13. Membership / Rating Fee Restructuring Committee

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

If we were to try to raise all this by membership, we would need a 61 % increase, which would be $ 58/yr .

1. Is this acceptable?

Would a 50$ flat fee (and discounted for juniors) increase a number of members? No additional rating fees. Thus this might collect more money.

As I have read the CFC have a big number of non-coming-back members. Maybe discounted 2, 3 and 5 years membership fees would keep them longer.

[Hal Bond]

With a user fee only (or a nominal $10 annual membership fee) we could still pay provincial affiliates per rated game in their province. Provinces are then motivated to hold more events.

It is difficult to use our existing stats to extrapolate a revenue projection because I believe the behaviour will change if the fee structure changes to this degree.

I like the user (rating ) fee as the primary driver. I believe that players resist the member fee and we would have more players if it was diminished. Going forward, an expanded base of players is also an expanded base of potential donors.

[Bob Gillanders]

It is difficult to use our existing stats to extrapolate a revenue projection because I believe the behaviour will change if the fee structure changes to this degree.

Thanks Hal. That is a very important point that I have also tried to stress. I can give you a hypothetical example:

The Burlington Chess Club - about a dozen plus members. A very nice friendly club. Meets every tuesday, and runs about half a dozen CFC rated tournaments each year. No entry fees, no cash prizes, no complaints. Everyone pays their CFC membership dues (no complaints), everyone chips in $3 for the rating fees at the start of each tournament (no complaints).

Now you introduce $10 rating fees! Maybe we get some complaints. $3 is just change, $10 is currency!

I am utter convinced that 95% of the members (excluding those with limited access to CFC events) have no problem with the membership dues. If we begin to cater to the tiny minority who find $36 outrageous, we have a problem. Because they will also find $30 to much, $25 too much, $20 too much, $15 too much..........and we go bankrupt.

[Lyle Craver]

I firmly agree with the previous poster who said there will always be folks who think any figure we set is too high and that our policy should not be set by them.

The CFC has NEVER had a problem attracting members - our problem has been retention.

A more appropriate question would be why?

[Stuart Brammall]

Now you introduce $10 rating fees! Maybe we get some complaints. $3 is just change, $10 is currency!

If you were to have a $10 rating fee, of which say $1 is remitted to the OCA, each person at your club would be paying $60 per year... right now they pay $61 per year....
Personally, I think they are probably smart enough to realize this on their own, but if they really are morons you could explain it to them.

The benefit of this approach is obvious: a player who has never played an event before, and who is not sure that he will again will not be asked to fork over $43 for one event.

Also, you never need to worry about who is a member and who is not.

The only people who will be negatively impacted financially by this system are those who play 8 or more events per year... everyone else will save money... And it seems likely to me that if you play 8 or more events per year you are hopelessly addicted to chess, and retention should not be a big issue.

Why we have maintained this antiquated membership system is beyond me. Also, I should say that this approach would be far from revolutionary... it is after all the way FIDE charges fees.

[Bob Gillanders]

Now Stuart, I trust you didn't mean to call the members of the Burlington club, morons. and neither did I.

I gave the Burlington Chess Club as an example to see if you had considered the impact on CFC rated events at a typical club setting. After I posted, I was out for a while and was going over the numbers in my head. Yes, in this scenario, the annual dues are almost identical. $60 vs. $61. But I am addressing the perception. Will paying $10 (six times a year) be perceived as being more annoying that paying $43 once and the $3 (six times)? Maybe. I will pose the question to the club members tonight.

Actually, I am warming up to the idea. Not convinced yet, but...

Final note, just cause FIDE does it?, not a compelling argument.

[Christopher Field]

Hi Bob,
That's kind of my point... the OCA does not have a clear mandate-- there is no reason for them to have any money at all. For the sake of comparison, when I was running the Hart House Chess Club, which at the time had ~60 members our budget was more than five times the OCA budget. The reason why there is no way to buy an OCA membership without a CFC membership is, quite frankly, because only one person (you) has ever tried to buy just an OCA membership. If given the choice, I imagine the vast majority of Ontario players would firstly, choose to pay just $35 for the CFC membership and not be a member of the OCA, and secondly realize no difference in what they receive thereafter.
It is clear to me why this is: people buy their memberships to have their games rated; they do not buy memberships in support of a broad chess-philanthropy philosophy.

Well, I think you could say that I actually did buy my life membership in support of a "broad chess-philanthropy philosophy". I have not played many tournaments since, although I have continued to organise and run a lot of tournaments for juniors.
I am in a sick-leave situation at the moment, which accounts for my not having run any tournaments this school year.

[Bob Armstrong]

people buy their memberships to have their games rated; they do not buy memberships in support of a broad chess-philanthropy philosophy.

Hi Stuart:

I bought my OCA membership pretty much out of a " broad chess-philanthropy philosophy " - I almost never am able to play in the Ontario Open since it is on the Victoria Day weekend, and migrates around the province. But I support the OCA as a chess promotion body in the province. So I guess its not so much what I personally derive from the OCA, as to what I'd like them to contribute to Ontario chess generally.

Now Chris has said his CFC membership is based on " chess-philanthropy ".

I think there are a significant minority of CFC members who no longer play, or play seldom, who renew so that CFC can organize chess in Canada, and our international participation - that is " chess-philanthropy "

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Many Life Members are no longer active, and yet their memberships keep bringing in a nice interest payment to the CFC from the Chess Foundation annually - they are in a sense " chess philanthropists ".

So we maybe should be careful not to sell chess players too short on their willingness to pay money to help run chess in Canada, even if it is clear that they do not personally benefit financially to the extent of their payment.

I'm not saying chess players don't want value for their money - we all know chess players are very cost conscious ( cheap ?? ) - but maybe some ( a good portion? ) accept, resignedly maybe, that they have to help Canadian chess out this way.

Bob

[Christopher Field]

Hi Stuart:

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Bob

I am not sure that all players really know that they are paying a $3.00 rating fee, or that juniors (members and non-members) are paying a $0.50 rating fee.
Players pay an entry fee for a tournament.
It is understood that this covers the organiser's costs (which include the rating fee) and the prizes.
A higher rating fee would simply add a lot to those costs.
The result would be: higher entry fees, or lower prize funds.

[Christopher Field]

Hi Stuart:

CFC has recently been coming clean about the fact that the $ 3 rating fee per player per tournament more than covers the cost of the rating system. It is simply another way for CFC to raise general revenue, so it can carry out its ongoing operations. In other words, all tournament players pay the rating fee knowing they are helping run the CFC ! They may not think of themselves as " chess philanthropists " , but they are ( though some complain they don't want to be ).

Bob

I am not sure that all players really know that they are paying a $3.00 rating fee, or that juniors (members and non-members) are paying a $0.50 rating fee for a junior tournament.
Players pay an entry fee for a tournament.
It is understood that this covers the organiser's costs (which include the rating fee) and the prizes.
A higher rating fee would simply add a lot to those costs.
The result would be: higher entry fees, or lower prize funds.