OzChess - Australia's Chess Forum - View Single Post

**MOZ** · 09-26-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by frosty

Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be:

1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards

2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF

Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM".

MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt

hi Frosty
Your suggestion perhaps does not pass the 'perspective test'.
Victoria is already a most significant user of the ACF rapid ratings service. < I invite you to contrast the high number of rated games in Victoria, with the dearth in NSW, QLD, WA, TAS>. (Together with the ACT) it would be fair to say Victoria and ACT are the main supporters of the service. There is no evidence that even more VIC events would be rapid-rated if the very small ACF charge had been 'factored-out' of the CV charge.
Your suggestion is a finesse that is not top of the priorities for an under-resourced volunteer admin.
That is not to say you don't have supporters. On chesschat, both Malcolm Pyke and Bill Gletsos put forward the same debating point.

regards
MOZ

09-26-2007, 07:35 PM	#14 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,494	Originally Posted by frosty Gendo, as I believe I mused in another place and at another time, I perceived a major problem with the trial from a VIC perspective to be: 1) that the ACF reduced its fees, but it took VIC some considerable time after that (my recollection is around 8 or 10 months?) before it adjusted its fees downards 2) that by the time more tournaments were ready to start coming in from VIC, the ACF was already abandoning its experiment, meaning that CV were left high-n-dry charging a lower fee to VIC clubs, but then getting hit again with higher fees by the ACF Perhaps someone in VIC might move a motion at a forthcoming AGM to give the CV Executive the power to increase/decrease published fees in line with and proportionally with increases in their costs (e.g. ACF costs charged to CV). Its ridiculous that CV can set a fee around NOV at their AGM, the ACF can increase costs to CV, but CV is unable to respond (increase or decrease) until the next AGM, unless a special general meeting is called? It ought to be as simple as sending a letter to the club presidents to say "such-and-such is now costing us more, so from X-date the rating fee will be $Y, and if you're unhappy you can have it addressed at the next AGM". MOZ, incidentally, your link should have been: http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/sep07/raptour.txt hi Frosty Your suggestion perhaps does not pass the 'perspective test'. Victoria is already a most significant user of the ACF rapid ratings service. < I invite you to contrast the high number of rated games in Victoria, with the dearth in NSW, QLD, WA, TAS>. (Together with the ACT) it would be fair to say Victoria and ACT are the main supporters of the service. There is no evidence that even more VIC events would be rapid-rated if the very small ACF charge had been 'factored-out' of the CV charge. Your suggestion is a finesse that is not top of the priorities for an under-resourced volunteer admin. That is not to say you don't have supporters. On chesschat, both Malcolm Pyke and Bill Gletsos put forward the same debating point. regards MOZ