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

[MOZ]

How did BHCC fund the first few months?

That is no easy task for a Treasurer of a Club that normally runs its books on a break-even basis.
In fact the budget for the late-arriving 'impost' of the national OPEN event turned out to be in excess of $30,000. This is about the total expenditure of BHCC for a year.

So whether we call the early money:

upfront grant (see post #13, this thread)
seed money
startup funds
new working capital required

the fact remains the Club does not have sufficient, and it needs to be sourced from somewhere.

The projections of early payments required are
venue deposits
furniture hire deposits
floor covering purchases
advertising costs
equipment hire costs.

The situation is exacerbated by the early entries being 'free' 'titled players', with no offset for this generosity by the ACF.

How did we do it?
1) The State Association kicked in their sponsorship money early
2) A loan from a source.

[Axiom]

MOZ, How did the final balance sheet read with regards to overall surplus or loss?

[MOZ]

MOZ, How did the final balance sheet read with regards to overall surplus or loss?

The first proposal showed a loss, and was rejected by the ACF.
The seconded proposal stretched credulity a bit more and the risk factor thereby went up. The projected loss came down a bit.
The House Full before the early-bird had finished looked break-even, although a full accounting report was not prepared.
The actions taken to extend the venue and playing numbers was expensive and I don't think the revenue eventually covered all this.
Still being collated.

[Box Hill Publicity Officer]

MOZ, How did the final balance sheet read with regards to overall surplus or loss?

Of course MOZ would give a financial view of the event.
But there are other views as to the worth of the exercise.
For example the Box Hill Newsletter Editor wrote in the most recent newsletter

Editorial
Over the Christmas – New Year period, the club successfully hosted the Australian Open and Australian Minor with
the help of many volunteers.
The club is starting to develop real camaraderie amongst the parents who have volunteered their time and effort.
Not only did they provide help with the event, but they contributed to the great atmosphere and fantastic vibes that
were generated. Since my kids started playing chess, I have attended quite a number of weekenders, a few national
and international events. In all my experience nothing has provided this great atmosphere and warmth ( I don’t mean
the temperature !!)

[Sobriquet]

MOZ, How did the final balance sheet read with regards to overall surplus or loss?

From a State point of view the excellent participation in this event fully justified the Chess Victoria sponsorship of $3000.

[Firegoat7]

MOZ, How did the final balance sheet read with regards to overall surplus or loss?

Until people address the political question of Why does the ACF continue to run Australian Chess using discredited Neo-Liberal policy? Nothing will change.

Australian Chess at the elite competitive level is not looking after its strongest players.
Sure it maintains subsidies for titled players, but that cost is not worn by the ACF.
The prize money has arguably gotten much worse over the last 25 years on a relative scale.
The entry fees have increased for the average player which is akin to austerity measures for the general playing population.
And the point should be noted that the ACF is gifted rating fees from every player, which is a cost worn by tournament organisers.
The bidding tender system assumes virtually no responsibility for the most basic of International standards that are required of elite events.

At this moment, all the ACF represents is an outdated bureaucratic institution that enforces the failed doctrine of socialism of economic losses on the general playing and organising population, whilst at the same time helps itself to economic wealth without the slightest benefit to the community it steals value from. Meanwhile a bunch of pompous bureaucrats justify this theft as necessary to maintain their own personal status of subordinating their duties to an International governing body that has objectively failed politically and economically. The key problem is that they are so opposed to financial risk they force other institutions to take on this burden. Hence they are an institution guided by Neo-Liberal policy and unless they reinvent themselves, and more importantly how they operate politically, they will ultimately become obsolete and incapable of improving Australian Chess.

If you want to improve the balance sheets of chess tournaments then simply engage honestly with the real economic and political forces driving change.

[Firegoat7]

From a State point of view the excellent participation in this event fully justified the Chess Victoria sponsorship of $3000.

I agree. The expenditure is justified because it benefits the community it represents. Honestly it is not even an economic financial risk since the benefits short and long term far outweigh any capital depreciation. It was also a very astute political decision since it presumably filled a void left vacant by the ACF.

[HydraTED]

Until people address the political question of Why does the ACF continue to run Australian Chess using discredited Neo-Liberal policy? Nothing will change.

What's discredited here is your perennially ideological and fact-averse line of attack. On being misled into thinking that the ACF took half of the profits you described that as "neo-liberal modelling". In fact the ACF doesn't take any profits, hasn't done so for many years. Rather it protects organisers against financial losses, to a degree. Even though your underlying assumptions were false, you still go on claiming the ACF's policies are "Neo-Liberal". So "Neo-Liberal" is just an empty "baddie" word for you to throw around but it doesn't actually mean anything to you - because you haven't explained and cannot explain by reference to the actual facts what the actual state of affairs has to do with "Neo-Liberalism".

Sure it maintains subsidies for titled players, but that cost is not worn by the ACF.

To make any sense of your claim I can only guess you are talking about the Olympiad appeal. If so you are ignoring that - for instance - the ACF pays the application costs for all titles of FM/WFM level and above.

At this moment, all the ACF represents is an outdated bureaucratic institution that enforces the failed doctrine of socialism of economic losses on the general playing and organising population, whilst at the same time helps itself to economic wealth without the slightest benefit to the community it steals value from.

Unsubstantiated twaddle. The ACF in fact covers the losses (to certain limits) of not just the Champs/Open but also a range of other events through the Funding Support Program.

[Firegoat7]

What....

You need to do better then that last post. Need I reminder you that the context of the discussion is about the ACF outsourcing its own tournaments like the Australian Open. The political question was "...Why does the ACF continue to run Australian Chess using discredited Neo-Liberal policy?. It seems you are unwilling to honestly engage with the real economic and political forces that are driving change. Give it a better effort next time.

[HydraTED]

You need to do better then that last post.

I don't need to do anything; pressing letters at random would still be better than your repetitive nonsense.

Need I reminder you that the context of the discussion is about the ACF outsourcing its own tournaments like the Australian Open.

No it isn't; you just made that up to try to shift the goalposts. The thread has been about financial contributions; the terms of outsourcing. Outsourcing itself as an issue wasn't mentioned by you until then. It's a non-issue. Of course the ACF should continue outsourcing tournaments where possible, because the ACF Council's personnel are geographically scattered making it more difficult and potentially expensive for the ACF to run events itself.

The political question was "...Why does the ACF continue to run Australian Chess using discredited Neo-Liberal policy?. It seems you are unwilling to honestly engage with the real economic and political forces that are driving change. Give it a better effort next time.

It would be more challenging to engage with a random insult generator than these unsubstantiated efforts. Some advice for improvement: just stop making poor comparisons between chess administration and political ideologies you've heard about but seem not to know much about. Focus on factors specific to chess and/or other comparable sports.

[HydraTED]

Here goes Kevin having another little tantrum on Ozchess...yet again....

Here goes firegoat being a mimophant again - frothing on and on and on irrelevantly about "neo-liberalism" then when I calmly point out he's spouting nonsense he calls it a "tantrum". I'm actually so relaxed typing this it's a struggle to avoid dozing off given how weak the opposition is.

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the matter. As an ACF official it is no surprise that you hold such a viewpoint. However, as pointed out in post 21 I disagree with your opinion on the subject.

This isn't about opinions; it's a fact that you tried to change the subject.

The tender bidding process is a Neo-Liberal policy. It is a Neo-Liberal policy because the ACF is incapable of directly running the tournaments it owns the naming rights to, by your own admission.

Firstly this is strawmanning as I didn't say "incapable", just that it is preferable to outsource them. The ACF could run them itself if necessary and has often done so.
Secondly you have provided no evidence that outsourcing has anything to do with Neo-Liberalism, or that you have any idea what Neo-Liberalism is.

Outsourcing work and responsibilities to other institutions is an example of privatisation. The ACF does not really care who runs its events as long as anybody runs their events so they can reduce risk. Privatisation to reduce risk is a classic Neo-Liberal policy.

This garbage has more holes in it than Blackburn, Lancashire. Privatisation of the running of events is not some new thing that has blown in with renewed interest in "neo-liberalism", the ACF has been outsourcing these events for decades. Far from reducing risk, the ACF has ceased taking profits and has, in general, increased its own risk by being willing to outlay more money on guarantees against loss. Moreover reducing financial risk isn't the primary reason for outsourcing, as I have already pointed out and you have already over-agreed with.

As pointed out by yourself, The ACF does not have people with experience to run its own tournaments.

And this is even more blatant strawmanning (and false); I never said anything remotely resembling any such thing. I referred only to spatial separation issues. Go back and read it again.

The ACF is only really interested in its own bank account, which by the way is almost exclusively funded by extorting funds from chess players via organisers and state associations.

If that was so then the ACF would not provide guarantees against loss for these or any other tournaments, and there is plenty of other money we could also choose not to spend.

[more repetitive garbage snipped]

Anytime. Anywhere Bonham.

But not this time and not this place clearly. You've just continued with your pointless bogey-word tarring attempts about Neo-Liberalism; when you try to make factual claims about the ACF they are usually just plain false, and when you even try to characterise what I said you end up just making things up.

This is not how you win these debates.

[Firegoat7]

This is not how you win these debates.

It is quaint how your imagination works. It seems you think you are actually having a debate and keeping score with somebody else instead of expressing your opinion on a subject. Whats the saying.....a coward dies a thousand deaths."

[HydraTED]

It seems you think you are actually having a debate and keeping score with somebody else instead of expressing your opinion on a subject.

You're so delusional that you don't realise these things aren't mutually exclusive. Though it is true that to call anything involving you a "debate" gives much greater compliments to your arguing skills than you deserve.

[MOZ]

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?

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.

We seem to be in some sort of agreement.
The 50% profit share clause was read to me.
You highlight that where we were reading from was superseded at some point in time.

In the budget construction for our proposal to host the event it became clear we did not expect a profit. Hence the significance of the (superseded) clause became irrelevant once we ceased to expect a profit.
In the finance cash flow projection, the absence of seed funding became the new problem, hence we turned to Chess Victoria and another source.

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.

The ACF is determined not to be another source.

[Just2Good]

We seem to be in some sort of agreement.

Often Kevin realises this when more astute members of the chess community point this out to him.