Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: ACF charges to change.

  1. | #1
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default ACF charges to change.

    From the ACF newsletter 1/15:

    Admin Fees To Rise
    To improve revenue following substantial losses in 2014, the ACF has made the following changes to the per-game Admin Fee charged for tournaments submitted for ACF Ratings:
    * Normal time control games: increase from 30c/player/game to 40c/player/game
    * Rapid time control games: increase from 10c/player/game to 15c/player/game
    Blitz time control games remain unchanged at 5c/player/game. Changes take effect from 1 September 2015. This is the first increase for several years.
    Fair enough if the circumstances warrant an increase.
    Let us one by one look at possible 'circumstances'.

    1. The cost of processing the rating of games in the ACF Rating system has increased.

    It looks like we can dismiss this one out of hand because there is no mention of processing costs in the ACF announcement, and given that computers process quicker, and volunteer labour is probably unpaid, there is no reason to believe that processing costs have increased.
    Nothing to see on 1)., so we move on to 'circumstance' 2).
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  2. | #2
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default

    2. The ACF spends more on (FIDE) training reimbursements and so it needs recover additional money to re-establish cash reserves.

    We can probably discard this circumstance too. First, the reimbursements are going to cease, and second the ACF cash reserves are close to a six figure sum. Thus this circumstance is not a cogent reason to raise rating fees.


    Time to move to 3.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  3. | #3
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,727

    Default

    Even though there may not be justified fee increases for ratings, they still seem reasonable. A ten round long game comp will only cost a dollar more per player, they should not whinge about this. If the ACF raise fund by ratings then okay they will use the money for chess anyway and not extravagance. They sponsor Dr Bonham to go overseas to FIDE meetings and as he does get really involved in getting good decisions there it is acceptable. But I would prefer if they got an active player to represent us and save the travel and accommodation fees. But Dr Bonham does perform many duties consistently so good on him.

  4. | #4
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Even though there may not be justified fee increases for ratings, they still seem reasonable. A ten round long game comp will only cost a dollar more per player, they should not whinge about this. If the ACF raise fund by ratings then okay they will use the money for chess anyway and not extravagance. They sponsor Dr Bonham to go overseas to FIDE meetings and as he does get really involved in getting good decisions there it is acceptable. But I would prefer if they got an active player to represent us and save the travel and accommodation fees. But Dr Bonham does perform many duties consistently so good on him.
    hi a/c

    With totidem verbis ^ you have put your finger on circumstance 3.
    Simply, put the tax up because costs of travel have gone up.
    Thank you for your contribution.

    regards
    MOZ*
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  5. | #5
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    MOZ, if you are going to take a deliberate attempt to troll and start cross-forum fights seriously (complete with its bizarre delusion that a current state champion is not an active player), can I interest you in a used tinfoil hat I found lying about here? It's marked "property of Axiom (pretending to be deceased)" and has room for at least another ten thousand heads, probably just enough to include all your hydras.

    Yes there is a budget line for FIDE admin travel that wasn't there when Phil Viner was delegate, but on the other hand currently less than half of it is actually spent because it is only currently spent on sending me to every second Congress. It's always possible the ACF might want to use it to send me (or somebody) to something else such as an OCC meeting or a non-GA Congress, but that hasn't come about to date, and every specific expenditure requires Council approval.

    You do the math: 26,000 normal rated games and 19,000 rapid games. 10c per player per game increase for the former, 5c per player per game for such of the latter as are rapid as opposed to blitz.

    It probably raises more than four times my current average actual FIDE delegate travel expenses, which would hardly prevent a balanced (or indeed surplus) budget without avoidable losses from other sources.

    Travel expenses weren't even discussed as a reason to raise fees. The main issue discussed was ACF losses in the last financial year driven mainly by payments to tournaments, and that the fees had not been raised for many years. There is also a view among some on Council that whatever the Council's bank balance we should avoid losses on a scale that is not indefinitely sustainable.

  6. | #6
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    MOZ, if you are going to take a deliberate attempt to troll and start cross-forum fights seriously ...
    Cross forum?
    As in chesschat vis-a-vis Ozchess? Or something other? Please clarify

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    (complete with its bizarre delusion that a current state champion is not an active player), ...
    I think what he meant was a player who was at the venue as part of the Olympiad team: <not that this is a sensible interpretation either>.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ..can I interest you in a used tinfoil hat I found lying about here? It's marked "property of Axiom (pretending to be deceased)" and has room for at least another ten thousand heads, probably just enough to include all your hydras.
    No interest from me. You have just inserted gratuitous abuse.
    Can we return to serious analysis?

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Yes there is a budget line for FIDE admin travel that wasn't there when Phil Viner was delegate, but on the other hand currently less than half of it is actually spent because it is only currently spent on sending me to every second Congress. It's always possible the ACF might want to use it to send me (or somebody) to something else such as an OCC meeting or a non-GA Congress, but that hasn't come about to date, and every specific expenditure requires Council approval.
    I leave this to a/c to analyse; he raised the travel circumstance.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You do the math: 26,000 normal rated games and 19,000 rapid games. 10c per player per game increase for the former, 5c per player per game for such of the latter as are rapid as opposed to blitz.

    It probably raises more than four times my current average actual FIDE delegate travel expenses, which would hardly prevent a balanced (or indeed surplus) budget without avoidable losses from other sources.
    I leave this to a/c to analyse; he raised the travel circumstance

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Travel expenses weren't even discussed as a reason to raise fees. The main issue discussed was ACF losses in the last financial year driven mainly by payments to tournaments, and that the fees had not been raised for many years. There is also a view among some on Council that whatever the Council's bank balance we should avoid losses on a scale that is not indefinitely sustainable.
    I have had to await my representatives return to Melbourne to understand the detail in 'payments to tournaments'.
    From what I have been told the effects on ACF finances have been (2014 compared to 2013)
    SIO down
    Masters down to $1500
    Olympiad up to $11,000
    OPEN steady at $5000
    Doeberl steady at $2000

    If the ACF consistently loses $5000 from adopting this budgeting then it will eventually deplete reserves. <I hope you do not mind this paraphrase; I found the double negative in not indefinitely sustainable a bit difficult to unravel>.

    In summary of discussion so far
    ​taxes have to go up, but the question remains which particular tax.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  7. | #7
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    I think what he meant was a player who was at the venue as part of the Olympiad team: <not that this is a sensible interpretation either>.
    That would be a particularly stupid thing to mean if he did mean it, but pending (or even with) supposed clarification we should not rule any particular level of stupidity out. His point was simply to wave my travel costs and my existence around in the air as a red rag so that people who do not like me would start discussing the subject here, and he deliberately used mock praise to try to pretend his own hands were clean of what might result. Unfortunately, while I have his idiocy on ignore, I still see it when other people quote it.

    No interest from me. You have just inserted gratuitous abuse.
    Can we return to serious analysis?
    If you were getting suckered by AC's trolling then you were not engaging in serious analysis in the first place and no level of conditional "abuse" that I might offer is gratuitous. Even "Thank you for your contribution" implies either an excessive level of gullibility or an unwarranted glee in going along for the ride.

    I have had to await my representatives return to Melbourne to understand the detail in 'payments to tournaments'.
    From what I have been told the effects on ACF finances have been (2014 compared to 2013)
    SIO down
    Masters down to $1500
    Olympiad up to $11,000
    OPEN steady at $5000
    Doeberl steady at $2000
    The SIO did run in 2014 but is not expected to run again. In terms of budgeting for 2015 the Conference budgeted $5000 for events other than the Open (and Olympiad) combined but it remains to be seen whether Council sticks to this budget once all applications are in, including from important events not listed above.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 20-01-15 at 12:43 PM.

  8. | #8
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default Taxes have to rise because the ACF is not making a profit. Which tax?

    From the ACF newsletter 1/15:

    Admin Fees To Rise
    To improve revenue following substantial losses in 2014, the ACF has made the following changes to the per-game Admin Fee charged for tournaments submitted for ACF Ratings:
    * Normal time control games: increase from 30c/player/game to 40c/player/game
    * Rapid time control games: increase from 10c/player/game to 15c/player/game
    Blitz time control games remain unchanged at 5c/player/game. Changes take effect from 1 September 2015. This is the first increase for several years.
    Taxes have to rise because the ACF is not making a profit. Which tax?

    The ACF Conference apparently chose to increase the Admin Fee.
    I visited the ACF web-site to see all activities that were intended to funded by the Admin fee. My search yielded very little; perhaps because those elements of ACF records have not been ported from the old web-site.
    Besides rating services there must be many activities intended to be funded by the Admin Fee. Can anyone assist with a full list? Perhaps included in the list are:
    • travel
    • trophies
    • arbiter fees
    • communication costs (eg SKYPE)
    • photocopying
    • management of titles
    • management of school final titles
    • FIDE registration of our organisation.

    Who knows.

    It would be nice if many of these costs could be recoverable (or at least partly chargeable) , and not just be an overhead incurred by the ACF.
    But, sadly we are left with an ACF Conference resolution that is only charging for one service, that is ... the service of updating rating records from a subset of events held in Australia.
    This methodology hits the subset of participants, and the subset of services, and gives
    1. 'Free access' for ADMIN services not of a rating type, and
    2. 'Free access' to record keeping (eg file space and player id's) to rated players who choose to play no ACF-rated games throughout a year.


    Inevitablity, from the subsetting of recovery of services, and the subsetting of payers within the rating service, a limited number of players/Clubs/States pay much higher charges than equity would demand.

    So, the consequence is that the recent ACF conference has decided to hit this target group even more.

    Our next post examines if this easy option could have been addressed with a more equitable resolution.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  9. | #9
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,117

    Post ACF Expenses

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Besides rating services there must be many activities intended to be funded by the Admin Fee. Can anyone assist with a full list? Perhaps included in the list are:
    • travel
    • trophies
    • arbiter fees
    • communication costs (eg SKYPE)
    • photocopying
    • management of titles
    • management of school final titles
    • FIDE registration of our organisation.

    Who knows.
    It wouldn't surprise me if pizza and beverages for ACF council meetings was one of the expenses MOZ. But to be fair, I don't blame them if they do spend some money on that. Those meetings are no doubt as boring as watching grass grow. Might as well get a good feed out of it.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  10. | #10
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    [FONT=Georgia]It wouldn't surprise me if pizza and beverages for ACF council meetings was one of the expenses MOZ.
    It would surprise me. I've never been to any ACF Council meeting or Conference in 15 years where there was food provided at the ACF's expense.

    MOZ (#8), the old links to the constitution (etc) are still on the ACF site, they are just (for whatever unknown reason) not linked: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/index.html Don't know if you will find what you are looking for there, but if not it was probably not there in the first place. (Caution: some items may be slightly out of date.)

    Arbiter fees are paid for by event organisers not the ACF (at least, not directly). School chess is an AusJCL matter.

    Serious proposals to reinvent the wheel of ACF finances should be moved at the appropriate levels. Non-serious ones can be attached to kites and flown on minor internet forums where they will inevitably have no effect.

  11. | #11
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....

    MOZ (#8), the old links to the constitution (etc) are still on the ACF site, they are just (for whatever unknown reason) not linked: http://www.auschess.org.au/constitution/index.html
    Thank you for your contribution.
    <I know this politeness is a repeat of a sentence in my response to a/c. Your spin comment on that occasion was so unexpected and off target that I didn't quite know what to think. So, I am thinking that you want some recognition too.>


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Don't know if you will find what you are looking for there, but if not it was probably not there in the first place. (Caution: some items may be slightly out of date.)
    I will examine in detail and get back to the forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Arbiter fees are paid for by event organisers not the ACF (at least, not directly).
    In order to invent a new approach it is often necessary to keep an open mind and re-examine every previous practice afresh.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    School chess is an AusJCL matter.
    Again, an open mind will assist in developing a new approach.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Serious proposals to reinvent the wheel of ACF finances should be moved at the appropriate levels. Non-serious ones can be attached to kites and flown on minor internet forums where they will inevitably have no effect.
    On the contrary, the genesis of a good idea will be found in the most unlikely of places.
    Incidentally, CV declared a record profit last year.
    And year-to-date October 2014 to January 2015 will be declaring a surplus in excess of $12,000.
    No rating fee increase for 5 years though.

    Make you wonder?
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  12. | #12
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    In order to invent a new approach it is often necessary to keep an open mind and re-examine every previous practice afresh.

    Again, an open mind will assist in developing a new approach.
    I suppose if I point out that these comments are tediously vexatious you will characterise such a description of reality as abuse?

    You raised a factual query about whether certain activities are intended to be funded by the Admin Fee. I pointed out the fact that two of them are not. Your response to the provision of this information was to drift the discussion to a normative suggestion that the current approach should be reconsidered, accompanied with a blatant insinuation that I am not openminded. Oh well, at least you didn't thank me for providing the information.

    Maybe I should leave you to play your pointless postcount-inflating wordgames with anyone fool enough to join in and just note that nothing suggested or claimed by anyone not on Council on this thread should be regarded as in any way factual or reliable without authoritative confirmation?

  13. | #13
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    I suppose if I point out that these comments are tediously vexatious you will characterise such a description of reality as abuse?

    You raised a factual query about whether certain activities are intended to be funded by the Admin Fee. I pointed out the fact that two of them are not. Your response to the provision of this information was to drift the discussion to a normative suggestion that the current approach should be reconsidered, accompanied with a blatant insinuation that I am not openminded. Oh well, at least you didn't thank me for providing the information.

    Maybe I should leave you to play your pointless postcount-inflating wordgames with anyone fool enough to join in and just note that nothing suggested or claimed by anyone not on Council on this thread should be regarded as in any way factual or reliable without authoritative confirmation?
    Oops, you appear to have taken umbrage.

    I don't think you are working with an open mind at the present.
    You would have not posted
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    School chess is an AusJCL matter.
    as though that was the end of the opportunity.


    And as to whether my style is tediously vexatious; my posts will appear so until you become convinced that hitting the rating schedule of charges was the easy option, requiring no fundamental analysis of other options.

    CV (under the Presidency of The Sandman) has decided a few years back to create non-rating-based charges, and these are now our largest source of revenue, by far.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  14. | #14
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    I don't think you are working with an open mind at the present.
    You would have not posted [..] as though that was the end of the opportunity.
    Offensive rubbish. The discussion of your list was not in that part of the post about opportunities, it was about facts. You asked if someone could assist with making your list more accurate, I assisted by pointing out that some inclusions were erroneous, and now you respond with insults based on a ludicrous mischaracterisation of how others are supposed to participate in your discussions. It is not my job to anticipate how you are going to threadjack your own discussion points next, and my inability to do so does not signify any lack of openmindedness, but simply that I do not conform with your debating idiosyncracies (and this just in: nobody else on the planet does either.)

    And as to whether my style is tediously vexatious; my posts will appear so until you become convinced that hitting the rating schedule of charges was the easy option, requiring no fundamental analysis of other options.
    More rubbish. Even if I agreed with your point I would still find your style inappropriate.

    Anyway you've abundantly shown that your comments are unworthy of further engagement so the reader can safely assume I regard all further MOZzery on this thread as a waste of bandwidth and not worth replying to. Those seeking the facts on anything MOZ claims or speculates about will need to seek them somewhere else than here.

  15. | #15
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,318

    Default Increased rating charges is the wrong way; GO BACK.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Offensive rubbish. The discussion of your list was not in that part of the post about opportunities, it was about facts. You asked if someone could assist with making your list more accurate, I assisted by pointing out that some inclusions were erroneous, and now you respond with insults based on a ludicrous mischaracterisation of how others are supposed to participate in your discussions. It is not my job to anticipate how you are going to threadjack your own discussion points next, and my inability to do so does not signify any lack of openmindedness, but simply that I do not conform with your debating idiosyncracies (and this just in: nobody else on the planet does either.)



    More rubbish. Even if I agreed with your point I would still find your style inappropriate.

    Anyway you've abundantly shown that your comments are unworthy of further engagement so the reader can safely assume I regard all further MOZzery on this thread as a waste of bandwidth and not worth replying to. Those seeking the facts on anything MOZ claims or speculates about will need to seek them somewhere else than here.
    Ok, your participation to date has been useful in providing facts.
    Time now to start exploring other options.

    What we have now is the ACF foreshadowing rating increases, to fund what looks at first sight to be increases in Olympiad contribution, and the easy option chosen to hit rating services.
    The relationship between rating services and increased Olympiad funding is nebulous.

    Many in the chess community are going to point out that most allegro chess played in Australia is not presented to the ACF rating system and thus remains untaxed. Nevertheless, the players of untaxed allegro chess are potentially receiving the full suite of Admin services (except for Olympiad selection). There is a fundamental inequity in this untaxed allegro but with full access to Admin services; and that inequity needs to be resolved by negotiation with the major stake-holders in chess administration.
    Unfortunately, the foreshadowed rating increase will simply act as more of a disincentive to enlist untaxed allegro events in the ACF rating system. The foreshadowed increase will be self-defeating.

    The fundamental task is to find within the Admin services budget those activities that can be newly taxed so that the charges for rating of all games can be reduced.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Members who have read this thread since 14-02-21, 06:47 PM : 0

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)  (Clear Date)

There are no names to display.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •