Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 83

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

  1. | #31
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Hopefully then the ACF will finally have enough statistical data to finally conclude that its Neo liberal programming did absolutely nothing!
    We've got more than enough statistical data to conclude you are a repetitive idiot with no idea about political ideology.

    Whoah there comrade....You mean to say the ACF no longer collects rating fees from the Australian Open?


    You thought that was a knockdown on the assumption that surely the ACF must collect "rating fees" from the Open, and it was a pretty pathetic knockdown in the first place given that it was obviously not what we were talking about before.

    But a bigger problem is that you are in fact wrong. The ACF does not collect "rating fees" (their real name is "admin fees") from ACF title events! I don't think it has done so in my 18 years on Council.

    the rumors must be true Dr Kevin Bonham is the Josef Stalin of Australian Chess!
    The rumours must be true - you are the Comical Ali!

    “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” Orwell 1984.
    Certainly not necessary in your case. Anything we publish may as well be a secret kept from you given your poor attention levels.

    I certainly believe Moz and the people who organised the Australian Open understand, and can define a financial risk.
    How is that relevant to anything? The thing with MOZ is that when he knows what is going on he posts as if he doesn't.

    Remaining drivel snipped as it was incoherent frothing devoid of any new content.

    Wanda: But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
    firegoat: Apes don't read Orwell.
    Wanda: Yes they do, Davey-boy, they just don't understand it!
    Last edited by HydraTED; 16-01-19 at 03:00 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.

  2. | #32
    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
    ... The thing with MOZ is that when he knows what is going on he posts as if he doesn't.

    ...
    Meaning in Hindi

    अंग्रेज़ी हिन्दी शब्दकोश इंगहिन्दी.कॉम पर आपका स्वागत है।
    एक अच्छा विचार -
    संसार का सबसे बडा दिवालिया वह है जिसने उत्साह खो दिया ।
    श्रीराम शर्मा आचार्य
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  3. | #33
    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 Axiom View Post
    Simply a question born of curiosity:

    How much did the ACF contribute financially to the Aus Open?
    BHCC Committee meeting due on Wednesday night this week. Anticipate the Tournament Organiser will report locally at that meeting.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  4. | #34
    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
    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.
    My source was the ACF web-site; thus if you are saying this is not reliable, or has not become reliable, then we just have to accept your advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    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.



    ….
    The By-Laws on the ACF web-site, were out-of-date apparently.
    We did rely on that part of the By-Laws that described profit-sharing, and I now learn that the version we read had been superseded by the need to ring and ask an Executive member. Thanks for this advice.

    ----------------------

    There were other parts of the By-laws that we relied upon the posted words. It is time to cross our fingers and hope that our assumptions on the other parts have not been superseded by a verbal advice channel.

    I notice for example this exchange on chesschat

    Quote Originally Posted by Poster on chesschat
    On titled players, is it ACF mandated that WIM, IM, WGM & GM must receive free entry or do the organizers have the choice?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED
    It is currently mandated for all official ACF title events.

    Given that the cost is mandated by the ACF, I presume the host club seeks re-imbursement for this forgone revenue in reporting back the ACF?
    In this context I presume re-imbursement is not part of the guarantee against loss negotiation.

    -----------------------

    I will be reading the web-site to see what is posted on sponsorship money and appearance fees just in case my understanding of current or superseded is in need of checking.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  5. | #35
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    My source was the ACF web-site; thus if you are saying this is not reliable, or has not become reliable, then we just have to accept your advice.
    It seems your source was a reading of the ACF website that ignored clearly, prominently posted disclaimers to the effect that some sections are sometimes out of date.

    There have been various issues with trying to get a perfectly up to date copy of all By-Laws up on the website. Anyone who thinks that we should respond to this by not posting them at all should speak now or forever hold their peace. (If they do speak they will be ignored, but at least they will have taken the opportunity to take that position, such as it is.)

    We did rely on that part of the By-Laws that described profit-sharing, and I now learn that the version we read had been superseded by the need to ring and ask an Executive member. Thanks for this advice.
    You have misread what I posted - in what universe is "use the Contacts page and send an email copied to the full ACF Executive" the same as "ring and ask an Executive member" or for that matter a "verbal advice channel"?

    Given that the cost is mandated by the ACF, I presume the host club seeks re-imbursement for this forgone revenue in reporting back the ACF?
    Not as such. The organisers, if seeking reimbursement to cover a loss, report their actual accounts for the event for comparison against the approved budget. If the organisers managed to make a net profit despite having to give free entry to titled players then the issue of possible reimbursement of net losses would not arise at all. If the organisers made a net loss of $100 despite "foregoing" several hundred dollars then the maximum reimbursement would be $100.

    I will be reading the web-site to see what is posted on sponsorship money and appearance fees just in case my understanding of current or superseded is in need of checking.
    You should read the Funding Support Program By-Law because in Oct 2017 the Council passed a motion that claims for guarantees against loss for the Champs and Open were subject to the same conditions as Clause 6 of the by-law. It sounds like a bigger deal than it is - what it means in practice is that if the organisers incur losses or expenses in excess of budget without approval, then approval of the reimbursement is discretional. However, the Council in practice can be expected to use its discretion to cover losses up to the maximum that are caused by unexpected shortfalls in income or unexpected and not-reasonably-avoidable increases in expenses.

    A bumpier ride might be expected for any organiser who, on looking at the way the accounts were shaping up, realised they weren't losing enough of the ACF's money and decided to try losing more of it by making unbudgeted or over-budget organiser fee payments to themselves or their mates. This issue has arisen now and then in the context of the various events covered by the ACF.

    Of course if you don't actually make a loss none of this matters.
    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. | #36
    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
    It seems your source was a reading of the ACF website that ignored clearly, prominently posted disclaimers to the effect that some sections are sometimes out of date.
    Yes, in our first proposal made under quite some time-pressure as a requested rescue bid, we took the profit-share statement at face value and submitted a proposal. We now know, after your advice, that significant parts of the published procedures cannot be relied on (to be up-to date).
    The prominently posted disclaimers presumably fit the same description; they "cannot be relied on (to be up-to date)" either.

    In fact, even now, it is hard to ever see that it would be a carefully thought-out process to have the proposer ""send an email copied to the full ACF Executive" if he had doubts about the accuracy or currency of a significant bid item. Really, you would have us have known doubts and unknown doubts, and you would have us send an email to each of the full Executive?
    What a slighly confused proposer would really appreciate is a two-way verbal discussion from an ACF helper.
    The disclaimer itself is a worse piece of drafting than the profit-share piece of friction.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    There have been various issues with trying to get a perfectly up to date copy of all By-Laws up on the website. Anyone who thinks that we should respond to this by not posting them at all should speak now or forever hold their peace. (If they do speak they will be ignored, but at least they will have taken the opportunity to take that position, such as it is.)

    ...
    That is your strawman, knock it over yourself.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  7. | #37
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Yes, in our first proposal made under quite some time-pressure as a requested rescue bid, we took the profit-share statement at face value and submitted a proposal. We now know, after your advice, that significant parts of the published procedures cannot be relied on (to be up-to date).
    This doesn't make the slightest sense to me. The original budget was for a large loss, slightly in excess of the amount available as a guarantee against loss. If you were expecting to lose that much money then the profit-sharing arrangements wouldn't have come into your thinking as you would have considered there was very little chance of any profits.

    The prominently posted disclaimers presumably fit the same description; they "cannot be relied on (to be up-to date)" either.
    You persistently presume far too much. The disclaimers are much easier to have edited. That said, it is true that the page with the committee details on it is no longer called the Contacts page as the new webmaster moved it to the About page. That is a trivial issue as the organisers would not have had any trouble finding contact details for at least some ACF Executive members had they tried.

    In fact, even now, it is hard to ever see that it would be a carefully thought-out process to have the proposer ""send an email copied to the full ACF Executive" if he had doubts about the accuracy or currency of a significant bid item.
    Your imagination is so wild when it comes to rampantly presuming things but so limited when it comes to the bleeding obvious. An email simply asking, as suggested, whether there is anything in the by-laws that might be out of date that you should know about in planning for the event would have been fine.

    Really, you would have us have known doubts and unknown doubts, and you would have us send an email to each of the full Executive?
    And here it would be generous and perhaps even needlessly verbose to say that your inability to comprehend what is in front of you borders on the wilfully obtuse. The ACF Executive has only six members and you can, amazingly, send one email that is copied to all of them!

    What a slighly confused proposer would really appreciate is a two-way verbal discussion from an ACF helper.
    There is nothing stopping you having one of those as well, and I would be surprised if there were not such discussions (albeit not involving me). But there are often advantages in putting things in writing - it reduces the risk of people misremembering what they have been told.

    The disclaimer itself is a worse piece of drafting than the profit-share piece of friction.
    As the author of the disclaimer, I take a comment of such rare clarity from one of the most obfuscatory language-misusers in Australian chess as a significant compliment.

    If you don't like it then I must be doing something right.

    That is your strawman, knock it over yourself.
    Actually you're strawmanning me by calling it a strawman. It wasn't. I had no idea whether that was your view or not. I just wanted you to take a stance one way or the other.
    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.

  8. | #38
    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 You need a more helpful disclaimer.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ...



    You have misread what I posted - in what universe is "use the Contacts page and send an email copied to the full ACF Executive" the same as "ring and ask an Executive member" or for that matter a "verbal advice channel"?


    ...
    In my universe there is an assumption that conversations with a helpful Executive member are more to be recommended than a complaint letter on unknown clauses that may or may not be out-of-date.
    That you continue to defend your poorly thought out requirement to email all Executive members is hard to respect; as a disclaimer it shows no empathy to a proposer requiring assistance.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  9. | #39
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    In my universe there is an assumption that conversations with a helpful Executive member are more to be recommended than a complaint letter on unknown clauses that may or may not be out-of-date.
    No-one said anything about "a complaint letter". Some of us find it possible to enquire by email without complaining; if that's beyond you then too bad.

    That you continue to defend your poorly thought out requirement to email all Executive members is hard to respect; as a disclaimer it shows no empathy to a proposer requiring assistance.
    Yawn. Again, if you don't respect what I am doing I must be doing the right thing. If a proposer wants to come up with an alternative method of finding out what they need to know to the one recommended then that's up to them. If we recommended a phone conversation instead then some dill would come along and say neither phone nor email worked for them and it was remiss of us not to also include in the disclaimer contacts for Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, MSN Messenger and whatever they use in Russia nowadays. It would be silly. The point is to make sure organisers don't plow ahead without checking as that has been the problem in the past.
    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.

  10. | #40
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Or maybe it's just that I've decided that every time you jump in with your pimplebrained "Stalin" garbage you are not posting in good faith and are not interested in anything other than getting yourself flamed.

    As always David Beaumont aka firegoat7, who was thrown out of a chess tournament for fighting, banned from a chess club and has threatened people with violence over the internet, is a pathetic mimophant. He jumps in with his pitifully weak and repetitive pseudo-political insults, all of which reveal his staggering ignorance of political ideology, but when he is called on them he wants the other side to play nice, although he didn't. His best argument for this is the ludicrous proposition that him being called on his aggressive stupidity and malignant fact-aversion, using a pseudonymous account of no official standing on a garbage forum hardly anyone reads, somehow constitutes ACF public relations.
    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.

  11. | #41
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    For goodness sake does KB not realise that Stalin has been dead for over 65+ years.
    You say "over 65+" but in fact he has been dead for just under 65 years 11 months, so your use of the "over" with the "+" is a misleading tautology.

    But of course I know he is long dead - I do know a thing or two about politics - unlike you.

    Stalin wouldn't even be the first dead authoritarian you'd sucked up to.
    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.

  12. | #42
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    believes in A) supernatural ghosts
    Nah, plenty of people still suck up to Jesus and he's been dead much longer than Stalin has.
    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.

  13. | #43
    Senior Member OzChessFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    319

    Default


  14. | #44
    Senior Member Axiom Support Group's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Laku, Ishmaelia
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Make AXIOM a moderator and let real analysis cut the still night air.

  15. | #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    199

    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.



    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.
    Yes, Firegoat7, I think you have put your finger on the area that needs to be improved.
    The free market approach works well if that those Clubs, tendering to provide their services to host a tournament, feel that an adequate reward for hosting is available to the Club.
    The reward to a large degree needs to be monetary.
    It is not sufficient, or even respectful, for the reward to be
    • the honour of running the event
    • "its is your turn to run the event"

    .

    The reward needs to be something like the 'venue fee' that appears in the ACF budget template.

    Thus I propose the template needs change to add an item called hire of network fee.
    This fee would include
    • access to the Club's venue
    • access to the network of email contacts established by the Club
    • access to the network of sponsors established with the Club
    • access to the network of volunteer services that are available to the Club
    • access to the web-sites established by the Club
    • access to the Committee of management of the Club.


    If the ACF template had taken this approach then the upfront hire fee would have been available to the Club as seed money for an event whose total budget may be as much as $40,000.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •