Chess Scotland Noticeboard A place for chess nuts to boast over an open forum    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  If you go down to the South next year..... Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next          Chess Scotland Noticeboard Forum Index -> General Chess Chat View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message admin Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:48 am    Post subject: Ok lets look at the maths behind that suggestion Lets look at an average congress with 100 people. Assuming there is a £2 discount we are looking at a charge of £230 for grading fees. Lets also assume that the average entry fee is £20, so £2000 in entry fees, £230 goes in grading. We double the grading fee. The congress is now looking for £460 (I know with byes it will be lower). Now the obvious thing to do would be to increase the entry fee to £23. When you see it on paper, is it really that bad? Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:57 am    Post subject: Andrew, I would imagine that CS have planned contingencies in place in the event that the worst happens and we lose our grant. That said there is a big difference between the government in Westminster and the government in Holyrood. Lets not get into politics though… So I think it is not as likely north of the border. In the event we lost the grant I accept that we would need to look at it. However, if the grant remains surely the increases in membership fees will add some money to the coffers next year. I would not be in favour of increasing grading fees at the moment as tournament/league organizers are already complaining about the fees. Also we should look to stop running loss making initiatives (as unpopular as it makes me) including the Scottish Championships in their current format. Before we look to increase any fees we should look inwards and turn losses around. Edit to add: We also have added revenue streams like the new website and grading system that should have a positive impact on the number of members and increase revenue. I do not believe there is any scope to increase grading fees and then tournament fees. We do risk pricing people out of the game. Maybe not you or I but those less fortunate. Cost should not deter people from playing chess. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Last edited by David Deary on Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:00 pm; edited 1 time in total Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:59 am    Post subject: According to our survey at the Lothians Congress earlier this year, of those surveyed the vast majority would have still played if the entry fee was £25, and the price of entry only started to become a major factor on entries beyond the £25 mark. We had no choice but to increase the entry fee at the above event by £2, in order to compensate for the venue literally doubling their price from the previous year. It didn't have any impact on entries, as entries were much higher than we had anticipated. So to conclude, I think that other factors, including the weather, affect tournament numbers more than the cost of entry, as long as the cost of entry is £25 or less. Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:03 pm    Post subject: Hi Andrew can you provide exact figures please from your survery as it can be easier to gage actual financial impacts. My argument to you - with regards the Lothians (a Congress I don't play) is the fact that you play 3 games in 1 day. Something I will not do anymore. Also the entry fee compared to prize money. That is why I don't play the Lothians and as I mentioned elsewhere if a tournament doesn't meet my needs I don't play. Also, I assume an alternate venue was considered before lumping additional cost onto the entry fees? Edit - Although I do agree entry fees should not exceed £25 and £23 including CS discount. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:21 pm    Post subject: David Deary wrote: Hi Andrew can you provide exact figures please from your survery as it can be easier to gage actual financial impacts. My argument to you - with regards the Lothians (a Congress I don't play) is the fact that you play 3 games in 1 day. Something I will not do anymore. Also the entry fee compared to prize money. That is why I don't play the Lothians and as I mentioned elsewhere if a tournament doesn't meet my needs I don't play. Also, I assume an alternate venue was considered before lumping additional cost onto the entry fees? Edit - Although I do agree entry fees should not exceed £25 and £23 including CS discount. I can't provide exact figures as I don't have them to hand, but I'll see if I can find them somewhere. I have them in my emails. The reason we play 3 rounds in one day at the Lothians is because the cost of the venue for the Friday evening makes it not cost effective to have a round on Friday evening. Our survey did ask which format people prefer and 3S 2S seemed as popular as 1F 2S 2S, although for statistical reasons it's slightly biased (but only slightly). In recent years we have struggled to attract the numbers required to make a sizeable amount of money in order to have larger prizes, but we do try. Weather has been a real burden for us, except this year when it was okay, and our October event this year, which we don't expect snow to ruin. Additional venues were considered, but were going to be at least as costly. The thing is, the WHEC was just really cheap before, and by doubling their price they were only bringing it inline with most other places, not making it more expensive. The difficulty for us was that it happened in one year, and we didn't have much time to react. So whilst a lot of these things might not make it particularly ideal, or to your satisfaction, they are done for good reasons and with the best intentions. If future years have similar numbers to Jan 2011, then it's likely (all other things being even) that we would either reduce the entry fee again or increase the prize fund. Note we did introduce additional prizes when we realised that numbers were going to exceed those forecast. In any case, from an organisers point of view, I think an increase in grading fees would mean an increase in entry fees for every event, so no event would be priced out of the market by competitors being able to offer a cheaper entry fee. All things would be balanced, and replenishing the cost of losing the government grant of £10,000/year, by splitting it over every player in Scotland, will have a relatively negligible impact. Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:32 pm    Post subject: AMcHarg wrote: In any case, from an organisers point of view, I think an increase in grading fees would mean an increase in entry fees for every event, so no event would be priced out of the market by competitors being able to offer a cheaper entry fee. All things would be balanced, and replenishing the cost of losing the government grant of £10,000/year, by splitting it over every player in Scotland, will have a relatively negligible impact. In the event we lose the grant it would have to be looked at but why are we not looking at our current loss making initiatives ie the Scottish and the magazine? In their current forms they both lose money, we should consider some revamping to avoid lose making before asking members to stump up in my view. Also as I stated earlier CS is increasing membership fees for this season and we have the revamped website which should add to revenues. I also think before increasing fees CS needs to make the case for doing so rather than look it wont have much of an impact on members. On a slightly more jovial note did anyone see the fifth best joke from the Edinburgh Festival? Quote: Matt Kirshen: "I was playing chess with my friend and he said, 'Let's make this interesting'. So we stopped playing chess." _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject: David Deary wrote: AMcHarg wrote: In any case, from an organisers point of view, I think an increase in grading fees would mean an increase in entry fees for every event, so no event would be priced out of the market by competitors being able to offer a cheaper entry fee. All things would be balanced, and replenishing the cost of losing the government grant of £10,000/year, by splitting it over every player in Scotland, will have a relatively negligible impact. In the event we lose the grant it would have to be looked at but why are we not looking at our current loss making initiatives ie the Scottish and the magazine? In their current forms they both lose money, we should consider some revamping to avoid lose making before asking members to stump up in my view. Also as I stated earlier CS is increasing membership fees for this season and we have the revamped website which should add to revenues. I also think before increasing fees CS needs to make the case for doing so rather than look it wont have much of an impact on members. On a slightly more jovial note did anyone see the fifth best joke from the Edinburgh Festival? Quote: Matt Kirshen: "I was playing chess with my friend and he said, 'Let's make this interesting'. So we stopped playing chess." There is a rather interesting contradiction with your views. In one post you say that you'd like to ensure that cost is not a prohibiting factor for people to play Chess, yet on the other hand you want to do away with our national Championship because it doesn't make a profit (or break even). It could be argued that the Scottish is a fundamental part of Chess in Scotland, and therefore a cost that we cannot get rid of? Improving efficiency is a different matter, and there are about a million different views on how to go about this; but I think Alex does a good job with the limited resources that he has. To refer to politics, your idea of scrapping things which make a loss would mean scrapping the NHS, our armed forces, the education sector etc... which are as important for our country as the Scottish is for Chess in Scotland (imo): i.e. very important. In what form - there's the debate. I don't know enough about the magazine to comment, but there is potentially scope to make it more cost effective too, without completely scrapping it. Anyway; without going off on a tangent, the increase in membership fees is important to overcome the rate of inflation. An increase in revenue is not neccesarily the same as an increase in real terms, because many costs are going up. I don't think the increases are prohibiting renewals. Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Incidentally; I thought that joke was quite funny, but also pretty sad that it does seem to reflect the general public opinion of Chess in this country. Most people don't understand Chess, and see it as some kind of complex strategy game that only those with an IQ of 140 can play with any great success. Without understanding it, they cannot enjoy it, and cannot find it interesting. Perhaps it's as much a failure of Chess Scotland's as it is with society that the brand of Chess has not been able to remove this stereotype? A debate for another topic perhaps. Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:10 pm    Post subject: Misinterpretation Andrew, I didn't suggest scrapping either I said revamp so there is no contradiction in my views. Likening CS to the army or NHS is a new one on me also. I'm much maligned for suggesting there is any bureaucracy in CS but there certainly is in the public sector. Also any increases in fees should be tempered with increased value for money or service in my view. With certain activities losing money I would make that a priority before going cap in hand to us members. Unless we lose the grant which is a game changer literally. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation David Deary wrote: Also any increases in fees should be tempered with increased value for money or service in my view. Surely then the reverse would be true. If you were working then you wouldn't expect a pay rise (in line with inflation), without being required to do more work? I think not. Prices go up, food, fuel bills etc with inflation, and so what you earn needs to go up too - and if your wage doesn't go up at at least the same rate of inflation; then in real terms you are not just having a pay freeze, but actually a pay cut. Reverse that, if Chess Scotland don't increase the price of membership in line with inflation then you are actually getting more for your money than you did last year, because your money isn't worth as much as it was last year, and consequently CS is getting less. Clearly not sustainable in the long run. Back to top David Deary Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation AMcHarg wrote: Surely then the reverse would be true. If you were working then you wouldn't expect a pay rise (in line with inflation), without being required to do more work? I think not. Prices go up, food, fuel bills etc with inflation, and so what you earn needs to go up too - and if your wage doesn't go up at at least the same rate of inflation; then in real terms you are not just having a pay freeze, but actually a pay cut. Reverse that, if Chess Scotland don't increase the price of membership in line with inflation then you are actually getting more for your money than you did last year, because your money isn't worth as much as it was last year, and consequently CS is getting less. Clearly not sustainable in the long run. Membership fees are increasing by 5.4% on the basic membership this year. Inflation is not running at that rate and people's salaries aren't rising at that rate. In fact public sector workers are under a pay freeze and in real terms as you suggest are having a pay cut. So, the question is why is CS any different to anyone else? People are having to tighten their belts, is CS? I'm just asking the question here but for me its talk of charging more not saving money. _________________ Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional! Back to top AWIC King Joined: 10 Feb 2007 Posts: 221 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:26 pm    Post subject: A couple of specific points: admin wrote: I can tell you all about the darts scene. Chess is cheaper. Really? I played darts for a year and it cost me next to nothing in cash terms – no game fee, no membership fee, plus free sandwiches and the odd free drink. I do think it's reasonable to make the comparison between the two - both are leisure activities - just as golf is, or the cinema, or watching TV. David Deary wrote: roaring at the referee. (unsurprisingly ) Hmmm – Brian Winter. Say no more. And a couple of general points. I have asked before about the Government grant – no-one seems to know a lot about it. Given it comprises about a quarter of Chess Scotland’s income wouldn’t it be an idea to have more clarity on the matter? For example - who decides the amount, when is that decision made, where does the money come from, when is it received and how likely is it to be received in future? Are there conditions on how the money is spent? I believe it used to come from the Children, Young People and Families Unified Voluntary Sector Fund but how that fund is governed or even if it still exists, I don’t know. Perhaps someone can ask Mac and publish the response here? Also, is it just me, or are response times on this site unfeasibly slow? Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Misinterpretation David Deary wrote: AMcHarg wrote: Surely then the reverse would be true. If you were working then you wouldn't expect a pay rise (in line with inflation), without being required to do more work? I think not. Prices go up, food, fuel bills etc with inflation, and so what you earn needs to go up too - and if your wage doesn't go up at at least the same rate of inflation; then in real terms you are not just having a pay freeze, but actually a pay cut. Reverse that, if Chess Scotland don't increase the price of membership in line with inflation then you are actually getting more for your money than you did last year, because your money isn't worth as much as it was last year, and consequently CS is getting less. Clearly not sustainable in the long run. Membership fees are increasing by 5.4% on the basic membership this year. Inflation is not running at that rate and people's salaries aren't rising at that rate. In fact public sector workers are under a pay freeze and in real terms as you suggest are having a pay cut. So, the question is why is CS any different to anyone else? People are having to tighten their belts, is CS? I'm just asking the question here but for me its talk of charging more not saving money. I don't know the reasons for the actual rate that was chosen to increase the prices by, but it's not much more than inflation anyway. I wouldn't compare CS to a person, it's more like a business. I'm not sure what belt-tightening CS can do, because in many cases the costs of implementing changes which would save money, actually cost a lot more money to implement than they will save in the short-term. What are your suggestions for that? I'm sure I asked you that in a previous thread before but you said you didn't want to express your opinion because it would be very unpopular (or something like that), but you really should say if you have an idea. CS is not the Chinese government, you won't be jailed for expressing an unpopular opinion. Two of your suggestions so far are pretty vague, save money by improving the efficiency of the Scottish... how? Save money by doing what to the magazine? Without completely changing or abolishing both of these, I don't see how much of a saving could be made. For instance; get rid of GM appearance fees = probably fewer GMs competing. I'd be in support of that out of principal, but I accept that the event wouldn't be as good without them, and therefore quite a different event. Sure it saves money, but so would buying a Ford instead of a Ferarri, but you don't end up with the same thing. So year, it was a serious request; the noticeboard is for expressing your opinions, and whilst we might not all agree with you; it's your right imo. Gas and electric suppliers are increasing their prices by almost 20%. Fuel prices have gone through the roof in recent years. Currently I spend around £130 per week on food shopping, when it used to be around £90 only 3 years ago. Everything is going up dramatically, except CS Membership, which hasn't gone up by much. Surely not a big deal, especially considering the already-small cost of it? Back to top AMcHarg King Joined: 19 Nov 2008 Posts: 623 Location: Livingston, Scotland Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:36 pm    Post subject: ...and yea, the forum response times are extremely frustrating. It's like when your opponent has only 1 possible move, which will be followed by mate, yet they sit for 30 minutes thinking about it. In any case, we are working on migrating the forum to our own server, as this host has had a lot of problems recently. More to follow on that one soon. Back to top Carl Hibbard Rook Joined: 13 Jul 2008 Posts: 40 Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:05 pm    Post subject: AMcHarg wrote: In any case, we are working on migrating the forum to our own server, as this host has had a lot of problems recently. More to follow on that one soon. Are other forums faster then? _________________ Cheers Carl Hibbard Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         Chess Scotland Noticeboard Forum Index -> General Chess Chat All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next Page 4 of 8   Jump to: Select a forum Public Area----------------General Chess ChatJunior Chess ChatAnnouncementsMembership NewsInternational TournamentsTournament ChatThe Games ZoneAsk the GraderThe Arbiters JotterSwap ShopWhy don't you??? Members Only----------------Archive  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com