Loss to organizer from reduced entries $750. Loss to WYCC fund $1500.
Hotel for 10 kids for 4 nights = $500 x 10 = $5000
Total potential extra cost for organizer $5750 which requires approximately 77 extra entries for the organizer to cover it. Given that the historical average is somewhere around 158 kids prior to the last two events this would be a significant burden but maybe not that great of a burden if we rotated the event between Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa as I still fear this will do.

The projected costs are going to be quite variable depending on the reasonable assumptions that you apply. I would say that my impression is that the costs would tend to be towards the higher end. I think a prudent person bidding on the event will have to keep the worst case scenario in mind. I don't think the oldest kids always win CYCC in the under 18 group so a more realistic worst case might be 11 kids returning. The question is whether you as an organizer are feeling lucky.

There has been the idea of boarding the winners with families. The problem I see with this is the need to carefully vet each family before you put a child and his family member (since most of these kids travel with a parent) into such a situation. Ninety nine percent of the time there will be no problem but what will we do when that one percent rears its ugly head. I don't know if I want to increase the risk of one child having something bad happen to him or her. You will need police clearances for everyone in the home which also adds to the cost.

I am going to rule that the motion can proceed. I think my cost analysis is realistic for a worst case analysis which will be the one that a prudent group thinking about bidding for a CYCC will consider. The most likely case scenario is that the organizer has to cover about $4500 in costs which requires 60 extra entries to break even which is again a significant cost for organizers in smaller centers.

Our biggest problem is not the plight of the champions but rather the kids who might not have a great shot at first place but who want to go for the experience of playing in a national championship. Once they have done it once the allure of the national championship is somewhat reduced and parents are asking whether they might not be better off playing in two or three less expensive weekend events at the same cost as the CYCC. We have over fifty kids qualified from Windsor or who qualified in Windsor tournaments but we may have only 25 or 30 play when it is all said and done as parents start to do the math. This is especially a burden for families with multiple kids competing.

[Edward Porper]

Ottawa 2007 was a unique event, where we had a person with very good connections realize major sponsorship money. Hence the large "profit". It would be wonderful if we could repeat that, although that money was given over to the CFC and wasted terribly. But I don't see it (a large profit) happening this year, and we cannot expect it to occur every year. Name one group who has stepped up to the plate for 2014.

Quite frankly, if I have a pool of money to work with and my options are to either put as much as it as possible into further reducing costs for player to go to the WYCC or to pay the winners from the previous CYCC to attend this year's CYCC, then I would rather see it go into the WYCC funds. I don't care how large or small that pool of costs are.

And I disagree strongly with Mr. Porpor. How can covering the costs (or a very large portion of the costs) for a trip overseas to a World Championship be considered symbolic? That is what these kids are playing for. The right to represent Canada in a world event. I don't think the kids are thinking "I won! This means I can come back next year for free!" The trip to the worlds IS the reward.

To start with, it's PorpEr, Mr.Best. Wouldn't it be polite if you checked my name before mentioning it? :-)
As for the gist of our disagreement, the right to represent Canada is given to almost anyone who wants to pay for it. That is, if you come 3-4th or so at a CYCC and are ready to cover your own expenses, you can play at the WYCC. If, on the other hand, you are the best but not the richest, and thousands of dollars mean something to you, you stay home. As I mentioned, I spoke to several of our strongest kids, and they weren't interested in coming this year because the tickets to the UAE are MUCH more expensive than what awaits them in case they win.
And in ANY case, the parents have to pay for themselves. If this trip is THE reward, it's a blessing in a very thick disguise!

VLAD, your concern does make sense to me but the probability of this igly head popping out should be extremely small.
I was talking about chess families, well known to the local organizers. The kids would be of a similar age - sure, they would enjoy each other's company for these 4-5 days. And I believe, many local families would be willing to help out.

[Christopher Mallon]

Really? Expensive?

Flights from Canada to UAE are almost cheaper than flights within Canada. A quick search shows round-trip flights from Toronto for $875, $916, $1006 and $1114. From Vancouver, a little more but still only $1000-$1250.

Don't forget the surplus from a CYCC works in both ways. If the organizer is 50 kids past break-even, that is also an extra $7500 in travel money that was not in the original budget.

Adding the potential for needing 60 extra entries (per Vlad's math) to break even on the event, you basically will not see it outside of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, and even a lot of cities in there will pass on it.

[Hal Bond]

I am with Halldor and company on this one. We should not be placing this additional burden on the organizers. We have no bidders for next year!

[Christopher Mallon]

I am with Halldor and company on this one. We should not be placing this additional burden on the organizers. We have no bidders for next year!

Even if we did... bidders could simply ignore this in their bid, say it's not available, and leave the Governors to choose between no event or an event exempt from this rule. So what's the point of having the rule, is it something that's worth having no event over?

[Félix Dumont]

Really? Expensive?

Flights from Canada to UAE are almost cheaper than flights within Canada. A quick search shows round-trip flights from Toronto for $875, $916, $1006 and $1114. From Vancouver, a little more but still only $1000-$1250.

Expedia has nice deals for Canada-UAE, but these do not last very long and have limited seats. Parents will want their kids to be on the same flight as at least some of the coaches/parents (obviously, no parents want to send their kid to Dubai alone)... However, they won't be all able to buy 50 tickets at the same time for the same flight on Expedia (if you look at Canada-UAE flights, they very often disappear after a few minutes). So, the coach might be able to get a nice deal from Expedia, but those that will try to book their ticket on the same flight will probably have to do it directly on the company website. If you look at flights that cost around $1000 on Expedia, you can notice that on the company websites it cost $3000 and above.

[Garland Best]

Apologies for the spelling error. I've edited my post.

Personally, if there are parents willing to spend "thousands of dollars" to send their kids to a WYCC, then it must be a big deal. Furthermore the evidence seems to indicate that the money from the upcoming CYCC will cover the flight costs for the winners of the CYCC. Finally, whether the parents come along is completely their decision. They are the ones that need to decide if their children are being adequately supervised and protected to allow them to travel without their presence. It's no different than deciding if your child is old enough to go to summer camp.

[Bob Gillanders]

Does Bob Gillanders really say that? :confused:

"Those who step forward, do the work and assume the risk should be entitled to decide entirely on their own what to do with any profits"

Bob, could you please confirm that? ;)

Michael, what's the confusion? Those are actually Paul's words to describe my position, but yes, I agree.

[Edward Porper]

Apologies for the spelling error. I've edited my post.

Personally, if there are parents willing to spend "thousands of dollars" to send their kids to a WYCC, then it must be a big deal. Furthermore the evidence seems to indicate that the money from the upcoming CYCC will cover the flight costs for the winners of the CYCC. Finally, whether the parents come along is completely their decision. They are the ones that need to decide if their children are being adequately supervised and protected to allow them to travel without their presence. It's no different than deciding if your child is old enough to go to summer camp.

Apologies accepted.
As for "completely their decision", I don't think we should ignore the realities: about half of our Slovenian delegation were parents who just wouldn't think of letting their younger kids (under 14, at least) go to a foreign country alone. There are alternatives to summer camps but not to WYCCs. Farthermore, I am not sure which _evidence_ you refer to: will the organizers cover the tickets whatever they cost or will they allocate a set total (like 1000$) and hope it's enough?
In any case, do you disagree that as it has been up to now, going to a WYCC is a lossmaking project for any family? And even winning or medalling THERE doesn't relieve the financial burden in any way (including any future rewards like grants, stypends etc).
In other words, in Canada chess is associated with a financial sacrifice rather than a dignified way to make a living at any stage of one's life. Hence Mark Bluvshtein. Hence our 44th place in the world ranking. If we care about chess in Canada we have to change that! Combining respect and additional financial incentives for those who proved themselves at a young age would be a good start.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

There is nothing stopping a CYCC organizer from offering free entries and accommodation to previous winners at CYCC. As Chris has mentioned, if we pass a new rule, future bidders can bypass this requirement by simply opting out of it in their bid. One has to ask if we should be adding requirements to a process where we normally have only one bidder per year.

What I would really like to see is some form of sponsorship which would allow us to reduce the entry fee for everyone at CYCC to something like $75.

[Edward Porper]

There is nothing stopping a CYCC organizer from offering free entries and accommodation to previous winners at CYCC. As Chris has mentioned, if we pass a new rule, future bidders can bypass this requirement by simply opting out of it in their bid. One has to ask if we should be adding requirements to a process where we normally have only one bidder per year.

What I would really like to see is some form of sponsorship which would allow us to reduce the entry fee for everyone at CYCC to something like $75.

Vlad, as long as long as CYCCs are business projects, we can't expect the organizers to volunteer losing profits or accepting losses.
If there is no formal requirement to waive the fee and provide a free lodging, they won't do it.
Of course, sponsorship would be THE solution - both to this particular problem and to our chess programs at large.
The question is, WHY would sponsors consider getting on board? And that's a much broader discussion...

[Garland Best]

Here I for the most part disagree.

1) Yes, supporting your child's trip to a WYCC probably does incur additional expenses for the parent, both monetary and timewise. However so does sending that child to hockey tournaments, or school band trips to Chicago (my son), or Girl Guide jamborees to Oregon (my neice). It's all part of a parent's role to support their children in whatever they excel at. Obviously the parents in last year's continency felt they had to be there with their children. Again that was COMPLETELY their choice, and I can't fault them for their motives or decision. I would probably do the same for my children at 8 years, but not after they were 10. But regardless, if my children were chess players and had the opportunity, I would be doing what I can financially to help. And it would probably amount to hundreds if not thousands on weekly lessons, travelling to weekend tournaments etcetera. It's all part of the job. It's unfortunate that not all parents can afford to support their children in their passions (and I don't mean just chess here). But that is also life in our society.

2) Winning and medaling HERE at the CYCC DOES relieve the financial burden of participating at the WYCC. Perhaps not COMPLETELY, but SUBSTANTIALLY. And if you are good enough to medal there, you should be good enough to win again here the following year.

3) I think the motion in question is on the wrong end anyway. It makes much more sense if the prize for winning a provincal YCC is a subsidy towards attending the CYCC, and that subsidy should be coming from the organizers of the provincal YCC. That is rewarding merit. Not giving someone a free pass because of a previous year's accomplishment.

4) As long as chess is viewed by the general public in North America as a casual pastime (and an eccentric one at that), then it will never be a "dignified way to make a living". it will be one of earning a meager living coaching others and winning weekend swisses. Mark Bluvshtein is not playing chess, not because Canada failed to support him, but because he realized that at the level of play he reached, there were much easier ways to make a better living. Let's face it. Unless you are a Super GM, earnings at chess are small. The CFC cannot fix that by subsidizing players, nor can it afford to. And I'm certain the tournament organizers cannot afford large losses.

5) If you were organizing the WYCC, could you afford to cover all expenses to the WYCC whatever the costs if that meant you were out of pocket by thousands if not tens of thousands? I don't think so.

Given the size of the contingency we send each year, I have to believe that the support provided to date has been of an adequate level. Forcing artifical restrictions on the current organizers will not improve matters.

[Garland Best]

Vlad, as long as long as CYCCs are business projects, we can't expect the organizers to volunteer losing profits or accepting losses.

We can't expect organizers to volunteer accepting losses, period. There are no rich philantrophists out there volunteering to lose thousands of dollars for Chess in Canada. All you can ask of them is to volunteer their time and effort, no more.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I'll move that the motion is split in TWO.

1. The organizer shall provide free entry to winners of each category of the previous CYCC.
2. The organizer shall provide free accommodation to winners of each category of the previous CYCC as long as they reside no closer than 50 km of the venue.

Why was this amendment ignored? It was seconded in the next post by F.Dumont.

[Félix Dumont]

Why was this amendment ignored? It was seconded in the next post by F.Dumont.

It was mentionned in the schedule that the motion was indeed split. I believe Lyle simply forgot.

[Michael Barron]

Michael, what's the confusion? Those are actually Paul's words to describe my position, but yes, I agree.

Bob, the confusion came from my experience dealing with you in 2011.
When CYCC organizers wanted to do exactly that - to decide on their own what to do with the profit - you made a big issue of it.

Could you please clarify:
Did you change your position since 2011 ?

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, the confusion came from my experience dealing with you in 2011.
When CYCC organizers wanted to do exactly that - to decide on their own what to do with the profit - you made a big issue of it.

Could you please clarify:
Did you change your position since 2011 ?
Michael, there is a fundamental difference between 2011 and 2013. The Richmond Hill CYCC 2011 bid document contained a commitment that any surpluses would be used to fund our representatives at the WYCC, PanAm games, and NAYCC. Instead the organizers’ planned to distribute the surplus funds amongst the winners of the CYCC. This was clearly not consistent with their bid document. Consequently, I acted quickly to block the distribution of cash prizes to protect the CFC Youth Fund.

The Ottawa CYCC 2013 bid does not contain any commitment regarding use of any surplus funds. They have confirmed their commitment of $150 per player to the CFC Youth Fund as per their bid document and in accordance with the handbook. Based on their estimate of 250 players, the CFC Youth fund will receive $37,500. This will satisfy fully their commitment to the CFC Youth fund. If they decide to send more, great!

Again, I would like to thank the Richmond Hill crew of 2011, despite differences amongst the ranks; they were able to stage a very successful event. It is regretful that my actions managed to step on a few toes, however I do stand by my actions. It is fortunate that Michael and Victor were about to work out an acceptable solution which I did support.

[Michael Barron]

Michael, there is a fundamental difference between 2011 and 2013. The Richmond Hill CYCC 2011 bid document contained a commitment that any surpluses would be used to fund our representatives at the WYCC, PanAm games, and NAYCC. Instead the organizers’ planned to distribute the surplus funds amongst the winners of the CYCC. This was clearly not consistent with their bid document. Consequently, I acted quickly to block the distribution of cash prizes to protect the CFC Youth Fund.

The Ottawa CYCC 2013 bid does not contain any commitment regarding use of any surplus funds. They have confirmed their commitment of $150 per player to the CFC Youth Fund as per their bid document and in accordance with the handbook. Based on their estimate of 250 players, the CFC Youth fund will receive $37,500. This will satisfy fully their commitment to the CFC Youth fund. If they decide to send more, great!

Again, I would like to thank the Richmond Hill crew of 2011, despite differences amongst the ranks; they were able to stage a very successful event. It is regretful that my actions managed to step on a few toes, however I do stand by my actions. It is fortunate that Michael and Victor were about to work out an acceptable solution which I did support.

Bob, I would think, "our representatives at the WYCC, PanAm games, and NAYCC" and "winners of the CYCC" are essentially the same players.
Anyways, you "managed to step on a few toes" and alienated "the Richmond Hill crew", damaged CFC's reputation and discouraged prospective organizers... :(
It's a big loss for the CFC - much greater that the whole surplus of CYCC 2011.
The result we see today - how many bids we have for 2014 events?

But I don't want to discuss past issues that we can't fix now in any case.
More interesting is a message that you're sending to prospective organizers:
"Don't mention any surplus in your bid. If you do so, you will be forced to send all your surplus to the CFC, even if you work as volunteers and don't include any salaries in the event expenses."

Is it really what you want to say?

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, I would think, "our representatives at the WYCC, PanAm games, and NAYCC" and "winners of the CYCC" are essentially the same players.


No Michael, they are not the same players, essentially or otherwise. The fundraising aspect of the CYCC is to raise funds to send players to the WYCC, PanAms, NAYCC. I have no issue with cash prizes to winners of the CYCC, unless of course it is with money that has been promised to the CFC Youth Fund. I do acknowledge that to my surprise, subsequent discussions did reveal that not everyone had the same interpretation of those said clauses in the bid, but that's beside the point. There was never any mention of any cash prizes for CYCC winners, and to the best of my knowledge, there never had been before.

[Bob Gillanders]

Anyways, you "managed to step on a few toes" and alienated "the Richmond Hill crew", damaged CFC's reputation and discouraged prospective organizers... :(
It's a big loss for the CFC - much greater that the whole surplus of CYCC 2011.
The result we see today - how many bids we have for 2014 events?


And yet the event just keeping growing!
As for the number of bids this year, same as always, zero or one.

[Bob Gillanders]

But I don't want to discuss past issues that we can't fix now in any case.


And yet here you are, trying to layoff all the blame for 2011 at my feet.
Excuse me Michael, but you were the Youth Coordinator at the time. You claimed sometime later that you had everything under control, yet the organizing committee was in mutiny. Did you advise me of any problems? No, you kept me in the dark. First I hear of any problems is an email from the chief organizer that 40k is missing. Shall I continue?

[Bob Gillanders]

More interesting is a message that you're sending to prospective organizers:
"Don't mention any surplus in your bid. If you do so, you will be forced to send all your surplus to the CFC, even if you work as volunteers and don't include any salaries in the event expenses."


Here is the message I want to send:

Organizers should honour their commitments. But if that becomes problematic, talk to the CFC executive. They are reasonable people and willing to help find a solution. Nobody wants to punish the organizers.
If you want to keep the surplus or use it elsewhere, okay. Just don't say otherwise in the bid document.
If you want to include salaries in event expenses, that is okay with me.
If you want to work on a strictly volunteer basis, that is okay with me too.

Michael, are we clear?

[Bob Gillanders]

Is it really what you want to say?

Michael, is that really what you wanted to say?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Lets try to keep the discussion focused on the current motion and the issues that surround it. Looking back on decisions and situations from two years ago does not help move us forward. Decisions were made and we live with the consequences of our decisions. Revisiting these decisions will change nothing and can be likened to picking at scabs. Its not generally a good idea as it can lead to scars and infections. Lets try to move forward and make the best decisions right now so that there will be no urge to second guess them later.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Lets try to keep the discussion focused on the current motion

Thus what was your decision regarding the amendment?

[Michael Barron]

Here is the message I want to send:

Organizers should honour their commitments. But if that becomes problematic, talk to the CFC executive. They are reasonable people and willing to help find a solution. Nobody wants to punish the organizers.
If you want to keep the surplus or use it elsewhere, okay. Just don't say otherwise in the bid document.
If you want to include salaries in event expenses, that is okay with me.
If you want to work on a strictly volunteer basis, that is okay with me too.

Michael, are we clear?

Thank you, Bob!
Yes, we're clear now. :)

My point is:
In 2011 you insisted that CFC knows better how to spend CYCC surplus and demanded all surplus to be sent to the CFC.
Now you say: "If you want to keep the surplus or use it elsewhere, okay."
Nice to know that you have changed your position. :cool:

I just couldn't believe my eyes - that's why I asked for clarification. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Thus what was your decision regarding the amendment?

I believe that it was a valid amendment. We should have voted on the amended motion. We may have to revisit this in order for the amended motion to be considered. It would be good if we could deal with it at this meeting.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thank you, Bob!
Yes, we're clear now. :)

My point is:
In 2011 you insisted that CFC knows better how to spend CYCC surplus and demanded all surplus to be sent to the CFC.
Now you say: "If you want to keep the surplus or use it elsewhere, okay."
Nice to know that you have changed your position. :cool:

I just couldn't believe my eyes - that's why I asked for clarification. :rolleyes:

Michael, what I have said regarding my position gives a more accurate characterization that what you have said. :)

[Lyle Craver]

OK at this point I've re-read everything yet again and believe I understand the complaints concerning splitting the motion.

If the president wishes to give direction that's his prerogative though I do feel strongly that if a new vote is to be held on this it needs to be a conditional vote - since I can easily see someone supporting the first only if the second is passed and vice versa.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

OK at this point I've re-read everything yet again and believe I understand the complaints concerning splitting the motion.

If the president wishes to give direction that's his prerogative though I do feel strongly that if a new vote is to be held on this it needs to be a conditional vote - since I can easily see someone supporting the first only if the second is passed and vice versa.

Is it possible to still deal with the split motion at this meeting? That would be my preference though the meeting is supposed to end today. Otherwise we will need an additional meeting on this topic in the next little while. It seems to me we should go with a simple split motion as that was suggested originally but I have no problem with a conditional vote either. So option one is A. Option two is B. Option three is A if B. Option four is B if A. Option five (A and B) looks like it has been defeated so can be omitted.

[Lyle Craver]

If that is your wish that's fine. What is to be the period of voting?

I'm not sure logically we can do both options 3 and 4 together since the conditional necessarily means based on the initial count and it's quite possible based on some conditional votes the balance could change. I suggest a voting closing of July 2 at 6 ET - does that work for you?

If the votes were hypothetically 11-9 one way and 11-9 the other way on the other vote and there were 4 conditional votes...

However I am willing to put the ballot as you requested and hope for the best.

You are correct in your thinking on option 5 - it was 21 Y, 2 N with 2 Abstentions. (Full report to follow momentarily

[Lyle Craver]

On consideration a conditional poll makes no sense at all since it allows ONLY for Yes or No responses and Abstentions are a perfectly valid vote.

10.B.1 'The organizer shall provide free entry to winners of each category of the previous CYCC"

10.B.2 "The organizer shall provide free accommodation as long as they reside no closer than 50 km of the venue.''

There seems to me to be two votes here reasonable as allowing a conditional vote on either mathematically runs the risk of a contradiction:

1. Vote Yes, No or Abstain to 10.B.1
2. Vote Yes, No or Abstain to 10.B.2

It seems to me that 10.B.1 -and- 10.B.2 have already been voted down BUT a re-vote is certainly allowed and if we need a motion to reconsider 10.B with an eye to splitting it and re-voting I'll move that in the interests of expediting what has already been a very long meeting.

Mr President do you agree to this? If so please bless this and designate a poll closing time. Our usual poll closing times are 6pm ET so I would suggest 6pm ET on the 2nd. What is your preference?

I apologize for mis-understanding earlier postings - I've read and re-read and re-read this stuff till my eyes glaze over and I will have things to say on this process when it is done but do not wish to skew the vote.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

On consideration a conditional poll makes no sense at all since it allows ONLY for Yes or No responses and Abstentions are a perfectly valid vote.

10.B.1 'The organizer shall provide free entry to winners of each category of the previous CYCC"

10.B.2 "The organizer shall provide free accommodation as long as they reside no closer than 50 km of the venue.''

There seems to me to be two votes here reasonable as allowing a conditional vote on either mathematically runs the risk of a contradiction:

1. Vote Yes, No or Abstain to 10.B.1
2. Vote Yes, No or Abstain to 10.B.2

It seems to me that 10.B.1 -and- 10.B.2 have already been voted down BUT a re-vote is certainly allowed and if we need a motion to reconsider 10.B with an eye to splitting it and re-voting I'll move that in the interests of expediting what has already been a very long meeting.

Mr President do you agree to this? If so please bless this and designate a poll closing time. Our usual poll closing times are 6pm ET so I would suggest 6pm ET on the 2nd. What is your preference?

I apologize for mis-understanding earlier postings - I've read and re-read and re-read this stuff till my eyes glaze over and I will have things to say on this process when it is done but do not wish to skew the vote.

I agree with this. I think that the original amendment was to split the motion into two. That is what we should be voting on.

[Lyle Craver]

I agree with this. I think that the original amendment was to split the motion into two. That is what we should be voting on.

OK with that in mind I will pose two new voting questions (we can't do it in a single "voting booth" without making it unduly complex" - I await your direction of voting deadline - I have suggested 6 ET July 2nd.

Please send a preferred date if you would prefer something different.

Governors please see new threads for further details.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

OK with that in mind I will pose two new voting questions (we can't do it in a single "voting booth" without making it unduly complex" - I await your direction of voting deadline - I have suggested 6 ET July 2nd.

Please send a preferred date if you would prefer something different.

Governors please see new threads for further details.

Okay lets do it as you suggested. Two voting booths one on each of the two elements of the proposed motion being A) free entry for the previous year's winner in each section and B) free accommodation for the previous year's winner. July 2nd at 6 pm seems like a reasonable deadline. The alternative was to hold another meeting on this topic. We should probably send out an email to the governors informing them since some may have left the meeting.

[Garvin Nunes]

With a flight that cost in average $4000 at that time of the year, I really hope there will be a lot of participants this year, otherwise the first prize will never cover the full cost of the flight. I've talked with a few past winners, and their first prize never managed to cover all of the flight (even though it was more around $2000 when they won).

If the cost of the flight concerns you then why would you put forward a motion to make flights even more unlikely? Which do you prefer? Free entries or paying for flights?

Do you not see that these two principles are in conflict?

I feel its necessary to vote against these motions since you seem very confused about what your priorities are here. (As I suggested in my last post). Do you want the CYCC to give even more help with the flights? Then obviously you should vote against this motion.

I for one favour helping with the flights over free entries/accommodations. Therefore I will be voting against BOTH versions of the motion.

[Félix Dumont]

We are talking of an average loss of about what, $750 on a $30 000 budget for flights? It won't really affect anyone.
The flights aren't always that expensive and if we look at the past years, there should pretty much always be enough money to cover the flights.

More than the cost of the flights, what is really important for me is that all the stronger players participate in this event, which is rarely the case.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I for one favour helping with the flights over free entries/accommodations. Therefore I will be voting against BOTH versions of the motion.

Did you consider to remove some free goodies from these clauses too? LOL

Canadian championship:

"508. Entries:

...The Canadian Champion and Runner-Up shall receive free entry but must advise the CFC Business Office of their intention to play no later than 45 days before the start of the the Canadian Championship or Zonal Tournament...."


Junior
758. Entries:
The Canadian Junior Champion shall receive free entry but must advise the CFC Business Office and organizers of his intention to play no later than 20 days before the start of the Championship....

Thus, Motion 10-B-1 would treat ALL Champions equally with the free entry. That was my intention to split the original motion to separate entries and accommodation/lodging.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Egis:

Too bad you weren't this detailed BEFORE the vote - Part 1 might have gotten through. I like your argument against age discrimination.

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Hi Egis:

Too bad you weren't this detailed BEFORE the vote - Part 1 might have gotten through. I like your argument against age discrimination.

Bob A

Maybe. Probably it might be reintroduce with the same wording as in other championships for the next meeting :)