Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 93
  1. #1
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809

    who killed the grand prix?

    Hello,

    IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

    So why has it died?

    Well I think it died for two major reasons
    1) Privatisation- User pays
    2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


    I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

    1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
    2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
    3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
    4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
    5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
    6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
    7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

    One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.

    However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
    This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

    Anyway, this is all in the past.

    IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

    Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
    I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

    If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

    Cheers Fg7

  2. #2
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hello,

    IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

    So why has it died?

    Well I think it died for two major reasons
    1) Privatisation- User pays
    2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


    I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

    1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
    2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
    3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
    4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
    5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
    6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
    7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

    One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.

    However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
    This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.

    Anyway, this is all in the past.

    IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

    Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
    I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

    If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

    Cheers Fg7
    hi fg7

    the last time i posted something of note about revamping australian chess it was derisively shoved aside as "the australian chess wheel reinvented .. (or somesuch) by you know who ...

    so quite frankly i don't give a stuff !!

    cheers

    eclectic
    Last edited by eclectic; 14-03-2005 at 12:27 PM. Reason: re-edited so that a few others get the message
    .

  3. #3
    CC resident nutcase Trent Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Picton, The Dilly, NSW
    Posts
    2,936
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hello,

    IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

    So why has it died?

    Well I think it died for two major reasons
    1) Privatisation- User pays
    2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


    I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

    1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
    2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
    3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
    4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
    5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
    6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
    7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.

    One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.
    Obviously ggray hasn't seen this thread yet..... Hey Firegoat the gp is still going. The gp co-ordinator is ggray.

    However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
    This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.
    Hey Firegoat. I think the Grand Prix has only died in melbourne/victoria.... nowhere else.

    Anyway, this is all in the past.

    IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.

    Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
    I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

    If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

    Cheers Fg7
    will do but don't have time At the moment.....
    GO THE DRAGONS!
    GO Western Sydney Wanderers!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski's signature
    God exists. Short and to the point.
    This is the reason I do not wade into religion threads.

  4. #4
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    Hello,

    IMO the grand prix ought to be something that the ACF needs to promote and see prosper.

    So why has it died?

    Well I think it died for two major reasons
    1) Privatisation- User pays
    2) Unprofessional management. (I blame the ACF for this)


    I want to clarify a few points about the old gp.

    1)The gp circuit was structurally imbalanced. It did not represent an Oz circuit.
    Only in that it required organisers to voluntarily participate, and if they didn't want to there was nothing the organisers could do
    2) The ACF offered nothing for the grand prix to organisers. The previous structures just taxed the organisers (ie they pay to play ). No financially responsible organiser is going to pay for a gp cat event if they do not get anything in return.
    Untrue. Organisers recieved publicity both locally and nationally. Mercantile Mutual employed a public relations company to send out press releases both before and after the event to all media outlets in the country.
    3) We rewarded winners of the gp by giving back "our" capital (ie money).
    Untrue. Prize money was provided by sponsors. The money contributed by the tournaments went to funding other chess activities in Australia (eg The Mercantile Mutual Junior Development Fund)
    4) No sponsorship or very little was obtained.
    Untrue. Mercatile Mutual provided over $10,000 per year in cash as well as > $30,000 a year in in kind support.
    5) The gp circuit meant nothing, since it had no connection to a well structured Australian wide tournament scene.
    Untrue. Not only did the Grand Prix circuit pick up the existing major weekenders in Australia, it saw an explosion in the number of weekenders held throughout the country. (From about 8-10 to 35-40)
    6) Public relations for the gp was virtually non-existent.
    Untrue. See point 2.
    7) There was little connection between the events. They all were organised under the political banner of despotism.
    Untrue. They were part of a structure that put something back into the chess community, eg better financial returns for players.

    One would conclude that the ACF was correct in killing the gp serious.
    I hadn't realised the ACF had killed it, so I guess the discussion at the next ACF meeting on next years GP format will be a brief one.
    What caused problems for the GP wasn't the structure but the difficulty in obtaining continuing sponsorship for the series after Mercatile Mutual dropped out. And that various states retreated to the "What's in it for us" mindset and decided not to support the venture.

    However....lets call a spade a spade. The GP circuit was always going to die.
    This is because it was founded to fail. Who then bears the responsibility for this? Clearly it was the ACF.
    Do you usually spout this much nonsense without doing prior research?

    Anyway, this is all in the past.
    Which you should learn about in the context of this debate.

    IMO The ACF ought to have a gp circuit, but not something like previous efforts. We need to create 10-12 premium events in Australia each year. Events that are run by an ACF, that co-ordinate with state and club facilities.


    Do we presume that the gp circuit ought to be resurrected, which of course is debatable?
    "It's not dead, Jim"

    I invite all readers to speculate on where those events ought to be held. I also believe that we should show little concern to current calenders. I also believe that 3 day weekenders are crucial for the development for such events. State public holidays ought to be considered a critical component for such events.

    If peeople are interested, why don't they submit their 10-12 events and outline their reasons why?

    Cheers Fg7

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    . . . by you know who ...
    By who?

    Actually you surprised me eclectic. What's with the screaming? You're usually the calm one.

    AR

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    the grand prix is not dead. It is still running this year.

    If it was dead, why are gp events mentioned in the acf bulletin each week

    Regarding organisers and some of their, what is in it for us, attitude. I do think this can be a fair attitude cause at the moment they are paying the gp fees out of the tournament income/expenditure.

    Adding more to this, I think in cv there could be alot of extra interest and player participation if one of the clubs were to run a gp chess event later in the year because it would be one of the only cv gp events of the year. Here is a shocking thought, maybe cv could run a gp event themselves

    There is only one event in vic this year, which is being held now.
    Last edited by Garvinator; 14-03-2005 at 01:59 PM.

  7. #7
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,421
    I have to say that I was never very interested in the Grand Prix, though I did win a couple of prizes. I was only really concerned about tournaments individually and I can't name any Grand Prix winners.

    Where a Grand Prix is bringing in sponsorship money recutting the cake makes it bigger, as described by Shaun, and there is some point to it. If it is just a redistribution of existing resources I don't see the point.

    However if it is to continue it needs to be promoted and kept up to date so that people can get excited about it. I don't necessary see fg7's proposal of a super-GP as being better or worse but I agree ACF should either commit to or kill the GP.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Have the winners of the 2004 GP been officially announced?

  9. #9
    Account Permanently Banned firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    MCC
    Posts
    2,809
    Hello Shaun,

    Firstly, It is great that an experienced organiser is particpating in this debate.
    I do agree with some of your criticism, however not all of it. So lets seperate the wheat from the chaff.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Only in that it required organisers to voluntarily participate, and if they didn't want to there was nothing the organisers could do
    True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?

    Your next statement is true aswell. In running a gp event, tournament organisers had to weigh up the benefits from the costs. Our club, one amongst many in Victoria who made the same decision, decided that we were not getting good value for money. We payed hundreds of dollars for something that had little impact on tournament numbers. There is a reason the gp circuit failed in Victoria. Reasons that are historically grounded.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Untrue. Organisers recieved publicity both locally and nationally. Mercantile Mutual employed a public relations company to send out press releases both before and after the event to all media outlets in the country.
    I have been innacurate in my innitial statements, so I want to clarify what I mean by the gp circuit. I agree with you that when the gp circuit first appeared it was a great success. I think for 2-3 years it proved to be a great driver for Australian chess. The support by Mercantile and Mr Baker??( correct me if i am wrong) in providing this resource was immeasurable to Australian chess. However, IMO after about 3 years the gp circuit started faltering. The question we need to address is why? what happenend?

    Well let me state this now.

    The gp circuit we have now bares little resemblance to the one that first started the whole idea, nor does it have much in common with the period in between these two historical epochs. I agree Mercantile provided wonderful facilities, but what happenend when that dried up?

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Untrue. Prize money was provided by sponsors. The money contributed by the tournaments went to funding other chess activities in Australia (eg The Mercantile Mutual Junior Development Fund)
    Again when you say untrue, let us address the context of your concern.
    Prize money was provided by sponsorship initially. It worked reasonably well then. But the key question is How did the ACF ensure that a sponsor was retained? Answer: they didn't. There idea failed because they (the ACF) had nothing to sell, nor could they develop new relationships with corporate Australia. When mercantile pulled the plug, so went the organising umbrella. See the ACF has a clear history of taking no responsibility for its product. It leaves all the good work in chess to states,clubs, private organisations and individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Untrue. Mercatile Mutual provided over $10,000 per year in cash as well as > $30,000 a year in in kind support.
    Look, you are right Shaun, we all know this. The point is where is the gp circuit now? Would you say its untrue that the ACF receives no sponsorship for its current gp circuit?

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Untrue. Not only did the Grand Prix circuit pick up the existing major weekenders in Australia, it saw an explosion in the number of weekenders held throughout the country. (From about 8-10 to 35-40)
    Again in one historical epoch it was successful. I agree. but did the ACF manage to capitalise on those good times? clearly the answer is no. Furthermore, the original idea of free market gp events has simply failed. Without protection of the gp circuit the ACF has been unable to maintain a stable product to attract sufficient potential sponsorship.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Untrue. They were part of a structure that put something back into the chess community, eg better financial returns for players.
    This relates to what you said before about "it funded junior chess". While it may be true, that in a certain period of time there were some benefits for the chess community- the questions remain. 1)Where is it now? 2) Was this an appropriate use of ACF resources?

    Now, I am not going to criticise anybody in Australian chess for giving it a go, but did the outcomes measure up? IMO no. Let us examine the facts.

    The gp is virtually dead in Victoria- arguable the second biggest state in the country and a place where a sizeable elite of the Australian chess scene is located.

    The gp circuits staus has diminished within Australian playing circles.

    Funds were taken from the gp circuit, for the ACF, despite it not being clear that its cash cow was able to milked. (You may want to consider why a gp circuit funded a junior development program? or why cash incentives were the only guiding principles for player reward instead of staus or honor)



    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    I hadn't realised the ACF had killed it, so I guess the discussion at the next ACF meeting on next years GP format will be a brief one.
    What caused problems for the GP wasn't the structure but the difficulty in obtaining continuing sponsorship for the series after Mercatile Mutual dropped out. And that various states retreated to the "What's in it for us" mindset and decided not to support the venture.
    If the gp circuit is not dead then , in its current form, it has a terminal disease. It may aswell be dead for Victorians, Tasmanians and Western Australians, so any aspirations to a national circuit are a farce.

    While I do agree that the Mercantile dropping was a significant factor, it is not the overriding concern. It was not up to the states or the clubs to pick up the void left behind by the loss of sponsorship. That void needed to be addressed by the ACF, since it was their product.

    Some clubs and states continued to support the gp circuit, for a while, after the loss of sponsorship, they soon realised that it was not really economically feasible. Now I suggested that the whole of the gp idea needs to be revamped. You may claim that my statements are "untrue" but if you look at the current gp circuit I would say that they were "correct".

    Quote Originally Posted by shaun
    Do you usually spout this much nonsense without doing prior research?
    Which you should learn about in the context of this debate.
    "It's not dead, Jim"
    I apologise for any confusion about historical understandings of the gp event, but......
    Take the blinkers of and look at the horse. Does it look rideable to you? Would you place a bet on this form? Do you think its a sprinter or a stayer?

    cheers Fg7
    P.S maybe the ACF ought to consider why it spends so much of its human resources upon selecting an olympiad team, instead of a product that it has the capacity to grow.
    Last edited by firegoat7; 14-03-2005 at 04:02 PM.

  10. #10
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7

    True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?
    Untrue. As the GP organiser one of my responsibilities was to not only avoid direct clashes of events, but also to make sure events were not too close to each other (eg a 3 week gap between Geelong, ANU and Albury)

    I have been innacurate in my innitial statements, so I want to clarify what I mean by the gp circuit. I agree with you that when the gp circuit first appeared it was a great success. I think for 2-3 years it proved to be a great driver for Australian chess. The support by Mercantile and Mr Baker??( correct me if i am wrong) in providing this resource was immeasurable to Australian chess. However, IMO after about 3 years the gp circuit started faltering. The question we need to address is why? what happenend?
    You needed to state this at the outset. Basically you said that the Grand Prix was designed to fail, which I have clearly demonstrated it was not. Given that your arguments were presented with a false/confusing premise my suggestion would be to go back to your initial post, change it in the light of what you know now, and have another go at asking questions. Because as it is now I cannot answer the questions you ask in a clear manner.

  11. #11
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Have the winners of the 2004 GP been officially announced?
    In a word, no. Garvin has posted details(not sure if they're final) of the Open division but I believe he's still working on the other divisions.

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by garethbcharles
    In a word, no. Garvin has posted details(not sure if they're final) of the Open division but I believe he's still working on the other divisions.
    to answer both pax and Gareth, Gareth is correct. I am snowed under at the moment and getting things done as quick as I can. I apologise for not having them done for 2004.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    to answer both pax and Gareth, Gareth is correct. I am snowed under at the moment and getting things done as quick as I can. I apologise for not having them done for 2004.
    I don't know where the fault lies (I'm not accusing Garvin specifically), but that's a pretty poor state of affairs. The trouble is that once we are well into 2005, people have lost interest in the 2004 GP (if they had any to start with).

    The ideal situation is for all of the results to be up to date prior to the final event, meaning the final results can be announced at the conclusion of that event (and also so that contenders for prizes know what is required before they enter that final event). This has been achieved most years.

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,672
    Quote Originally Posted by firegoat7
    True, But let us qualify what you mean. For the gp circuit to work it required organisers to particpate voluntarily. Note- The governing body of the gp, namely the ACF, did not organise a circuit, it organised a system. The ACF as we all know was not even concerned if the dates of a gp event clashed with another. It left everything to market forces. The chess community is to small to have its premium events clashing with each other. Yet nothing stops anyone from doing this if they want to, remember Sydney,doeberl or the 2 Victorian Xmas swisses?
    Australia is a big place. There's no reason not to have simultaneous events in different states. It would be insane for organisers in WA to be told they can't have an event on a particular weekend because of a clash with an event in QLD for example.

    IMO the only requirement might be that events of "national standing" (that is, events that a number of top players might travel interstate for) not be scheduled together. For example, you might count the class III GPs in this category. Since organisers will generally avoid such clashes by themselves (and the GP coordinator work to schedule with the miminum conflict), there probably isn't a need for a specific rule to govern it.

    Clashes should also be avoided within states as much as possible, but again it's in organisers interests to avoid clashes, and the State Associations usually ensure such clashes are avoided (Victoria excepted in it's unique way).

    For example I don't regard SEC/Doeberl to be a problem at all, since few (if any) players would travel interstate for SEC and the top NSW players generally all go to Doeberl unless prevented for other reasons.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,308
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    I don't know where the fault lies (I'm not accusing Garvin specifically), but that's a pretty poor state of affairs. The trouble is that once we are well into 2005, people have lost interest in the 2004 GP (if they had any to start with).

    The ideal situation is for all of the results to be up to date prior to the final event, meaning the final results can be announced at the conclusion of that event (and also so that contenders for prizes know what is required before they enter that final event). This has been achieved most years.
    your right that results should be done on time. No disagreement, but I only took over in about october and have had many problems as is known to the acf council. All i can say now is that I am doing the best I can to catch up for 2004.

    2005 will not be this way and will be on time, barring unforeseen circumstances

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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