All is not lost. Yet.

[HydraTED]

Are you actually saying anything new in all this surmising?

I have seen a written report.
You cast doubt on the source.
End of story until the reports become public.

I am not casting doubt on you having seen something that you call a "report". I reserve judgement on whether it is properly called a "report" or not.
What I am casting doubt on is (i) whether it actually even purports to support the statement "who 'think' they have made a loss for 2017" (ii) whether it is capable of supporting that statement even if it purports to do so.

And I have made points re (ii) that stand quite without seeing the "report", so to pretend that matter is irresolvable until it is seen is just a futile attempt to wave away those points.

Feel free to post suggestions/answers/information on chesschat.

I don't intend doing so just in response to questions posted here, as people should initiate serious discussions on a properly moderated forum. Also, if someone reposts questions from here over there, they will be taken down if posted on behalf of a banned poster. But if someone genuine starts a discussion over there, I'll respond. By the way to this stage I have received no queries in response to the invitation posted in #1.

Perhaps you could address whether the AusJCL can dissolve itself.
I had presumed the AusJCL was a creature of the ACF so it would be up to the ACF to do the dissolution as they have the resident authority.

Your presumption is false. Your lucky free clue is item 3 (c) iii of the ACF Constitution.

Or or/and you could help with the puzzle piece that points to the location of advert for job/role vacancies in AusJCL as a consequence of resignations.

Your hypothetical entity, you go look for it.

[MOZ]

I am not casting doubt on you having seen something that you call a "report". I reserve judgement on whether it is properly called a "report" or not.
What I am casting doubt on is (i) whether it actually even purports to support the statement "who 'think' they have made a loss for 2017" (ii) whether it is capable of supporting that statement even if it purports to do so.

Report is the third word in the title.

...

Your presumption is false. Your lucky free clue is item 3 (c) iii of the ACF Constitution.

Thanks for that reference. Your assistance will be nominated for the green-shoots monthly award (rewards unexpected assistance).

3.The Federation may grant the status of Associated Body to an organisation which: i. represents regions of Australia or its territories that are not represented by a State Association; ii. represents part of the region of a State Association, but only with the consent of such State Association; or iii. represents special aspects of chess

...

[CarrierPigeon]

The ACF used to paid AJCL about $7,000 per year to organise the Australian Junior, the Australian Young Masters, the Australian Schools Teams Final, to organise applications, selections and entries for international junior events and to pay the registration fees for those events.
Over three years ago the ACF cut off the AJCL from funding, but did not tell them until almost a year later when they asked when the funds would be arriving.
The official reason given for cutting off the funds was insufficient detail on the AJCL accounts for the previous few years. (For example the JETS income and expenditure were not separated from the main accounts.) There was no suggestion of any impropriety by the AJCL treasurers - in fact the organisation was in a healthy financial state.
At around the same time as their funds were cut off, the ACF also unexpectedly sent the AJCL a large bill for about 3 years of FIDE fees. (These fees were officially the AJCL's responsibility but after not having been billed them for years, the AJCL reasonably assumed that the ACF had agreed to cover them in appreciation of all the work the AJCL was doing. This was certainly wishful thinking!)
The AJCL tried to arrange mediation but the ACF set a precondition of the old accounts being reconstructed, which turned out to be impossible. After more than two years of attempting to resolve the issue, running out of money, and with a strong feeling of being exploited and abused by the ACF, the AJCL decided that it had no choice but to hand back it's responsibilities to the ACF and fold. (The AJCL was officially only a sub-committee of the ACF.)

My disclaimer is that I have not been an official on the AJCL for about 3 years, so others would know some of these issues in greater detail.

Incoming puzzle pieces; assorted and scrambled.

[MOZ]

Jeez, this is a good post .

It is like that feeling you get when you get all the jigsaw corner and border pieces in place and the mystery is thus contained at least.

That is not say that all the corner and border pieces have been put on the table in their correct sequence, and that now needs to be checked.

Some of the pieces I have seen before. Poor old DCC got into the FIDE paid/not-paid/delayed/oops-there-are-two-imposts-on-this-issue. As did a few other CCs.

And don't get me on my hobby horse of why all these Clubs have rushed headlong into ACF ratings and FIDE ratings for the one event.

[MOZ]

My post, #2 (on Ozchess). Now looks spot on. TICK
My post, #4. After my re-reading the REPORT; TICK. My source? Well that is between Hydra T and the source.

[HydraTED]

Jeez, this is a good post .

I can see that it would fit your definition of a good post. For instance almost the entire first paragraph is misleading (except for the final sentence, though even that describes part of the problem.)

Take care not to take your facts from those who like their chess politics on the excitable side. The most important part in that post is the disclaimer.

And don't get me on my hobby horse of why all these Clubs have rushed headlong into ACF ratings and FIDE ratings for the one event.

The ACF does not submit events for FIDE-rating unless they are also submitted for ACF-rating. Why should it? If you want to talk about ratings, let's talk about CV's markups on admin fees.

My post, #2 (on Ozchess). Now looks spot on. TICK
My post, #4. After my re-reading the REPORT; TICK. My source? Well that is between Hydra T and the source.

Your self-congratulation over the outcomes of your own confirmation bias is hardly worth inflating your postcount over.

[HydraTED]

[*]Bank accounts increased. TICK.

Whose bank accounts and over what period?

Are you claiming the AusJCL's financial position improved in 2017?

[MOZ]

I can see that it would fit your definition of a good post. For instance almost the entire first paragraph is misleading (except for the final sentence, though even that describes part of the problem.)

My definition of a good post includes those posts that call out the existence of elephant in the room. Now after that comes the problem of deciding if the elephant is facing north (and thus we are looking at its trunk) or the elephant is facing south in which case sunglasses are not required.

Take care not to take your facts from those who like their chess politics on the excitable side. The most important part in that post is the disclaimer.

Your M.O. is to brand folks.
On this particular occasion, the source is excitable, in your opinion.
I reject your whole concept of branding.
Sometimes folks are right and sometimes folks are wrong.

Excitable or not, the 1st sentence of the Good Post tells us there is an elephant. Leaving aside (for the moment) the possibility that there may be a herd.

The ACF does not submit events for FIDE-rating unless they are also submitted for ACF-rating.

I don't have an issue with the nexus.
What I don't like is sending money overseas for a rating when we already have an adequate classic rating system. And I don't enjoy the import/export tax for the ACF handling the FIDE transaction.

Why should it?

If you want to talk about ratings, let's talk about CV's markups on admin fees.

We have a whole thread here on Ozchess on ratings. You are welcome to post your position there.

Your self-congratulation over the outcomes of your own confirmation bias is hardly worth inflating your postcount over.

Jut defending the brand.

[HydraTED]

My definition of a good post includes those posts that call out the existence of elephant in the room. Now after that comes the problem of deciding if the elephant is facing north (and thus we are looking at its trunk) or the elephant is facing south in which case sunglasses are not required.

Rubbish. My post prior to Ian's (#5) alluded to the same issues set from a more informed perspective and yet you didn't make similar comments about it. Either the "elephant" is alluded to by both posts (less accurately in one than the other), or if the elephant is only alluded to by Ian's post then the elephant doesn't exist. You may have confused it with the imaginary rhinoceros that Russell and Wittgenstein argued about.

On this particular occasion, the source is excitable, in your opinion.

That source is excitable on many occasions when it comes to chess politics. It goes to whether you should place trust in unconfirmed statements.

I reject your whole concept of branding.
Sometimes folks are right and sometimes folks are wrong.

And this is a spurious dichotomy, since I've pointed out some of the many factual errors in this instance already.

Excitable or not, the 1st sentence of the Good Post tells us there is an elephant.

False. The existence of a former income stream was already referred to. The supposedly "Good Post"'s first sentence only stated the amount of the stream (correctly) and then incorrectly implied that the money was only to be used for the listed purposes.

What I don't like is sending money overseas for a rating when we already have an adequate classic rating system.

Tough. While I am the first to agree that the FIDE classic rating system is mathematically simple and in some respects not as good as ours, it has uses that ours cannot provide, and this is a major and logical driver of player and organiser demand for it. The most obvious of these is that FIDE ratings are needed for FIDE titles.

[MOZ]

Just when I thought I could see the boundaries of the jigsaw puzzle, new pieces arrive and I go back into think mode.

CV has a history of involvement with this Junior Levy of $7000 per year.
Around 2013-4, the State received a new Treasurer as he was the only candidate for election. He set himself the task of challenging the formal legality of the ACF imposing a levy on behalf of an Associated Body. Initially the Executive backed his efforts in negotiating with the ACF, but when the ACF threat to not admit a winning VIC school to the national finals unless the levy was paid, the Executive's hand was 'forced'.
The Treasurer subsequently resigned mid-term.

The levy continued to be paid in following years, but we all had a wry smile when it was rebadged with a new name.


As the incoming Treasurer since the mid-term resignation I have arranged payment of the levy in every year invoiced since.

Now we read the junior development levy has been not been passed on to the AusJCL for something around 3 years.

Thus to solve the holiday puzzle I have got to try to understand:
1 Why a dispute between the AusJCL and the ACF runs 3 years?
2 Why is CV still being levied, but the levy has not been moved on to the Associated Body?

CV is now financially better off since it reviewed fees for schools participating in costly eoy Finals.
We are not stretched to pay the levy.
We could even be interested in paying an increased levy now that junior activities have ramped up and one of our state guidelines for expenditure is to grant money to chess communities that are responsible for that growth.

The ACF needs to fix the current impasse that has not been fixed for 3 years.
Or is it waiting for another 'Associated Body' to form and be recognised?

[MOZ]

...

I don't intend doing so just in response to questions posted here, as people should initiate serious discussions on a properly moderated forum.....

It is only properly moderated in the sense that you force compliance to a fierce and intolerant set of rules.

And in there lies a problem that has lasted 3 years is not debated until the AusJCL dissolves itself.

[HydraTED]

It is only properly moderated in the sense that you force compliance to a fierce and intolerant set of rules.

CC's rules are far from "fierce and intolerant" given that there are forums out there where - for instance - posters who sign up using new accounts while banned are immediately banned for life for a first offence. It is sometimes possible to have good moderation that involves few actions against posters, but it depends on the poster body that a forum has - some posters are hopeless cases. What is never good moderation is the mix of complete slackness and sporadic random personally motivated bannings (with no justification in the form of breaches of any rule) that has been seen on here in the past. And a basic of good moderation on any forum is cleaning up defamatory postings and posters.

And in there lies a problem that has lasted 3 years is not debated until the AusJCL dissolves itself.

More rubbish. Aside from the "3 years" being a slight exaggeration, there was ample scope for debate about the AusJCL on Chesschat had anyone wanted to conduct it, just as there have been debates there down the years about everything from Australian Championships selections to the ACF website. About the only things people would have had to watch out for would be defamation, quoting banned posters and quoting internal/private communications without permission. Great latitude is always shown on all these scores to those whose intention is good and who unwittingly overstep.

[Axiom]

CC's rules are far from "fierce and intolerant" given that there are forums out there where - for instance - posters who sign up using new accounts while banned are immediately banned for life for a first offence.

Try national chess forums out there life banning productive chess enthusiasts!
How do those figures add up bigboy!?

[HydraTED]

Try national chess forums out there life banning productive [sic] chess enthusiasts!

Only after very large numbers of warnings, letoffs, temporary bans, reprieves and offence lists longer than Bruce Reid's arms.

[OzChessFM]

Only after very large numbers of warnings, letoffs, temporary bans, reprieves and offence lists longer than Bruce Reid's arms.

You missed the point again.
Which was: "How do those figures add up bigboy!?"