10. Bids for 2023 and 2024 Events and beyond

[Fred McKim]

The Guelph Bid was not a late bid, as there are no specific CFC procedures about bid timing -- in any event, I can't see that they prepared their bid once they had a look at the other bids. This is not a strict business deal, where that sort of thing would be unethical.

As other have pointed out any of the 3 bids would be great. Based on recent timing, I'm in favour of a B.C. bid, and I'm an admirer of the great work that's been done by Juniors to Masters, so I am planning to vote for them.

Further to that I would like to see that we get the R/UP (ONM if BC wins 2025 or BC if ON wins 2025) the 2026 event. Presumably that is something the Executive can work on in the weeks after the AGM.

Fred

[Michael Lo]

The Guelph Bid was not a late bid, as there are no specific CFC procedures about bid timing -- in any event, I can't see that they prepared their bid once they had a look at the other bids. This is not a strict business deal, where that sort of thing would be unethical.

Accepting proposal(s) after other proposals went public is unfair, it is unethical if it is intentional. It does not matter whether the information in the publicized proposals are being used as an advantage or not. It also does not matter whether it is a "strict business deal" or not. It is simply not fair.

A bidding procedure without a bid submission deadline is faulty and should be fixed. As simple as have a rule that all proposals to be discussed in the AGM must be submitted 3 days before the AGM starts.

Michael

[Aris Marghetis]

Accepting proposal(s) after other proposals went public is unfair, it is unethical if it is intentional. It does not matter whether the information in the publicized proposals are being used as an advantage or not. It also does not matter whether it is a "strict business deal" or not. It is simply not fair.

A bidding procedure without a bid submission deadline is faulty and should be fixed. As simple as have a rule that all proposals to be discussed in the AGM must be submitted 3 days before the AGM starts.

Michael

I generally agree with Michael here. Whereas I am not completely clear on our current bidding process, we had two bids that were publicly visible before another bid was submitted. I am not in any way implying there was any wrongdoing by anyone involved. However, like Michael, I found this turn of events was not proper.

[Michael Lo]

I have high regards for the Guelph proposal organizers and totally trust their integrity. I just would like to point out that the current bidding procedure is faulty and should be fixed.

Michael

[Aris Marghetis]

I have high regards for the Guelph proposal organizers and totally trust their integrity. I just would like to point out that the current bidding procedure is faulty and should be fixed.

Michael

Yes, we agree.

[Don Hack]

If there is sufficient agreement that the bid structure needs some work, what is the process to make it happen?

[Mahmud Hassain]

I have high regards for the Guelph proposal organizers and totally trust their integrity. I just would like to point out that the current bidding procedure is faulty and should be fixed.

Michael

Michael,

Thank you for your trust in our integrity. We, too, trust the integrity and well-intentioned bids from BC.

On the procedures matter, you may have a point here (optics matter). I am all for fairness and transparency.
From my experience of over 35 years in various board governance, I would recommend that future bids be summitted, in confidence, to the secretary by a preapproved deadline. The secretary must keep in secret till the deadline and posting and the bids may not be amended after posting.

I am a fiercely Canadian and I am of the view that all parts of Canada are collectively ours. We are all winners!

Sincerely,
Mahmud

[Aris Marghetis]

Michael,

Thank you for your trust in our integrity. We, too, trust the integrity and well-intentioned bids from BC.

On the procedures matter, you may have a point here (optics matter). I am all for fairness and transparency.
From my experience of over 35 years in various board governance, I would recommend that future bids be summitted, in confidence, to the secretary by a preapproved deadline. The secretary must keep in secret till the deadline and posting and the bids may not be amended after posting.

I am a fiercely Canadian and I am of the view that all parts of Canada are collectively ours. We are all winners!

Sincerely,
Mahmud

Excellent ideas Mahmud! I agree they really should be implemented.

(if we don't, we risk having an awful "bad" bidding process some year)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Excellent ideas Mahmud! I agree they really should be implemented.

(if we don't, we risk having an awful "bad" bidding process some year)

The point of the bidding process is to generate at least one good bid each and every year. It is an interactive process. Both Surrey and Burnaby bids submitted twice after suggestions from me. The Burnaby bid would have been rejected if they had not made at least one of the changes that I suggested. I could see from the financial statements that they implied that they were making the required payments to the youth fund but they never said so explicitly. If we follow the type of blind process suggested earlier then there would be no chance to improve the bids as new information came in. Guelph would not have been accepted as late.

Really in a perfect world the bid deadline should be at least a month before the AGM so that the bids can be sent to the voting members ahead of time for study. In that perfect world we would also have the financial statements to send the voting member at the same time. The initial bid proposals and financial statements should come in at least two weeks before that so that they can be vetted by the executive.

I endorsed all three bids as excellent bids. I also explained how I would be voting because of a promise I made when there was only one bid on the table. I did this because of questions about my statements clarifying aspects of the Guelph bid as somehow favouring and endorsing the Guelph bid. I would have been very comfortable with any of the three bids if they had won. They were all good bids. I liked all three bids.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Accepting proposal(s) after other proposals went public is unfair, it is unethical if it is intentional. It does not matter whether the information in the publicized proposals are being used as an advantage or not. It also does not matter whether it is a "strict business deal" or not. It is simply not fair.

A bidding procedure without a bid submission deadline is faulty and should be fixed. As simple as have a rule that all proposals to be discussed in the AGM must be submitted 3 days before the AGM starts.

Michael

The bid submission deadline under the old handbook for the 2025 CYCC/CO is any time during the AGM in 2024. Realistically the only bids that could do anything with data from another bid are the two Vancouver area bids since they are playing in the same pond and competing against each other for the same class of voting members which are those who would like to see the 2025 tournament in the Vancouver area. They were released simultaneously. In their final form most bids look very similar because they are often put together with the help of the tourism bureaus.

It is unusual to have multiple bids. Usually there is one bid.