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

[Bob Armstrong]

Motion 2010-06: CFC Fees

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Gary Gladstone

First-Time CFC Member Introductory Discount

– Section 375 ( Tournament Playing Fee ) of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted. Substituted for it is:

“ 375. An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ). “

Commentary:

The current CFC Handbook section 375 states that there is a tournament playing fee ( TPF ) ( adult - $20; Junior -$ 10 ), that can be used in registering for CFC-rated tournaments, as an alternative to membership.
We propose to eliminate this alternative to membership, and substitute for it a first-time CFC member discount, that will both encourage new players to enter tournaments, and at the same time, make them CFC members.

Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of players, each paying different amounts to support the CFC ( annual member pays $ 36; tournament fee player pays: adult - $ 20; junior - $ 10 ). When tournament memberships were introduced, they were meant as a one-time only thing to encourage first timers to play tournament chess – they were not meant to become a continuous use alternative to membership. It is sometimes now being used by players twice per year, instead of taking out a membership – an adult can play twice and pay $ 40 TPF, whereas the membership in Ontario would be $ 43. But from another point of view, one could say our discount approach is better financially for the TPF player than the current TPF:

1. For the TPF player who plays only 1 tournament per year: An adult now pays $ 20. Under our proposal, it is true he has to pay a bit more – approx. $ 26. But with our method, he becomes a member – he will get the Chess Canada Electronic Newsletter ! And he gets the right to play in an
“ unlimited “ number of tournaments at no extra cost. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( $ 43 ).
2. For the TPF player who plays 2 tournaments per year: he pays $ 40. Under our proposal, he will pay just $ 26, and get the right to play in “ unlimited “ number of tournaments. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( Ont. - $ 43 ).

The figures set out below ( modified ) are from the 1st half 2008-9 financial statements in the 2008/9 GL 3:

Analysis of Membership fees
1st half 2009........ Year 2008
Annual membership fees collected $ 21,060 $ 44,942
Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987
TOTAL $ 22.380 $ 47,929

It shows that in 2007-8, the tournament memberships formed 6.2% of the total collected. In the 1st half 2008-9, they formed 5.9% of the total. Since then the TPF has been doubled. But the issue remains virtually the same. These figures show that the elimination of tournament memberships affects a very small portion of CFC's income. Some organizers have argued that over 2/3 of TPF players will quit tournament chess forever if we substitute our first-time discount for the TPF. We do not believe this.
However, we do not want to lose the tournament membership players. This is the reason for the discount.
But there is an issue of fairness between TPF players and annual membership players. All play in the tournament, and all should equally support the national organization. This is why the Grassroots' Campaign is supporting a substitution for the tournament playing fee.
The above numbers show that the chess world will not cave in if tournament membership fees are eliminated. It will be too bad to lose any players, but the financial effect on the CFC will be minimal. And in future, all will be members of the CFC!
Organizers have advised that the full annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( this will be especially so when tournament memberships have been eliminated ); so the 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty.
Even with the discount, the CFC will be collecting more than it did on tournament membership. Also, this replaces the tournament membership, which originally when introduced was meant to be a one-time only
option.
Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships ( e.g. Quebec ). This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem
warranted, in addition to the first-time discount.

Notes :

1. a motion, brought by Governors Barry Thorvardson and Gary Gladstone, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008, eliminating the tournament membership.
2. a motion, brought by Governors Barry Thorvardson and Gary Gladstone, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008, that a discount such as we are proposing, be instituted.
3. Past CFC President David Lavin stated:
a) in 2008/9 GL # 2: “ On September 15th I forward a copy of the my Business Plan to all the Governor's and started a number of threads on the CFC's [ Governors' ] Discussion Board. I included a page of questions and observations which I considered to be somewhat controversial. I also included hard numbers related to rating fees and membership fees, including projections based on different fees, and a recommendation to eliminate junior, family, and tournament memberships."
b) in 2008/9 GL # 4: “There has also been a lot of debate on the Discussion Boards about the Tournament memberships. Personally, I'd be happy to eliminate them altogether but I doubt that motion would pass. “
4. CFC Secretary Lyle Craver stated in the same GL: " Certainly I am of the opinion that “tournament memberships” have devastated the CFC as rather than bringing in new people in droves, regular members have chosen this option and have chosen to play in fewer but larger events. This at least
has been the experience in Vancouver – Governors will have to decide whether it matches their experience in their areas.
You either belong to the national sporting federation or you don't. “

This motion is brought on behalf of the Grassroots Campaign, a group of about 20 ordinary CFC members - it was very active in getting proposals to the Governors on last year's CFC restructuring.
Is it now time to get rid of the abused " tournament membership ", and institute a first time CFC'er Discounted Membership ( @ 40 % )? Post your views here for your governors to see.

Bob

[Tony Ficzere]

Motion 2010-06: CFC Fees

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Gary Gladstone

First-Time CFC Member Introductory Discount

– Section 375 ( Tournament Playing Fee ) of Section 3 ( Motions Applicable to No Other Section ) of the CFC Handbook is deleted. Substituted for it is:

“ 375. An annual membership discount of 40% will be given for first time CFC members ( CFC will publish a rounded off figure for the convenience of organizers ). “

Commentary:

The current CFC Handbook section 375 states that there is a tournament playing fee ( TPF ) ( adult - $20; Junior -$ 10 ), that can be used in registering for CFC-rated tournaments, as an alternative to membership.
We propose to eliminate this alternative to membership, and substitute for it a first-time CFC member discount, that will both encourage new players to enter tournaments, and at the same time, make them CFC members.

Chess players must support their national organization by membership and annual membership fee, if they want it to exist. CFC must have sustainable revenue. There is no reason for two classes of players, each paying different amounts to support the CFC ( annual member pays $ 36; tournament fee player pays: adult - $ 20; junior - $ 10 ). When tournament memberships were introduced, they were meant as a one-time only thing to encourage first timers to play tournament chess – they were not meant to become a continuous use alternative to membership. It is sometimes now being used by players twice per year, instead of taking out a membership – an adult can play twice and pay $ 40 TPF, whereas the membership in Ontario would be $ 43. But from another point of view, one could say our discount approach is better financially for the TPF player than the current TPF:

1. For the TPF player who plays only 1 tournament per year: An adult now pays $ 20. Under our proposal, it is true he has to pay a bit more – approx. $ 26. But with our method, he becomes a member – he will get the Chess Canada Electronic Newsletter ! And he gets the right to play in an
“ unlimited “ number of tournaments at no extra cost. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( $ 43 ).
2. For the TPF player who plays 2 tournaments per year: he pays $ 40. Under our proposal, he will pay just $ 26, and get the right to play in “ unlimited “ number of tournaments. In the second year, however, he will have to become a full member ( Ont. - $ 43 ).

The figures set out below ( modified ) are from the 1st half 2008-9 financial statements in the 2008/9 GL 3:

Analysis of Membership fees
1st half 2009........ Year 2008
Annual membership fees collected $ 21,060 $ 44,942
Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987
TOTAL $ 22.380 $ 47,929

It shows that in 2007-8, the tournament memberships formed 6.2% of the total collected. In the 1st half 2008-9, they formed 5.9% of the total. Since then the TPF has been doubled. But the issue remains virtually the same. These figures show that the elimination of tournament memberships affects a very small portion of CFC's income. Some organizers have argued that over 2/3 of TPF players will quit tournament chess forever if we substitute our first-time discount for the TPF. We do not believe this.
However, we do not want to lose the tournament membership players. This is the reason for the discount.
But there is an issue of fairness between TPF players and annual membership players. All play in the tournament, and all should equally support the national organization. This is why the Grassroots' Campaign is supporting a substitution for the tournament playing fee.
The above numbers show that the chess world will not cave in if tournament membership fees are eliminated. It will be too bad to lose any players, but the financial effect on the CFC will be minimal. And in future, all will be members of the CFC!
Organizers have advised that the full annual CFC membership is a hindrance to getting first time tournament players to sign up for tournaments ( this will be especially so when tournament memberships have been eliminated ); so the 40% reduction for first-time CFC’ers attempts to ameliorate this difficulty.
Even with the discount, the CFC will be collecting more than it did on tournament membership. Also, this replaces the tournament membership, which originally when introduced was meant to be a one-time only
option.
Community input has asked for numbers of special case exemptions/partial exemptions for annual memberships ( e.g. Quebec ). This motion makes clear that tournament memberships must go, but this issue can be fine-tuned at the time of implementation if special cases re annual memberships seem
warranted, in addition to the first-time discount.

Notes :

1. a motion, brought by Governors Barry Thorvardson and Gary Gladstone, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008, eliminating the tournament membership.
2. a motion, brought by Governors Barry Thorvardson and Gary Gladstone, was passed by the Governors as a straw vote at the Incoming Governors’ AGM in July, 2008, that a discount such as we are proposing, be instituted.
3. Past CFC President David Lavin stated:
a) in 2008/9 GL # 2: “ On September 15th I forward a copy of the my Business Plan to all the Governor's and started a number of threads on the CFC's [ Governors' ] Discussion Board. I included a page of questions and observations which I considered to be somewhat controversial. I also included hard numbers related to rating fees and membership fees, including projections based on different fees, and a recommendation to eliminate junior, family, and tournament memberships."
b) in 2008/9 GL # 4: “There has also been a lot of debate on the Discussion Boards about the Tournament memberships. Personally, I'd be happy to eliminate them altogether but I doubt that motion would pass. “
4. CFC Secretary Lyle Craver stated in the same GL: " Certainly I am of the opinion that “tournament memberships” have devastated the CFC as rather than bringing in new people in droves, regular members have chosen this option and have chosen to play in fewer but larger events. This at least
has been the experience in Vancouver – Governors will have to decide whether it matches their experience in their areas.
You either belong to the national sporting federation or you don't. “

This motion is brought on behalf of the Grassroots Campaign, a group of about 20 ordinary CFC members - it was very active in getting proposals to the Governors on last year's CFC restructuring.
Is it now time to get rid of the abused " tournament membership ", and institute a first time CFC'er Discounted Membership ( @ 40 % )? Post your views here for your governors to see.

Bob

Hi Bob,

With the numbers you quote, I'm not entirely convinced that doubling the T membership has been effective. All the numbers you quote show a decrease in the actual number of members if I calculate right. I would like to see the actual number of players from each of your periods as opposed to just $$. In my eye, the numbers are trending down, especially when you consider that membership renewals are greater from September through December than at any other time of the year (at least when I was working at the CFC).
Can you provide actual membership numbers as opposed to just revenue?

[Tony Ficzere]

One other thing Bob. Please tell me why a person "must" support the CFC with their membership. For tournament players, chess is just a recreation, nothing else. Most players are concerned with playing in tournaments, not supporting the CFC. If we keep this attitude, we will only attract people who want to help the CFC, discounting the entire world of other possible players out there.

Just my opinion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Tony:

The tournament playing fee $$ were : first 1/2 2009 and 2008

Tournament Playing ( = " tournament membership " ) fees collected $ 1,320 $ 2,987

The fee at that time was $ 10. So we are looking at 264 projected for 2009, vs 298 for 2008.

So you are right that the tournament memberships are going down.

But so are the normal membership fees - a 2008-9 projection of $ 42,120 vs a 2007-8 actual of $ 44,942.

So I would say there is really no change in the tournament membership tuirnout relative to the regular memberships.

The doubling of the tournament playing fee came in in late March 2009, just before the year end of April 30. It became effective May 1. So I guess what we have to compare to see if the doubling of the fee significantly affected tournament playing fee revenue and numbers is the first half of 2009-10 ( May 1 - October 31 ) vs 2008-9.

In any event, for future, after this motion is passed, a tournament playing fee player will be asked to pay $ 26 vs $ 20, with all the benefits that come with the $ 26 payment. I would expect it will little change the tournament playing fee numbers.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Tony:

I agree this is a tough sell. It requires some altruism.

But the reason we have all the tournaments for players that we have, is because there is a national federation that maintains the rating system. Rating points are a great motivator for players deciding to play in tournaments ( few of us are going to win prizes ). But the national federation is more than just a rating system - much more ! It is responsible for chess promotion in Canada, deals with elite players, is the FIDE contact, issues your newsletter, etc.. So to get one part , you " must " support all the rest, even if you are not particularly interested in the rest. This is the deal that the CFC offers - in this way, it in a sense, " subsidizes " those aspects of chess that the average player is not so concerned about.

Bob

[Luke Campbell]

I think this motion may make sense for large centers (such as Toronto and Vancouver) and has its heart in the right place. The problem I see is for people living in a smaller centers where there may be one chess tournament a year.

It is tough enough to get people out for a one day tournament without telling them that they need to pay $26 more, (or $43 if they were a member of the CFC in the past). In a big center, there are many opportunities to use the membership and play in other tournaments, but in a smaller center this may be the only tournament they play in. Telling people in rural areas that it is their duty to Canadian chess and that they need to support the greater good may be a tough sell.

I personally would like to see the $10 tournament fee reinstated as it makes it easier for tournament organizers to have good numbers of players and attract new members. As well, a $10 tournament fee still makes money for the CFC, which supports the larger organization

One question I have about the complete elimination of tournament fees altogether is for the members of certain religious groups which are not allowed to be members of a national organization. I know of at least one chess player who used tournament memberships for this reason. If tournament fees are totally eliminated, it will affect these people negatively.


Hi Tony:

I agree this is a tough sell. It requires some altruism.

But the reason we have all the tournaments for players that we have, is because there is a national federation that maintains the rating system. Rating points are a great motivator for players deciding to play in tournaments ( few of us are going to win prizes ). But the national federation is more than just a rating system - much more ! It is responsible for chess promotion in Canada, deals with elite players, is the FIDE contact, issues your newsletter, etc.. So to get one part , you " must " support all the rest, even if you are not particularly interested in the rest. This is the deal that the CFC offers - in this way, it in a sense, " subsidizes " those aspects of chess that the average player is not so concerned about.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Luke:

The issue you have raised is a difficult one and has been raised before - the difference in opportunity. I believe the CFC hopes that with chess promotion, it may be that more than one tournament a year will start to be organized in rural areas - but admittedly, this is just a hope. The problem is that it is hard to have a system that somehow discriminates between city and rural. There pretty much has to be one system, and the tournament membership was getting abused - plus CFC was not getting any new members out of it. You may simply be right, that members in rural areas are in fact getting somewhat less benefit from their membership than city members, due to opportunity differences.

As to the need for a religious exemption, if an organizer is aware of this, I'm sure he could write the President , Eric, to make an exception for this one player, using a tournament membership fee alternative.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi again Tony:

I have gone and looked at the GL # 2, and its financial statements report from May 1 - Oct. 31 of 2009. It shows the tournament membership revenue for first 1/2 2009-10 vs 2008-9 as follows:

Tournament memberships $ 2,078 ....... $ 3,734

If we double this for the rest of 2009-10 to make the numbers comparable, we'd have $ 4,156 vs $ 3,734. So in terms of revenue, the revenue will go up minimally as predicted ( the Grassroots' Campaign had suggested it would make no difference $-wise ), in 2009-10 vs 2008-9. CFC has come out a slight winner in $$ for doubling the tournament playing fee.

What about numbers of players though? Since 2009-10 had a $ 20 fee, and 2008-9 a $ 10 fee, the numbers would then be :

2008-9 : 373 vs 2009-10 : 208

So it seems true that we will have lost 165 tournament fee players with the doubling of the fee. This is an unfortunate loss of players, especially if they are permanently gone.

But it is my view that this is in the short run only. Tournament players who really want to play in CFC-rated tournaments will start to trickle back into the fold, despite their initial boycott.

And when the tournament playing fee is replaced with the first time CFC'er Discounted Membership, with its benefits, we will see more of these boycotting players seeing that paying the $ 26 for the first year of membership is a good deal - much better than the $ 20 fee with no benefits except rating.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

I think this motion may make sense for large centers (such as Toronto and Vancouver) and has its heart in the right place. The problem I see is for people living in a smaller centers where there may be one chess tournament a year.

Luke brings up a very valid point about rural vs urban centres. In the interest of fairness, I think some mechanism needs to be found to give the once a year players a break while keeping them members.

Suggestion:

Memberships are extended for 6 months if you have only played 1 tournament that year, or
Create a 6 month membership rate.

Or some variation of this idea. But we must keep it easy to administer.

[Christopher Mallon]

What about numbers of players though? Since 2009-10 had a $ 20 fee, and 2008-9 a $ 10 fee, the numbers would then be :

2008-9 : 373 vs 2009-10 : 208

So it seems true that we will have lost 165 tournament fee players with the doubling of the fee. This is an unfortunate loss of players, especially if they are permanently gone.

You are also ignoring the loss of 165 entry fees to various tournaments! That's probably $10,000 out of the pockets of the TDs, less money to be spent on prizes to players, etc. Not to mention about $500 in rating fees not received by the CFC.


But it is my view that this is in the short run only. Tournament players who really want to play in CFC-rated tournaments will start to trickle back into the fold, despite their initial boycott.

That's just an opinion, we'll have to wait and see if it becomes fact.


And when the tournament playing fee is replaced with the first time CFC'er Discounted Membership, with its benefits, we will see more of these boycotting players seeing that paying the $ 26 for the first year of membership is a good deal - much better than the $ 20 fee with no benefits except rating.

I bet all you'll really see is fraud (people pretending to have never played before), irritated TDs from having more work to do, and an irritated office staff from having more work to do. Especially when an inevitable conflict arises. That's just my opinion of course, but I have talked it over with some TDs.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

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

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

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

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

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

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

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

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

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

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

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

My new suggest is:

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

What do you think? :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

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

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

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

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

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

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Bob,

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

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