ACF charges to change.

[antichrist]

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.

But MOz, isn't that Allegro comp run on Tornello and nothing to do with ACF in any manner shape or form? It is an in house tourney that I presume is a sufficient money spinner for the club. If you can't beat them then join them - do one for Box Hill, like look how many New Faces talent shows on tv now, umpteen. We have The Voice, Think you can Sing, Next Star, ...Got Talent, Think you can Dance , Just Ballroom, etc. What you are proposing would end up a GST on chess playing. If you can get away with it then good on you, would ACF need to take it to a vote of whole chess populice

[Just2Good]

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.

Then move a motion. What are rank and file members going to do about it?

[MOZ]

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.

What appears to be justified by the newsletter item in post #1, is a rise in some fee but not necessarily the rating fees. There are other fees that could be considered instead.
The problem with raising the rating fee is that it further prices the ACF-ratings out of the market.
We have already seen

• QLD Junior ratings
• NSW Junior ratings
• Tornello ratings

make inroads to the ACF revenue stream because some stakeholders seek to avoid a 'ratings-tax'.
These chess stakeholders freeload on other ACF Admin services because the weakness of the ACF system that the ACF have implemented whereby Admin fees are only applicable to the subset of events that choose to be taxed.
In the general community we know that tax-avoidance of all sorts is a major objective of the populus if the tax-rate is deemed to be too high.
Thus, it cannot come as a big surprise for chess folk to seek to avoid a 'ratings-tax'.
Hence we see

• QLD Junior ratings
• NSW Junior ratings
• Tornello ratings

chosen for tax avoidance, not because they are better rating calculators.

Because of this tax avoidance dysfunction, and because we have already met the tipping point of ACF-ratings as too-expensive, we see chess tax avoiders willing to put aside their good sense of civic obligations and proceed to freeload.

The ACF needs to meet this problem by

1. reduce charges for ratings so that tax avoiders are attracted to the official system
2. introduce a GST payable by those stakeholders that are representative bodies of the whole chess population, not a subset of the chess population.

If the ACF raise fund by ratings then okay they will use the money for chess anyway and not extravagance.

I am not arguing nor accusing the ACF of extravagance.
In fact, they are reporting a small loss that needs to be addressed by some change to processes. I agree this loss needs to be recovered. But it needs to be recovered by the whole of the chess populus, not just the easy targets like Canberra Street Chess and Canterbury Rookies and Queens Cup. Instead, everyone needs to chip in, and I think a GST on State Stakeholders is the way to go.

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.

[antichrist]

Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
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.

AC: I can't remember much of a feed at the NSWJCL's meetings much to my disappointment. Now if meetings were held at a Lebo household of course a decent feed would be provided otherwise one is not a Lebo

[george]

Hi All,

The ACF had an Olympiad donation topup which because the general Australian chess public were so generous in the Olympiad Appeal meant a very 'generous" topup beyond that which was envisaged. The ACF allocated funds to tournies for one reason or another blew out in a way which had more to do with "process" than bad management.

ACF needs to address this situation and has done so in a way they saw fit - Conference or Council meeting whichever forum agreed to the rating fee increases and I suspect it was Conference has representatives from each state etc.

Whilst things could always be done better in any organization (no argument from me on this point) I feel the current ACF Executive are doing a good job otherwise the Conference would not have reelected them unopposed (correct?).

I have no real gripe with the ACF (taxes could always be lower) but SACA at least is happy to pay its share.

If I as an individual was not happy about the management of ACF I would personally become active in ACF and try to change things.

I am definitely NOT saying that discussion on public forums should not take place.

Later this year our ACF delegate will be away for second half of year so ACF Council will have the pleasure/annoyance of my input as SACA delegate.

From memory it has been my experience that Norm Greenwood has been very careful with ACF funds and they have only been used where authorized by Council or within the President's delegation. I really cant remember food ever been provided at ACF meetings - lucky to have water ( oh I forgot , sometimes mints)

regards to all

[antichrist]

With Matt and Firegoat out of action there is no big deal or blue likely to occur.

In case you are not aware George I like drawing analogies to help make a point. Fools going to church are quite happy to tithe, i.e. pay 10% for nothing in return, but put those same fools in a chess club and they will whinge all day about fees etc that they actually receive services for.

Will you please quote this response so our good friend KB can read though he has me on ignore

[MOZ]

Hi All,

The ACF had an Olympiad donation topup which because the general Australian chess public were so generous in the Olympiad Appeal meant a very 'generous" topup beyond that which was envisaged. The ACF allocated funds to tournies for one reason or another blew out in a way which had more to do with "process" than bad management.

ACF needs to address this situation and has done so in a way they saw fit - Conference or Council meeting whichever forum agreed to the rating fee increases and I suspect it was Conference has representatives from each state etc.

Whilst things could always be done better in any organization (no argument from me on this point) I feel the current ACF Executive are doing a good job otherwise the Conference would not have reelected them unopposed (correct?).

I have no real gripe with the ACF (taxes could always be lower) but SACA at least is happy to pay its share.

If I as an individual was not happy about the management of ACF I would personally become active in ACF and try to change things.

I am definitely NOT saying that discussion on public forums should not take place.

Later this year our ACF delegate will be away for second half of year so ACF Council will have the pleasure/annoyance of my input as SACA delegate.

From memory it has been my experience that Norm Greenwood has been very careful with ACF funds and they have only been used where authorized by Council or within the President's delegation. I really cant remember food ever been provided at ACF meetings - lucky to have water [IMG]file:///C:/Users/TREVOR~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png[/IMG]

regards to all

I have read your post and I am left with the impression that you think this thread is some sort of attack on the ACF, or the Treasurer, or the Ratings Officer.
The thread was not started with that intent at all.
And I don't really think it has verged in that direction.

Instead, the thread was started with the intent of solving some problems with funding by simply changing the charging regime.

First.
There were a few posts about what product is being sold by the ACF.
From what I can see, the product is admin. services which includes activities such as:
· sponsorship of national events including Olympiad teams
·
· travel
· trophies
· arbiter fees
· communication costs (eg SKYPE)
· photocopying
· management of titles
· management of school final titles
· FIDE registration of our organisation.
· Rating calculations quarterly
· Publication of ratings
· Olympiad Team selection
· FIDE delegate
· Website hosting and maintenance
· Newsletter collation and distribution
· Chesschat moderation
· Grants to AusJCL
· Conferences and Councils
· Constitution management
· DGT boards; loans and maintenance
· Management of lots of other things


Second
It was identified that only two of these items are funded.

1. A fee calculated for rating services for those events submitted. The fee was originally intended with a USER-pays rationale, but has now broken down due to large-scale tax avoidance. It is a sad fact that there are now more games played in Australia that are submitted to non-ACF rating systems than are submitted for ACF rating. In other words tax avoidance is rampant.
2. Grants to AusJCL are funded by State contributions calculated and levied on a per-capita basis.

Proposed new approach
* Change 1 above to an ADMIN Levy based on State per-capita contributions.
* Retain 2 above, because it is working adequately.


PS With the net for calculating tax spread wider beyond the rating focus, it would be certain that for the same amount of tax calculated via USER-pays vis-a-vis PER-CAPITA levy would see SACA paying less tax in a given year. The two areas of largest tax avoidance, NSW and Victoria would pay more in compensation; but with far greater equity of civic obligation achieved.

[george]

hi Moz,

I never thought this was an attack on ACF. I gave a few observations from my point of view.
Why you would think I was defending the ACf I don't know either. My observation was the executive must be doing an ok job otherwise why would they be reelected unopposed. If the chess public are that timid about active participation in ACf administration that they allow an inefficient/efficient executive to be reelected unopposed then we the great chess public probably get what we deserve.

[MOZ]

hi Moz,

I never thought this was an attack on ACF. I gave a few observations from my point of view.

Good, we got that out of the way then.

Why you would think I was defending the ACf I don't know either.

Good, we can move to the central issues then.
Which are:

• the ACF made a loss, and the newsletter declared it unsustainable, and apparently the choice made for remediation was to increase an existing fee. A fee that is already showing signs of substantial dysfunctional consequences.
• the ACF could have made a better choice for raising money. The solution I proposed has the potential to raise much money from two sources that have much idle reserves. One of those sources could easily double its current contribution to the ACF with no pain (in contrast to the relatively paltry 33% increase flagged in the ACF newsletter), and the other source could do even better. <SACA could easily find itself paying less under my proposal>.

My observation was the executive must be doing an ok job otherwise why would they be reelected unopposed.

Not my central issue, so pass on this one.

If the chess public are that timid about active participation in ACf administration that they allow an inefficient/efficient executive to be reelected unopposed then we the great chess public probably get what we deserve.

Not my central issue, so pass on this one.

[antichrist]

BTW thanks for quoting post 22

[MOZ]

With Matt and Firegoat out of action there is no big deal or blue likely to occur.

In case you are not aware George I like drawing analogies to help make a point. Fools going to church are quite happy to tithe, i.e. pay 10% for nothing in return, but put those same fools in a chess club and they will whinge all day about fees etc that they actually receive services for.

Will you please quote this response so our good friend KB can read though he has me on ignore

Another Doubting Thomas who thinks reasoned debate will achieve nought.

[antichrist]

Another Doubting Thomas who thinks reasoned debate will achieve nought.

Some time eloquence speaks for itself

[John Snow]

[never resign]

this is one of the topics I will miss heaps if you guys close down. no chance for a topic of this high level of intelligence and information can be spotted in the other forum.

[Just2Good]

this is one of the topics I will miss heaps if you guys close down. no chance for a topic of this high level of intelligence and information can be spotted in the other forum.

Well ... thanks for the nice sentiment, but we're still closing down unfortunately. Someone else will have to keep those in the ACF honest.