PDA

View Full Version : Australian Championship 2012 questions



Carl Gorka
29-07-2010, 11:59 AM
The 2012 Australian Championships has Victoria as its first option for holding the event:) http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfbt.htm

In the constitution it states 5. Council shall allocate title events on the basis of the "expressions of interest" received.

I know for a fact that Victoria has expressed an interest in running the tournament as I have been invited to be a part of that team, though I will have to decline:(

Based on these paragraphs above, I'd have expected Victoria to have been allocated the right to run the event, but in the most recent ACF Bulletin (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfbt.htm) applications for authority to run the event have been called for.

I then checked out the consitution and found the final paragraph of the procedures for allocating tournaments states 9. Notwithstanding any of the above, the table following sets out the States or Territories that have first option on the named events up to the year 2011. The timetable grid shows the planned venues for the Australian Championship events. States are able to exercise an option to stage these events by means of a proposal acceptable to the ACF Council, submitted by 1 July approximately 18 months prior to the proposed time for holding the event(s).

So I have some questions.

1. Why does the constitution seem to have contradictory messages regarding the allocation for these events?

2. If Victoria put in a reasonable bid, are they guaranteed to get the event?

3. If an unbelievably good alternative bid comes to the table, what will the ACF decide?

Thanks

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2010, 01:42 PM
The key part is "States are able to exercise an option to stage these events by means of a proposal acceptable to the ACF Council".

CV did submit an expression of interest just before the due date but it was one that contained virtually no details and as such was deemed not to be an acceptable proposal. Therefore their option lapsed.

There is no contradiction; just because the by-law says "Council shall allocate title events on the basis of the "expressions of interest" received." does not mean that all you have to do is send an expression of interest and the event is automatically allocated.

The situation now is that the ACF is free to award the event to whoever it chooses who submits an adequate bid. Thus in my personal view, if CV are in a position to submit a good and detailed bid for the event it would be a good idea for them to do so reasonably promptly as this improves their chances of being awarded the event before any other prospective bidders might become interested.

Bill Gletsos
29-07-2010, 01:57 PM
1. Why does the constitution seem to have contradictory messages regarding the allocation for these events?The constitution doesnt as the items you quoted are from By-laws not from the ACF constitution. ;)

Carl Gorka
29-07-2010, 03:07 PM
The key part is "States are able to exercise an option to stage these events by means of a proposal acceptable to the ACF Council".

CV did submit an expression of interest just before the due date but it was one that contained virtually no details and as such was deemed not to be an acceptable proposal. Therefore their option lapsed.

There is no contradiction; just because the by-law says "Council shall allocate title events on the basis of the "expressions of interest" received." does not mean that all you have to do is send an expression of interest and the event is automatically allocated.

The situation now is that the ACF is free to award the event to whoever it chooses who submits an adequate bid. Thus in my personal view, if CV are in a position to submit a good and detailed bid for the event it would be a good idea for them to do so reasonably promptly as this improves their chances of being awarded the event before any other prospective bidders might become interested.

Thanks for that answer:)

Does it therefore mean that the allocation of events in an equitable manner between the affiliated states no longer stands? Just the best bid from whoever applies will get the event?

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2010, 06:38 PM
Does it therefore mean that the allocation of events in an equitable manner between the affiliated states no longer stands? Just the best bid from whoever applies will get the event?

No. It remains the case that options are allocated according to the table. But to exercise an option a state must submit an acceptable proposal to the ACF 18 months in advance of the event. If that doesn't happen then bids are open to all comers. This too has long been the case.

ER
29-07-2010, 07:23 PM
I hope all questions have been answered and all explanations have been given. Now could you please alterate it's heading slightly because I confuse it with the Australian Open 2011, which I am really interested since I am organising my entry details etc? thanks in advance! [done-mod]

ER
30-07-2010, 07:14 AM
thanks! :)

Carl Gorka
30-07-2010, 07:51 PM
No. It remains the case that options are allocated according to the table. But to exercise an option a state must submit an acceptable proposal to the ACF 18 months in advance of the event. If that doesn't happen then bids are open to all comers. This too has long been the case.

Ok, thanks for answering these questions, it seems to have cleared up quite a few things for me.

I have one hypothetical question, but of course, if you don't want to answer, then no worries.

Say a state that is due to hold the Aus Champs places an acceptable proposal before the ACF. Then, another organiser comes up with an incredibly good bid....eg they have found a big sponsor. What might the ACF do?

Would the ACF tell the new bid that it was not accepted? Would the ACF negotiate with all parties to try to come up with the best for Australian chess?

I know it's a bit vague, but I am just wondering how rigid the system is.

Carl Gorka
30-07-2010, 07:53 PM
That is rubbish.
Which clueless idiot told you that.

I thought it might be Chinese whispers...gossip blows things all out of proportion, just like when you were asking about rumours about the MCC last year.

So, what exactly did you suggest regarding Victorian Juniors?

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Say a state that is due to hold the Aus Champs places an acceptable proposal before the ACF. Then, another organiser comes up with an incredibly good bid....eg they have found a big sponsor. What might the ACF do?

Would the ACF tell the new bid that it was not accepted? Would the ACF negotiate with all parties to try to come up with the best for Australian chess?


This is a very unlikely scenario because typically a state will not put energy into pursuing sponsorship for a bid knowing that another state has an option and has exercised that option on time. (I've assumed your scenario involves the state that holds the option submitting its proposal on time rather than late).

Technically since the rules in question are in the ACF By-Laws the ACF can override them if it sees a need to. But once a basic proposal from the state holding the option has been accepted the ACF is not, in reality, going to overturn that however good the alternative. Of course, it's possible the state holding the option would relinquish it in favour of the superior bid but I can't see the ACF applying pressure to bring about such an outcome.

The whole idea of the options system is to allow each state to have a turn which it knows can be its turn, provided it gets the basic details sorted and adequate and presented all far enough in advance. Therefore, even if we simultaneously had an acceptable timely proposal from a state holding the option, and a brilliant bid from a state not holding the option, I would support going with the former because otherwise there is no point in having an options system in the first place.

Carl Gorka
30-07-2010, 08:22 PM
This is a very unlikely scenario because typically a state will not put energy into pursuing sponsorship for a bid knowing that another state has an option and has exercised that option on time. (I've assumed your scenario involves the state that holds the option submitting its proposal on time rather than late).

Technically since the rules in question are in the ACF By-Laws the ACF can override them if it sees a need to. But once a basic proposal from the state holding the option has been accepted the ACF is not, in reality, going to overturn that however good the alternative. Of course, it's possible the state holding the option would relinquish it in favour of the superior bid but I can't see the ACF applying pressure to bring about such an outcome.

The whole idea of the options system is to allow each state to have a turn which it knows can be its turn, provided it gets the basic details sorted and adequate and presented all far enough in advance. Therefore, even if we simultaneously had an acceptable timely proposal from a state holding the option, and a brilliant bid from a state not holding the option, I would support going with the former because otherwise there is no point in having an options system in the first place.

Nicely answered :clap:

Thanks for clearing up a number of things which didn't seem very clear to me:)

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2010, 06:50 PM
Discussion about CV unpaid debt to ACF and possible implications of it moved to a new thread in this section.