Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 83

Thread: How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?

  1. | #1
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,947

    Default How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?

    Simply a question born of curiosity:

    How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  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 How to grow a field if you have no seed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Simply a question born of curiosity:

    How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?
    At first I thought you had missed the fact that we had a metrics thread on the Aus Open.

    But then I realised that you probably had a number in mind, and that number is not a real number is it. It is just before the real numbers innit. So it is not a metric.
    Hence you have started a new thread.

    So, where to start?
    I guess my first reaction, on being press-ganged into the organising committee on such short notice, is that there would be some 'seed' money by sponsors. But no, the first thing I noticed is that there was no 'seed' money, but there was paperwork. I can't complement the paperwork that has to be filled out, I can't even damn it as 'feint phrase'.

    There is no money upfront from the ACF.
    That presents quite a challenge as the budget for this Aus Open 2019 event is more that the entire annual budget of the BHCC.

    My first bright idea was to ask for $1000 as seed money from the group who see the Aus Open 2019 as their flagship event.
    But it was quickly explained to me that if (after many months of solid work) we made an eventual profit of $4000, we would have to return the $1000 and also pay $2000 as profit-share. Does that strike you as usurious? <Get a $1000 upfront as a loan, and then return the $1000 plus $2000 of profit>.Don't answer that because it is obvious a different approach was needed.

    I went down the road to talk to Sobriquet, the Treasurer of Chess Victoria, and the Executive were quite happy to sponsor the event on behalf of the State chess community, to the tune of $3000.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  3. | #3
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    There is no money upfront from the ACF.
    That presents quite a challenge as the budget for this Aus Open 2019 event is more that the entire annual budget of the BHCC.

    My first bright idea was to ask for $1000 as seed money from the group who see the Aus Open 2019 as their flagship event.
    But it was quickly explained to me that if (after many months of solid work) we made an eventual profit of $4000, we would have to return the $1000 and also pay $2000 as profit-share. Does that strike you as usurious? <Get a $1000 upfront as a loan, and then return the $1000 plus $2000 of profit>.Don't answer that because it is obvious a different approach was needed.
    Well this story is hardly surprising. It has been the ACFs mode of operation for over 25 years. What the average Australian chess player needs to understand is that the whole ideology is based on neo-liberal modelling.
    This is of course a political ideology that assumes no responsibility for the wider community it claims to represent. Basically the ACF has privatised elite chess in Australia with its ridiculous tender and profit/loss sharing arrangements. But the problem is that people don't understand that "privatisation" means socialism for the wealthy elite. In this case, those that control the political apparatus of the ACF are the ones who benefit the most from the political arrangement. Long term this model is unsustainable as it does not grow the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    I went down the road to talk to Sobriquet, the Treasurer of Chess Victoria, and the Executive were quite happy to sponsor the event on behalf of the State chess community, to the tune of $3000.
    Well done! And of course completely justified. The Victorian model of Australian chess has been revolutionised with a free market approach to growth. This should be a serious warning to the ACF. If on one hand the ACF is unable to sustain and deliver key strategical tournaments., then it will be surpassed. And at the same time every success that outside organisers have running elite Australian chess events undermines ACF sovereignty. The current ACF policy of collecting rent monopolisation for naming rights contributes nothing to the organisational capacities of Australian chess.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  4. | #4
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Simply a question born of curiosity:

    How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?
    You are not asking the right question at the right time. Try again.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    My first bright idea was to ask for $1000 as seed money from the group who see the Aus Open 2019 as their flagship event.
    But it was quickly explained to me that if (after many months of solid work) we made an eventual profit of $4000, we would have to return the $1000 and also pay $2000 as profit-share. Does that strike you as usurious? <Get a $1000 upfront as a loan, and then return the $1000 plus $2000 of profit>.Don't answer that because it is obvious a different approach was needed.
    Certain difficulties with preparing and uploading a fully up-to-date copy of the relevant by-law notwithstanding, I have the following questions about the above mystifications:

    * Who "explained" this to you?
    * What evidence did they provide to support their "explanation"?
    * Where were they on the night of 8 January 2011?
    Last edited by HydraTED; 05-01-19 at 01:49 AM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  6. | #6
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Well this story is hardly surprising. It has been the ACFs mode of operation for over 25 years. What the average Australian chess player needs to understand is that the whole ideology is based on neo-liberal modelling.
    This is of course a political ideology that assumes no responsibility for the wider community it claims to represent. Basically the ACF has privatised elite chess in Australia with its ridiculous tender and profit/loss sharing arrangements. But the problem is that people don't understand that "privatisation" means socialism for the wealthy elite. In this case, those that control the political apparatus of the ACF are the ones who benefit the most from the political arrangement. Long term this model is unsustainable as it does not grow the game.
    Don't let the fact that the rule in question was abolished nearly eight years ago get in the way of your tryhard political theorising. You should know by now that MOZ's cryptic whisperings are not a reliable source and that if you take them seriously you will just be led up the garden path.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  7. | #7
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Don't let the fact that the rule in question was abolished nearly eight years ago ...
    Before you ruin yet another thread with your irrelevant deflection, maybe....just maybe.... you should clarify what rule you are talking about as a "fact" in regards to the context of this thread. Because as it stands your assertion of "fact" in relation to context is non existent to all readers of this thread.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  8. | #8
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Before you ruin yet another thread with your irrelevant deflection, maybe....just maybe.... you should clarify what rule you are talking about as a "fact" in regards to the context of this thread. Because as it stands your assertion of "fact" in relation to context is non existent to all readers of this thread.
    Nah, you're the deflector here mate. The context is abundantly clear to anyone with the most rudimentary ability to follow the birdie. Even you should be capable of it on a good day if you bother to try rather than just feeling you have to confront me in whatever way you can whenever I point out that you're wrong. MOZ made false claims that the ACF still took a 50% share of profits, attributing them to some still unstated source. You quoted those claims and said "Well this story is hardly surprising." But in fact the profit-share rule was abolished by the ACF Council on 8 January 2011, having earlier been suspended for at least one year in 2008.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  9. | #9
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You are not asking the right question at the right time. Try again.
    Well now the curiosity centres of my brain are lighting up like a christmas tree. What is the right question and when is the right time?!
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  10. | #10
    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
    Certain difficulties with preparing and uploading a fully up-to-date copy of the relevant by-law notwithstanding, I have the following questions about the above mystifications:

    * Who "explained" this to you?
    * What evidence did they provide to support their "explanation"?
    * Where were they on the night of 8 January 2011?
    Axiom's thread starter asked if the ACF had contributed financially to the Aus OPEN 2019 event.

    Your post does not address the issue of a 'seed contribution' from the ACF.

    If an ACF 'seed contribution' is off the table, and can never be on the table, then that is the end of my interest in seed funding from the ACF.


    The 50% profit share regulation was read out to me from what looked to be a download from the ACF web-site.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  11. | #11
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Simply a question born of curiosity:

    How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?
    It looks like the answer might be zero!
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  12. | #12
    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 Firegoat7 View Post
    It looks like the answer might be zero!
    To this point in time.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  13. | #13
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    The 50% profit share regulation was read out to me from what looked to be a download from the ACF web-site.
    From the ACF website:

    The copies of the ACF By-Laws presented here were uploaded in July 2017 except where noted otherwise. Some sections will require further updating.

    Anyone needing to make use of the By-Laws and confirm that the By-Laws in a given area are up to date should use the Contacts page and send an email copied to the full ACF Executive (President, Secretary, Treasurer, Deputy President, Vice-Presidents).

    DISCLAIMER: While all attempts are made to ensure accurate and up to date copies of the By-Laws are available, the ACF does not guarantee that the posted copies are necessarily correct and up to date in all regards.

    [..]

    By-laws for ACF Tournaments (This version to be updated)

    In fact the copy of the By-Laws for ACF Tournaments there claims incorrectly to include all updates until 5 Jan 2012, which in at least one case it doesn't, but anyone with any sense who needed to know would at least investigate if it was current in such an important regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ
    Your post does not address the issue of a 'seed contribution' from the ACF.
    Of course not, because that isn't how it works. A variety of policies have operated but the policy for this event and the last few years of Champs and Open was a limited guarantee against loss (up to $5K and subject to approval). No upfront grant. Guarantees against loss are paid at Council's discretion in response to submitted accounts showing and explaining the loss.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  14. | #14
    Senior Member Jasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    Well now the curiosity centres of my brain are lighting up like a christmas tree.
    "Your brain would be lucky to have enough electric-charge to power a single sub-molecular nano-bot" - Kevin Bonham

  15. | #15
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,947

    Default

    How did BHCC fund the first few months?
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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