10. Bids for 2023 and 2024 Events and beyond

[Tyler Sanderson]

The CYCC could indeed potentially be very large in 2025. I would like to note we (Surrey, BC) can easily secure more overflow space if needed to accommodate just as many players (600) as the other bids.

[Don Hack]

Wrong forum, bad timing, but I'll ask the question.

With such great bids, *if* there were to be another large national tournament (i.e., two annually), is there a history of such and previous season it was held?

[ian findlay]

Great to see 3 great bids. I remember some years when we barely had 1 bid! One small question for Vancity and sorry if it is nitpicking, but the definition of volunteer is 'a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.'
So why do we have amounts of $3000 and $4000 besides volunteer. I am sure there is a simple explanation. I am favouring this bid, so please do not take this as a criticism but more to clarify.

[Victoria Doknjas]

Great to see 3 great bids. I remember some years when we barely had 1 bid! One small question for Vancity and sorry if it is nitpicking, but the definition of volunteer is 'a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.'
So why do we have amounts of $3000 and $4000 besides volunteer. I am sure there is a simple explanation. I am favouring this bid, so please do not take this as a criticism but more to clarify.

Thank you Ian for your question and taking the time to review our Surrey, BC bid by Vancity Chess and Juniors to Masters Chess Academy. The Volunteer amounts listed in our bid are for food and other expenses like souvenir 2025 Canadian Open and CYCC shirts, etc. We feel that it's essential to acknowledge the important hard work that our Volunteers will provide.

We appreciate your support and vote, Ian!

[Jeremy Clark]

note: I edited this to reflect updated math, as I think I missed 2,000 sq feet.

Having looked at the Vancity bid, the spaces given, and estimated attendances are a bit concerning, for the CYCC in particular. If I'm recalling correctly, guidelines call for 20 sq ft/player for kids. The space listed in the bid, including the 2000 sq ft for the lobby and the additional 2100 sq ft for the CYCC, bring it to 18.8 at 500 players, nearly but not quite to 20. But the bid also says "we can expect over 500 juniors to participate in the 2025 CYCC. In total, we will comfortably be able to accommodate 500 players (more with a tighter floor plan)." At 600 participants, the space drops to just over 15 sq feet per participant. At a certain point, the space available really doesn't lend itself to an event of this size and importance.

[Murray Chu]

note: I edited this to reflect updated math, as I think I missed 2,000 sq feet.

Having looked at the Vancity bid, the spaces given, and estimated attendances are a bit concerning, for the CYCC in particular. If I'm recalling correctly, guidelines call for 20 sq ft/player for kids. The space listed in the bid, including the 2000 sq ft for the lobby and the additional 2100 sq ft for the CYCC, bring it to 18.8 at 500 players, nearly but not quite to 20. But the bid also says "we can expect over 500 juniors to participate in the 2025 CYCC. In total, we will comfortably be able to accommodate 500 players (more with a tighter floor plan)." At 600 participants, the space drops to just over 15 sq feet per participant. At a certain point, the space available really doesn't lend itself to an event of this size and importance.

Hi Jeremy,

As Tyler mentioned above, our venue is quite flexible and we can easily open another room to accommodate more players if registration exceeds expectations.

[Jeremy Clark]

Hi Jeremy,

As Tyler mentioned above, our venue is quite flexible and we can easily open another room to accommodate more players if registration exceeds expectations.

For whatever reason, I wasn't seeing the posts on this page when I read through, despite the fact that they predate my comment. Presumably user error on my part. Thanks for the clarification.

[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.