PDA

View Full Version : Denis Jessop's ACF Paper



Brian_Jones
03-06-2005, 12:58 PM
Congratulations to Denis! He has produced a very interesting document, which summarises the current position and touches on many of the ACF's past problems. There are many many aspects to consider from this paper, but one that springs immediately to mind is the role of the State delegate. Maybe the Councillors should be nominees that are compelled to represent the ACF's best interests even if contrary to the interests of their nominating State.

EGOR
03-06-2005, 01:07 PM
Congratulations to Denis! He has produced a very interesting document, which summarises the current position and touches on many of the ACF's past problems. There are many many aspects to consider from this paper, but one that springs immediately to mind is the role of the State delegate. Maybe the Councillors should be nominees that are compelled to represent the ACF's best interests even if contrary to the interests of their nominating State.
So, where can one get a copy?

Brian_Jones
03-06-2005, 01:10 PM
Try here

http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/stuff/ACF_outline.htm

EGOR
03-06-2005, 01:21 PM
Thanks :)

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 04:57 PM
Reply to DJ

Hi everyone,

The first thing I would like to say is congratulations to Denis Jessop for providing such an analysis. Also thanks for providing the link Brian!

Anyway down to business.
I disagree with a number of conclusions in this analysis, so let’s look at some of them.



I mention, too, the Chess Chat Forum. It was at first an ACF forum but is now independent. Nevertheless several ACF officers often post there and others read what is there. It is a very useful avenue for the putting of views on Australian chess even though it is not always used to the best advantage.


Tacit acceptance that views at Chesskit are listened to by ACF officials and that Chesskit is an unofficial ACF site.



There being no individual membership scheme in the ACF, individual chess players by and large need to put their views through their clubs or respective State and Territory Associations. But, though individuals are not ACF members, that does not stop them from putting their views to ACF Councilors who are, and should be, happy to receive them. If the Councillor in question is also a State Association official, as is often the case, the views can be taken on board at the appropriate level.

I find this particularly disturbing. Individuals pay tax to the ACF (rated games), but there is no 'official' recognition of them as a membership. Clearly without this membership there would be no ACF, so the irrationality of such a position staggers me. Australian chess is not just institutions, it is people. the institutions seem to work with their own agendas, thus preventing any consensus amongst people. Instead of winning ACF elections with a constitutional vote of the people- you win elections by a constitutional vote of state institutions. This is a travesty for democracy.

Not all State structures are the same. Victoria does not have players as members of its constitution, I understand it is different in other States. So therefore in Victoria's case all State power is political. You are elected to ChessVictoria, through club delegation, again representational not democratic. Players never vote on these issues. All the voting is done by club then state elites. The system is an absolute joke.

That is why we get what we have. Rationalised institutions contesting power for their own interest. Rationalised institutions not answerable to their membership (as if). Rationalised institutions behaving rationaly in the framework offered to them, but unable to be influenced through genuine democracy.

At the top we have the ACF, hands completely tied, unable to do anything without the approval of the State delegates who hold two positions of power. Talk about ineffectual bureaucracy!

DJ also suggests that 'individuals should put their views forward'. One can only ask why, bother? At the club level, nobody has any say concerning ACF/State matters , so why bother? Clubs have no say in ACF/State policy.

While on an individual basis you actually have to have the ear of an official for anything to be accepted (to bad if the officials disagree with your views). I find these ideas of autonomy for individual players as being nothing more then rhetoric. There is no systematic way for having alternative views expressed at the ACF/State level, if those views have no 'official channel' except, by authorisation from the State elites.

It is not a democratic structure. Yes it is true you can politically remove these people by organising along party lines, but inevitably this doesn't change the structure, it simply shows you how perverted the rationalised State institution really is. It is not the ACFs fault it cannot function properly. It is a State structure problem, undemocratic and centralised power orientated. What does your State organisation do for you as a player?

Cheers Fg7

Rincewind
04-06-2005, 07:26 PM
I'd just like to say I disagree with just about everything fg7 has said. Chesschat is obviously a tool used by certain ACF officials. This does not make it an de facto ACF site. His views on the political structure of the ACF and state associations are obviously perverted by the baggage of previous inter-club disputes. Perhaps Chess Victoria could look to the model used by other states if it is felt that club representation is not effective. However, it would no doubt be a costly exercise and not without its own pitfalls. I am in no position to suggest that ChessVic's current model is not working or even that any other state or territory is working any better.

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 07:36 PM
I'd just like to say I disagree with just about everything fg7 has said.What a coincidence, so do I.

Chesschat is obviously a tool used by certain ACF officials. This does not make it an de facto ACF site.Correct.
His views on the political structure of the ACF and state associations are obviously perverted by the baggage of previous inter-club disputes.No doubt. It would seem he has little support from the other CV clubs and most certainly not a majority of them.

Perhaps Chess Victoria could look to the model used by other states if it is felt that club representation is not effective.Perhaps it is just fg7 and his MCC mates who feel this way.
Obviously starter doesnt as he has tried in the past to convince me that the NSWCA should go to the CV clubs model of membership.

However, it would no doubt be a costly exercise and not without its own pitfalls. I am in no position to suggest that ChessVic's current model is not working or even that any other state or territory is working any better.It seems VIC has fg7 and NSW has Matt. :rolleyes:
I wonder who QLD, SA, TAS, ACT and WA have. :whistle:

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 07:43 PM
His views on the political structure of the ACF and state associations are obviously perverted by the baggage of previous inter-club disputes.

Inaccurate Baz, if you want to wade into Vic politics get your facts right. There is no inter-club baggage here. I have no idea about what you are talking about, do you?


Perhaps Chess Victoria could look to the model used by other states if it is felt that club representation is not effective.
I'm not sure if your just taking the mickey or are serious. How exactly is ChessVictoria not representing the clubs?



However, it would no doubt be a costly exercise and not without its own pitfalls. If I understood what you were talking about, I would be able to understand your cost arguement. What exactly is it that you have costed?


I am in no position to suggest that ChessVic's current model is not working or even that any other state or territory is working any better.
Simple honesty, at odds with other aspects of your post, but at least your honesty here is refreshing. Don't worry RW ;) , I understand how it feels. :whistle:

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 07:51 PM
What a coincidence, so do I.
yeah what a coincidence...birds of a feather flo...



Correct.No doubt. It would seem he has little support from the other CV clubs and most certainly not a majority of them. Time and time again you put your foot in your mouth by suggesting that you know something. Why don't you ever learn to clarify the issue first before passing your inept comments.


Perhaps it is just fg7 and his MCC mates who feel this way. Get your facts correct.


Obviously starter doesnt as he has tried in the past to convince me that the NSWCA should go to the CV clubs model of membership. A completely different issue that has little to do with what I was pointing out in my analysis of DJs report. As somebody who has a position of authority in State/ACF chess you should be more accurate then this...Tsk Tsk.

Cheers Fg7

ursogr8
04-06-2005, 08:03 PM
What a coincidence, so do I.

What a co-incidence. I read fg7's post and thought quite a bit was useful and made sense.



Correct.No doubt. It would seem he has little support from the other CV clubs and most certainly not a majority of them.

Bill, this statement of yours is far to general to debate.
In the past I have said to fg7 that large Clubs have an obligation to provide delegates so that the State Association can function. He does not see it that way. But there are many other issues where we probably have common ground.
I just don't think you can tar fg7 with a brush that he doesn't have support, as this is too generalised. And besides, how do we know what Frankston, Rye, Ranges, Whitehorse, Geelong, Mentone, Dandenong, think....they don't seem to have a voice here. And the AGM can hardly be said to be a forum.



Perhaps it is just fg7 and his MCC mates who feel this way.

Another of your perhaps statements without a question mark. I think this time I will wait for v2 before I comment. ;)


Obviously starter doesnt as he has tried in the past to convince me that the NSWCA should go to the CV clubs model of membership.

It is possible to think that the positives of VIC outweigh the negatives of the NSW model. Again, I think you need to become more specific before we can move on this debating point.


It seems VIC has fg7 and NSW has Matt. :rolleyes:

Gratuitous.
A/C has a point that you need to be mindful of your high office. :naughty:


starter

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 08:07 PM
Time and time again you put your foot in your mouth by suggesting that you know something. Why don't you ever learn to clarify the issue first before passing your inept comments.If you had majority support you could obviously get things changed. The fact you cant just shows you dont have it. Your protestrations are just a cover.

Get your facts correct.Well if you felt the club model was effective then no doubt you would be using that model to effect change within CV. Since you are not then the facts would seem to speak for themselves.

A completely different issue that has little to do with what I was pointing out in my analysis of DJs report. As somebody who has a position of authority in State/ACF chess you should be more accurate then this...Tsk Tsk.My comment was relevant. You raised the issue of clubs in your post. RW commented on it as did I. Starter supports the club model. You appear not to, after all if you did you would have delegate sattending CV AGM's trying to get majority support to effect your changes.

firegoat7
04-06-2005, 08:24 PM
If you had majority support you could obviously get things changed. The fact you cant just shows you dont have it. Your protestrations are just a cover.
Well if you felt the club model was effective then no doubt you would be using that model to effect change within CV. Since you are not then the facts would seem to speak for themselves.
My comment was relevant. You raised the issue of clubs in your post. RW commented on it as did I. Starter supports the club model. You appear not to, after all if you did you would have delegate sattending CV AGM's trying to get majority support to effect your changes.

:wall: :wall: :wall: How can anybody have a rational debate with this type of misrepresentation. :wall: :wall: :wall:

cheers fg7

Denis_Jessop
04-06-2005, 08:48 PM
I won't get too deeply into the points raised by fg7 at this stage and some of them have already been dealt with by others. However, I have some comments.

Re Chess Chat
It is obvious from reading the postings that some ACF officials post and read here. That does not make the forum either an official or unofficial ACF site. Moreover I can confirm as ACF President that the ACF resolved in April 2004 to have no legal responsibility for the forum and it now has no control over the forum. My point about the forum was that it once was, but now is not, an ACF forum as contemplated by the Constitution.

Re Membership etc.
Whether there should be individual membership of the ACF has been debated over the years more than once, I believe. There are arguments pro and con. In my view a hybrid, that is, the present structure with individual membership added is not on. It is the worst of both worlds. Either we have a federation as now or we have a unified body with State branches and individual membership.

I do feel that many of fg7's comments about the position of individuals is coloured by his CV experience as they seem to me possibly to apply to Victoria but probably not to anywhere else.

There is one factual inaccuracy early in fg7's comments. He says "Individuals pay tax to the ACF (rated games)...". This in not in fact what happens. The reason is that the ACF has no power to "tax" individuals as they are not ACF members. The true position is that, before the introduction of the ACF Administration fee (inaccurately called the rating fee), the State Associations paid an annual levy to the ACF being a percentage of the ACF's budgeted expenditure, based on the population of the State at the most recent census. The annual levy was abolished soon after the admin. fee was introduced. Now the ACF bills the State Associations for the admin. fee, which is based on the number of games from that State submitted for rating in each rating period. Whether the State seeks to recover the fee from clubs or individuals within the State is a matter for it. For example, the ACTCA decided to bear the cost itself initially but now bills its affiliated clubs.

Finally, fg7 says "why bother" putting views forward. The answer is obvious - so that ACF and State officials will know what players think. If players do not put their views forward how can they assert that nobody takes any notice of them or their problems? Fg7's approach is tantamount to abject resignation. I can do no better here than to quote from Ben Chifley's celebrated speech on 10 June 1951 when he said:

"You have to be quite clear about what you believe in, whether popular or unpopular, and you have to fight for it."

Or as the famous Eccles (or Thomas Hood) may well have said: "If you lay down your arms, you won't have a leg to stand on."

DJ

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 08:53 PM
:wall: :wall: :wall: How can anybody have a rational debate with this type of misrepresentation. :wall: :wall: :wall:I could say the exact same thing about you. :wall: :wall: :wall: :hand: :hand: :hand:

ursogr8
04-06-2005, 09:55 PM
<snip>

There is one factual inaccuracy early in fg7's comments. He says "Individuals pay tax to the ACF (rated games)...". This in not in fact what happens. The reason is that the ACF has no power to "tax" individuals as they are not ACF members. The true position is that, before the introduction of the ACF Administration fee (inaccurately called the rating fee), the State Associations paid an annual levy to the ACF being a percentage of the ACF's budgeted expenditure, based on the population of the State at the most recent census. The annual levy was abolished soon after the admin. fee was introduced. Now the ACF bills the State Associations for the admin. fee, which is based on the number of games from that State submitted for rating in each rating period. Whether the State seeks to recover the fee from clubs or individuals within the State is a matter for it. For example, the ACTCA decided to bear the cost itself initially but now bills its affiliated clubs.

<snip>

DJ

Denis

Thanks for making your paper available for comment. I wish you well with the ideas you are going to progress.

I am not sure I would agree about your allegation of a factual inaccuracy, see your post quote.

While you can call it an ADMIN. fee, and deny it is ratings tax, I think fg7 is not misleading anyone by his description.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a ratings tax.......it is user pays and based on a desired service (ratings)...and as the ACF needs to raise a base level of funds it seems like an OK mechanism to me.

regards
starter

Denis_Jessop
04-06-2005, 10:03 PM
Denis

Thanks for making your paper available for comment. I wish you well with the ideas you are going to progress.

I am not sure I would agree about your allegation of a factual inaccuracy, see your post quote.

While you can call it an ADMIN. fee, and deny it is ratings tax, I think fg7 is not misleading anyone by his description.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a ratings tax.......it is user pays and based on a desired service (ratings)...and as the ACF needs to raise a base level of funds it seems like an OK mechanism to me.

regards
starter

Starter

The factual inaccuracy to which I was referring was not the name of the fee but the assertion that it was a tax imposed by the ACF on the players. As I explained, it is not levied by the ACF on players, it is a fee levied upon the State Associations and it is up to them to decide whether, and, if so, how, they will seek to recover it from within their jurisdictions. It replaces a levy formerly imposed on the States also but calculated on a different basis.

Denis

ursogr8
04-06-2005, 10:17 PM
Starter

The factual inaccuracy to which I was referring was not the name of the fee but the assertion that it was a tax imposed by the ACF on the players. As I explained, it is not levied by the ACF on players, it is a fee levied upon the State Associations and it is up to them to decide whether, and, if so, how, they will seek to recover it from within their jurisdictions. It replaces a levy formerly imposed on the States also but calculated on a different basis.

Denis

^
Denis

I understood all that about you having tax agents collecting the fee and passing it on.

But like the extras I pay on petrol, even though there is not one of John Howard's men standing at the bowser, nor the convenience store counter, I still have this odd notion that I pay a petrol tax. ;)
And, incidentally, I am a lot less happy about that tax than the ACF's rating tax ADMIN fee (levied on players via middlemen).


regards
starter

Bill Gletsos
04-06-2005, 11:28 PM
Denis

Thanks for making your paper available for comment. I wish you well with the ideas you are going to progress.

I am not sure I would agree about your allegation of a factual inaccuracy, see your post quote.

While you can call it an ADMIN. fee, and deny it is ratings tax, I think fg7 is not misleading anyone by his description.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a ratings tax.......it is user pays and based on a desired service (ratings)...and as the ACF needs to raise a base level of funds it seems like an OK mechanism to me.No, you and fg7 are wrong and Denis is correct.

The ACF does not charge any individual for ACF rated games.
The ACF charges the states an administration fee for providing the rating system.
How a state chooses to pay the ACF admin fee is up to each state.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 12:06 AM
[ACF does not "tax" you] ...Now the ACF bills the State Associations for the admin. fee,

Oh, now I get it. The Australian government does not tax my income, the ATO does.

Hang on, no, that is not right. The ATO does not tax me, it is my employer.

:doh:


Denis, stop talking Canberra speak. We all know that you are playing with definitions. The ACF "taxes" the players, albeit indirectly. You are not posting to idiots, so do not post as if we are. :rolleyes:

Garvinator
05-06-2005, 12:17 AM
Denis, stop talking Canberra speak. We all know that you are playing with definitions. The ACF "taxes" the players, albeit indirectly. You are not posting to idiots, so do not post as if we are. :rolleyes:
The out here for Denis would be that the states could pay the admin fee through sponsorships, kind benefactors etc. In that case, the players dont pay the admin fee.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 12:29 AM
Oh, now I get it. The Australian government does not tax my income, the ATO does.

Hang on, no, that is not right. The ATO does not tax me, it is my employer.

:doh:


Denis, stop talking Canberra speak. We all know that you are playing with definitions. The ACF "taxes" the players, albeit indirectly. You are not posting to idiots, so do not post as if we are. :rolleyes:He isnt.
A state/tournament organiser pays for DOP fees/rent etc from the entry fees they collect for an event. One of the things that now also comes out of entry fees is the ACF admin fee. The ACF admin fee is no more of a tax than the DOP fee or rent is a tax.
A state could however decide to pay the ACF admin fee from other soucres like sponsorship.

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 12:53 AM
Look, Bill, Gavin, the money that the ACF receives from the rating fee, :doh: , I mean administration fee, comes out of players pockets. I am not making this up!! Chess in Australia is not generally sponsored. Money that did not flow serpentinely to the ACF would have either not been charged to the players in higher entry fees or be paid back in higher prize money.

I do not care if you call it a tax, a levy, a fee or anything else. And I dont care who collects it. All we need to understand is that the body we call the ACF is not directly accountable to the people who pay for their junkets and ineffectual talk fests.

Question: How many of the current ACF deligates would be still be on the ACF council, if the council was directly elected by Australian chess players?

May be a few :hmm: What does that say about the current crop of no-hopers.

Alan Shore
05-06-2005, 01:13 AM
Question: How many of the current ACF deligates would be still be on the ACF council, if the council was directly elected by Australian chess players?

Unfortunately in many cases it's not an option because such positions are largely filled on a voluntary basis, such that we have a system of 'take what you can get' based upon those brave volunteers. Hence, there's no practical feasibility that would allow for such a democratic political election system.

Even so, you have a point about funds.. I do know of those who would rather keep their cash in their pockets and can live without getting changes to that little number next to their name.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:18 AM
Even so, you have a point about funds.. I do know of those who would rather keep their cash in their pockets and can live without getting changes to that little number next to their name.Perhaps those chess players just have deep pockets and short arms.

It is a trivial amount per player for an individual tournament. A 7 round event is $1.75 in ACF admin fees. Even the Australian Championshps over 11 rounds is only $2.75 per player.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:20 AM
May be a few :hmm: What does that say about the current crop of no-hopers.I have never seen you stick your hand up to volunteer for any position.
As such criticism on your part could well be considered coming from a no-hoper. :hand:

Alan Shore
05-06-2005, 01:27 AM
Perhaps those chess players just have deep pockets and short arms.

It is a trivial amount per player for an individual tournament. A 7 round event is $1.75 in ACF admin fees. Even the Australian Championshps over 11 rounds is only $2.75 per player.

Oh no, it's not the ACF rating fees themselves, they're really good value. It's the huge state surcharge that goes with them, so add about $5 per player and with a decent turnout that can be a lot for an organiser to find (and maintain a decent prize fund). Ordinarily it's not bad but it gets kind of ridiculous when you have an interclub match and everyone's playing only 1 game and then it's ++$5 per player and you're like, well, that's so not worth rating then.

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 01:42 AM
Oh no, it's not the ACF rating fees themselves, they're really good value.Thanks for clariying as you neither said nor implied any of this in your original post. In fact you appeared to be criticising it by supporting Duff's comments.

It's the huge state surcharge that goes with them, so add about $5 per player and with a decent turnout that can be a lot for an organiser to find (and maintain a decent prize fund). Ordinarily it's not bad but it gets kind of ridiculous when you have an interclub match and everyone's playing only 1 game and then it's ++$5 per player and you're like, well, that's so not worth rating then.Yes I can see where that could be a disincentive.
Thats why in NSW even when I have argued in favour of a state rating fee, I have always said it should be no more than the ACF admin fee. Even then if the state rating fee were to be charged to members and non members alike then I would expect a reduction in membership fees. I would however prefer that if NSW were to instigate a state rating fee it would only it to non members.
However at the moment and in the forseeable future NSW has no plans to implement any form of state rating fee.

firegoat7
05-06-2005, 05:42 AM
Starter

The factual inaccuracy to which I was referring was not the name of the fee but the assertion that it was a tax imposed by the ACF on the players. As I explained, it is not levied by the ACF on players, it is a fee levied upon the State Associations and it is up to them to decide whether, and, if so, how, they will seek to recover it from within their jurisdictions. It replaces a levy formerly imposed on the States also but calculated on a different basis.

Denis

Look Denis if you want to play semantics that is your choice. At the end of the day we all know who is actually paying the money. Furthermore what you say about 'the acf imposing a levy' is bogus, since by your own admission 'the ACF needs State approval' for its policies.

Who gives you approval to collect the fees...the states......who controls the state levies.....the states. Who is running Australian chess...the states....oops sorry the clubs and players, since they are the ones who give all the money and collect most of the fees.

Now I ask you Denis, your supposed to be the most powerful political chair in Australian chess, yet I'm sure you realise the difficulties of your own situation. How can the ACF lead if the States are calling the shots?

Anyway- I really liked your paper, it was thoughtful and showed understanding of the issues at hand. What is more, it engaged with issues that previously have been swept under the carpet.

But....and here it comes. I believe that it is a good thing for people like Starter, Duff, Belthaser and myself to criticise your paper. What is more, I think that it benefits your organisation (the ACF). So why don't you engage with the criticism as robust debate along intellectual lines. Wouldn't that be more productive for chess?

Chjeers Fg7

arosar
05-06-2005, 11:00 AM
So why don't you engage with the criticism as robust debate along intellectual lines.

Is he not?

AR

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 11:26 AM
From Denis' paper >

Part 4. What should the ACF do?

...
My aim in this Part is not necessarily to advocate certain actions or measures but to identify areas that could receive further attention.
...
a. Action under existing structure and powers.

I believe that there is scope for greater involvement by the ACF in chess matters of an essentially national character; that is, things than can be done effectively only by the ACF as the national chess body or those that it can do more efficiently than could the States acting separately.

Examples are

....
national coaching and development schemes for all chess players, but particularly for those likely to advance to the international stage; and
more efficient fund raising, preferably by a person or firm professionally qualified to do so - more funds means greater support for players, better development programs and so on.
The second-last of these items raises an issue, common to many sports, of support for the elite competitor and not the ordinary ones. In the chess context, my view is that support for the general club player and the like is primarily a matter for State and Territory Associations while support for top players likely to be Australian representatives either as individuals or in Olympiad teams is a national matter for the ACF, though not necessarily exclusively. At present we are well positioned to develop junior talent but once these players become adults they are left to fend for themselves even though they may still be students at, say, a university.

I have been struck by the inordinate churn in the community of our elite chess players. Players appear on a fast-track to a high rating and then almost seem to give the game away entirely. Whichever theory or evidence is put forward to explain this churn (e.g. building a career, having a family, finding other past-times, getting tertiary education) we are left with the evidence of
> very few active strong players play more than a tourney or two (and of course the inactive don't play at all) per quarter.
> many strong players have shortish active chess-careers at the top (I am counting 5 years as short).

If my observations are correct then it would lead me to doubting if we could get value for money from a national coaching scheme. I suspect we just don't have the decision-making capability to identify the
> emerging elite,
who
> will also stick at the game.

It is not as though we can identify a squad (say like hockey with a churn rate of 30% at the national level), and hot-house them to become world competitive; because our churn rates seem to be in excess of 90%.
I doubt if we would get adequate returns for our national development money.

starter

Denis_Jessop
05-06-2005, 12:15 PM
^
Denis

I understood all that about you having tax agents collecting the fee and passing it on.

But like the extras I pay on petrol, even though there is not one of John Howard's men standing at the bowser, nor the convenience store counter, I still have this odd notion that I pay a petrol tax. ;)
And, incidentally, I am a lot less happy about that tax than the ACF's rating tax ADMIN fee (levied on players via middlemen).


regards
starter

Starter

For the third and last time, I repeat that the Admin fee is not a "tax" levied on players. It is a fee imposed on State Associations calculated according to the number of rated games from the State instead of the State's population as before. Apart from the Schools Teams levy, it is virtually the ACF's only source of income. As the ACF must have income to function, perhaps you might please add something useful to the debate by suggesting an alternative source of income.

Denis

firegoat7
05-06-2005, 12:38 PM
From Denis' paper >

If my observations are correct then it would lead me to doubting if we could get value for money from a national coaching scheme.

starter

Good point Starter,

I believe you are correct here. Retention ought to be a key issue. If the ACF is spending money on developing players who drop out of the game then this is problematic. Possibly one solution is to establish community ties at the grassroots level. Out of left field,the Japanese model of professional Go might offer a few viable solutions for Australian chess.

Cheers Fg7

Brian_Jones
05-06-2005, 12:40 PM
perhaps you might please add something useful to the debate by suggesting an alternative.....

Well so far the debate seems to be bitchy, rude and argumentative.
I suggest we all be more positive. Here are a few ideas:

(1) That the Council consists of nominees not delegates.
(2) That the ACF puts a lot more effort into sponsorship.
(3) That the ACF issues weekly press releases to increase profile of chess.
(4) That the nominees do things (ie chess work) between meetings.
(5) That the ACF appoints an official bulletin board.

WhiteElephant
05-06-2005, 12:46 PM
Starter

For the third and last time, I repeat that the Admin fee is not a "tax" levied on players. It is a fee imposed on State Associations calculated according to the number of rated games from the State instead of the State's population as before. Apart from the Schools Teams levy, it is virtually the ACF's only source of income. As the ACF must have income to function, perhaps you might please add something useful to the debate by suggesting an alternative source of income.

Denis

I think that at the moment the State Associations have no way to pay the 'Admin Fee' except to tax the players. The question is, should it be the responsibility of the States to seek alternative revenue streams or should the ACF assist with seeking sponsorship, etc rather than just impose a flat out fee? If the ACF does not demonstrate how it is assisting with that (ie. justifying the fee) then some of the players will feel they are being taxed directly.

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 12:50 PM
Starter

For the third and last time, I repeat that the Admin fee is not a "tax" levied on players. It is a fee imposed on State Associations calculated according to the number of rated games from the State instead of the State's population as before.

Denis
I am gunna stop on this because it is just a terminology argument; and I detect some terseness in your post.



Apart from the Schools Teams levy, it is virtually the ACF's only source of income. As the ACF must have income to function, perhaps you might please add something useful to the debate by suggesting an alternative source of income.

Denis

And perhaps this last para. of yours ^^^ explains the terseness. You have misjudged my postion on a ratings tax.
Here is my post #15 link to starters post where he says in the last para he is quite comfortable with a user-pays for a desired service = ratings fee/tax. (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=59912&postcount=15)

I am in favour of it (an income collected by xxxx for xxxx based on the provision of the service called rating of games). I don't therefore need to suggest an alternate source of income. (I was just trying originally to call a 'spade' a 'spade' as I thought fg7 had been misinterpreted)

respectfully yours,
starter

firegoat7
05-06-2005, 12:56 PM
Well so far the debate seems to be bitchy, rude and argumentative.
I suggest we all be more positive. Here are a few ideas:

(1) That the Council consists of nominees not delegates.
(2) That the ACF puts a lot more effort into sponsorship.
(3) That the ACF issues weekly press releases to increase profile of chess.
(4) That the nominees do things (ie chess work) between meetings.
(5) That the ACF appoints an official bulletin board.

1) Yes- more democratic
2) Yes- should be the ACFs main focus
3) Yes- sensible policy
4) Yes- particularly if this involves more grassroot activity and interaction.
5) Yes- :eek:

Top points Brian.

Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
05-06-2005, 01:01 PM
I am in favour of it (an income collected by xxxx for xxxx based on the provision of the service called rating of games). I don't therefore need to suggest an alternate source of income.


Agreed Starter,

If anything the ACF ought to diversify its revenue income streams, but nobody is suggesting that people ought not to pay rating fees. Clearly the ACF has to get its money from somewhere, just don't deny where it is currently coming from.

Cheers Fg7

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 01:03 PM
Well so far the debate seems to be bitchy, rude and argumentative.
I suggest we all be more positive. Here are a few ideas:

Brian
You really, really irritated me on this because I have not been b. or r.
Argumentative...maybe...always...well, sometimes...that is starter. ;)

But you recovered all your lost ground with the list (1) - (5) below.
Yes, we need a debate on priorities. Thanks for your list.


(1) That the Council consists of nominees not delegates.
(2) That the ACF puts a lot more effort into sponsorship.
(3) That the ACF issues weekly press releases to increase profile of chess.
(4) That the nominees do things (ie chess work) between meetings.
(5) That the ACF appoints an official bulletin board.


starter

Duff McKagan
05-06-2005, 02:33 PM
Perhaps those chess players just have deep pockets and short arms.

This is tellingly insensitive comment from any perosn who drives a $300k car. :naughty:

ursogr8
05-06-2005, 02:57 PM
<snip)
Out of left field,the Japanese model of professional Go might offer a few viable solutions for Australian chess.

Cheers Fg7

Actually, I have some consistent contact with the GO Association as a consequence of them hiring our digital clocks for large events. Their revenue flow from the Japansese firm NEC is very significant.

starter

Bill Gletsos
05-06-2005, 03:29 PM
This is tellingly insensitive comment from any perosn who drives a $300k car. :naughty:This is a telling stupid comment from a person who should know better.
It was clear I was referring to the ACF admin fee in my response to Belthaser. That fee of only 25cents per player per game is trivial.

Denis_Jessop
05-06-2005, 05:36 PM
A few general observations about things so far.

As postings go on the Forum, I think this has been a relatively sedate debate and so I'm not agreeing with Brian that it's bitchy or rude. But I do thank him for his contribution.

I'm sorry if Starter thought I was being terse and fg7 thinks my contribution was merely semantics. I was trying to keep things at a reasonable level - I even said "please" to Starter :lol: And I don't think, fg7, that it is merely semantics to clarify what the exact position is. Nor is it "Canberra speak", Duff. It rather stems from my career as a lawyer in which context, as here, distinctions of the kind I made are essential in the analysis of a matter to be sure that the right questions are being addressed.

One purpose of my paper was to allow debate as well as to inform. I think the paper itself is a sufficient initial contribution. Moreover, I'm glad that fg7 referred to my position as "supposed". In fact the ACF President's power is largely illusory in that he has no power or authority to make independent decisions on major issues such as we are considering, only that of persuasion.

I should add that I am not easily offended and certainly not by what has been said so far. On the contrary, I am very glad to hear views expressed on the issue and only wish that more of the 800-odd members of the Forum would respond.

One thing that I did not emphasise in the paper but alluded to indirectly is that any major reforms in the ACF's structure require amendment of the Constitution and the voting power on such questions is entirely with the States (the Office bearers as such don't have a vote). A 75% majority is needed to adopt an amendment (this is required by law so we can't change it) and consequently any significant opposition to an amendment is likely to result in its defeat, as, for example, with the Commission proposal. Hence my "softly, softly" approach recommended at the conclusion of the paper.

Please keep the debate going and I'll comment from time-to-time. It's not my idea to try to control it in any way. I'm out to hear what others think about any ACF-related matter in a free-flowing debate without rancour :) .

DJ

Spiny Norman
05-06-2005, 06:14 PM
(1) That the Council consists of nominees not delegates.

Pardon my ignorance (genuine) ... but what is the difference?


(2) That the ACF puts a lot more effort into sponsorship.

In a startup company environment, the #1 job of the CEO is to raise capital. In our chess environment, the equivalent job is probably to generate sponsorship opportunities. It'd be nice to see a plan mapped out (2-3 years ahead) nominating the events/activities for which the ACF is seeking sponsorship, so that those with contacts can leverage them and hopefully see the need fulfilled.


(3) That the ACF issues weekly press releases to increase profile of chess.

Only if there's something genuinely interesting to say ... the journos will soon get tired of reading our stuff if there's nothing substantial to be followed up.


(4) That the nominees do things (ie chess work) between meetings.

What kinds of "work" did you have in mind? Organising type activities I guess? Arbiting, administering, etc?


(5) That the ACF appoints an official bulletin board.

Actually, I think this is a bad idea. The situation we have now, with a de-facto official board, strikes me as ideal. I see no reason to link the ACF with some of the discussions that take place here .... perhaps better left independent?

Alternatively, if we are going to have an ACF-branded board, we should ensure that no people directly involved with the ACF have a moderator role, so as to ensure the fairness of any moderation tasks.

Denis_Jessop
05-06-2005, 06:27 PM
Well so far the debate seems to be bitchy, rude and argumentative.
I suggest we all be more positive. Here are a few ideas:

(1) That the Council consists of nominees not delegates.
(2) That the ACF puts a lot more effort into sponsorship.
(3) That the ACF issues weekly press releases to increase profile of chess.
(4) That the nominees do things (ie chess work) between meetings.
(5) That the ACF appoints an official bulletin board.

Thanks, Brian. These are helpful suggestions. I'll just make a few comments on them, if I may.

Re (1) I agree with this concept- it's a sort of compromise to replace the Commission idea. It would require a Constitutional amendment and so is subject to the matters referred in my other recent general posting.

Re (2) This is an area where action is definitely needed and I intend to put it before the Council again very soon. I say "again" because the Council has looked at the need for fund-raising a couple of times fairly recently (before my time as President) but hasn't really done anything about it. I think that we clearly need a person with professional expertise in the area and thus be prepared to pay for the service, just as we are doing with the Grand Prix next year.

Re (3) This is another area where action could be taken quite easily though it would need a good Publicity Officer and I'm not sure that there would be enough news of an Australia-wide nature to put releases out weekly. The Newsletter is a good avenue for the Chess community but I assume you have in mind Press releases to the General media. Mind you, this is an area where State Associations could also do much good work as they are closer to the action. For example, the ACT Junior Chess League has been responsible for getting much publicity for ACT junior chess in the local press in the last few years.

Re (4) OK; but I might here outline what now happens as I think many people may be unaware of what State delegates now do.
First, for information, the State Delegates now are (in random order)
ACT: Mosaddeque Ali
NSW: Bill Gletsos
Victoria: Geoff Saw
Queensland: Ian Murray
South Australia: Tristrom Cooke
Tasmania: Kevin Bonham
Western Australia: Haydn Barber.

Each of them (bar, perhaps, Geoff Saw) holds a major office (President or Secretary) at State level.

Mos has only recently succeeded me as ACTCA President and so has not yet got into the swing of things.

Bill is ACF Ratings Officer and a member of the Constitutional Sub Committee.

Geoff is likewise a relative newcomer but has a keen interest in junior chess.

Ian is a member of the Constitutional Subcommittee and is a main organiser of the forthcoming Australian Championships and Junior Championships.

Tristrom is investigating means whereby we can introduce inter-State net-based teams matches.

Kevin is Adult and Junior Selection Co-ordinator (though the second role is only temporary) and is a member of the Constitutional Subcommittee.

Haydn has also come onto the Council only fairly recently and is still acclimatising himself (WA is a long way away ;) )

So it can be seen that most of the State delegates really have their hands full with both ACF and State responsibilities at present. As well, the Council now often considers and votes on matters by e-mail outside formal meetings, a practice that I and Jey Hoole are both rather keen on and I want to encourage.

Re (5) This is likely to be the most contentious in the short term as we stopped our association with the Chess Kit Forum only last year. At the time I was just the ACT delegate and I'm not quite sure why we did this though I know the question of legal liability arising from postings was an issue. It may have been the only major concern. Paul Broekhuyse may be able to enlighten me/us.

DJ

Brian_Jones
06-06-2005, 08:58 AM
Thanks Denis and others for your thoughts so far.

Frosty please re-read the paper if you want to understand the difference between nominees and delegates.

At present it looks to me as if many delegates (Councillors) have conflicts of interest. Does anyone agree?

firegoat7
06-06-2005, 09:13 AM
At present it looks to me as if many delegates (Councillors) have conflicts of interest. Does anyone agree?

Clearly that is the case Brian.

Cheers Fg7

Denis_Jessop
06-06-2005, 11:50 AM
Replying both to Frosty and Brian -

On Frosty's point (1), as Brian says, I have put the legal position as I understand it in my paper. Put briefly it is that, if the Council were to consist of the executive plus one person nominated or appointed by each State, there would be no doubt that those nominees would have the legal duty to act in the best interests of the ACF. If the persons are called "delegates" as they now are, the view could be taken that they are subject to direction by their State on how to act, vote etc. and so the State's interest could be put ahead of that of the ACF.

Having said that, to comment on Brian's point, I'm not sure that, in practice, there are any significant conflicts of interest as most of the matters that come before the ACF are national and the States are prepared to rely on the good judgement of their delegates. That was my experience as ACTCA delegate. It is not possible or practicable to have a State appointee or delegate who is totally uninfluenced by his State as this debate shows in a way - I have said and believe that some of the views put by Victorians have been made because the situation in Victoria is rather different from the other States. The question of conflicts as well as that of the delegates' position generally would have been resolved had the recent Commission proposal been accepted by the National Conference but it wasn't. Incidentally, I think that, if there are cases of States putting their views first in precedence it is likely to be at a National Conference where issues such as constitutional amendments affecting ACF structure arise. The National Conference is a bit different from the Council because there the States are the only voters and the elected executive doesn't get a vote.

I think that a much more likely conflict of interest situation could arise on a day-to-day basis in the Council where a Councillor, either a State delegate or an elected executive officer, has a private chess-related business interest. I know that this point is already appreciated by some of those who have such a business interest.

Re Frosty's point (2) I should be happy as ACF CEO to seek sponsorship for the ACF or for events if I thought that I had any significant expertise in that area. Unfortunately I don't - it's not my scene - and that's why I suggest engagement of a professional or someone with demonstrated expertise to do it for us.

DJ

Brian_Jones
06-06-2005, 12:15 PM
I have stated this before (many years ago before this BB came along).

If a person is a member of an executive, then that person should not in my view:

(1) have a chess-related business interest
(2) should not be a member of another executive

On this basis, anyone that does chess coaching for reward should stand down from all chess admin. Anybody with two or more chess admin jobs should give some away and cut back to one.

It might be argued that we are small and people have to do two jobs. But we could and should get big one day and the argument that there are too few people does not hold up with me. There are people waiting in the wings who might do jobs if the opportunity arose, particularly at the executive level.

This is not a criticism of the current ACF Treasurer, who does an excellent job. But it would be better if he was not NSWCA Treasurer at the same time.

shaun
06-06-2005, 12:20 PM
On this basis, anyone that does chess coaching for reward should stand down from all chess admin.
Is that what you meant to say, without qualification?
eg I coach almost every Saturday for free, but I also coach at the ACTJCL Development Squad sessions where I get a small payment (less than $100 for a days work). Does this disqualify me?
Or do you mean anyone who does chess coaching as a source of income?
And does this criteria apply to chess businesses? (eg something like Street Chess v something like ACE)

Brian_Jones
06-06-2005, 12:58 PM
In my view, Shaun, it should certainly disqualify you from executive office (usually President, Deputy President, Treasurer and Secretary).

If these officers are allowed to derive income from chess, where do we draw the line between $5 and $50,000 per annum? The income may not be their principal source of income but it would be income nevertheless (subject to tax office declaration). So when does an honorarium become a salary?

I am trying to distinguish between, say, a CEO (a paid position) and President (an honorary position). This distinction is pretty clear at the top but gets foggier as you move down the ladder.

I am not entirely sure about Councillors (not usually cheque signataries), whose responsibilities are less clearly defined in the Constitution. But if you have a vote then it is better if you are not influenced by personal gain (or loss).

bergil
06-06-2005, 02:45 PM
Duff said:
Look, Bill, Gavin, the money that the ACF receives from the rating fee, , I mean administration fee, comes out of players pockets. I am not making this up!! Chess in Australia is not generally sponsored. Money that did not flow serpentinely to the ACF would have either not been charged to the players in higher entry fees or be paid back in higher prize money.


Thats bullshit, Fairfield holds two Cat 3 GP's a year and has never gone close to making a profit. Our aim is to recover the prize money and wear the cost of holding the tournament (dop, equipment, GP, admin fees). Regardless of wether we do break even on prize money, we always pay prizes as advertised

Duff McKagan
06-06-2005, 04:07 PM
That fee of only 25cents per player per game is trivial.

A tellingly insensitive remark from a person who has never had to scratch for a train fare. :naughty:

11 games is one long walk from the venue to home.

Bill Gletsos
06-06-2005, 04:17 PM
A tellingly insensitive remark from a person who has never had to scratch for a train fare. :naughty:A tellingly stupid remark from a person who obviously is making assumptions based on no data.

11 games is one long walk from the venue to home.If they cannot afford $1.75 for a seven round event or even $2.75 for an 11 round event, then they have far more issues to think about than playing in a chess tournament.

Duff McKagan
06-06-2005, 04:32 PM
Duff said:
Look, Bill, Gavin, the money that the ACF receives from the rating fee, , I mean administration fee, comes out of players pockets. I am not making this up!! Chess in Australia is not generally sponsored. Money that did not flow serpentinely to the ACF would have either not been charged to the players in higher entry fees or be paid back in higher prize money.


Thats bullshit, Fairfield holds two Cat 3 GP's a year and has never gone close to making a profit. Our aim is to recover the prize money and wear the cost of holding the tournament (dop, equipment, GP, admin fees). Regardless of wether we do break even on prize money, we always pay prizes as advertised

Bergil,

NSW, as we both know, is in a position where many of our hosting (footy) clubs foot the bill for running costs, eg rating fees. Most of the rest of Australia are not as lucky as us. Any fee fror them results in reduced prize money. And that is not "bullshit" :P

Cheers

Brian_Jones
06-06-2005, 05:25 PM
Denis Jessop's ACF paper will now be read all over the world.

The Chessville Weekly Volume 4 Issue 10 had a link!

And it also carries a Queenstown Open advert at http://www.chessville.com/misc/misc_news_index.htm

Libby
06-06-2005, 05:40 PM
Bergil,

NSW, as we both know, is in a position where many of our hosting (footy) clubs foot the bill for running costs, eg rating fees. Most of the rest of Australia are not as lucky as us. Any fee fror them results in reduced prize money. And that is not "bullshit" :P

Cheers

ACTJCL absorbed the rating fee for our members - and the schools comp fee etc.

The reason we are in a position to do so is a combination of strong revenues from tournaments and a regime of trophies rather than prizemoney.

I know the lack of prizemoney is against the preferences of many players and the structure of events elsewhere. However, without meaning to harp on my well-worn point - it matches what I experienced in both junior & senior sport myself. I have a complete lack of understanding of why prizemoney exists in chess at every level and why players would express resentment/concern when they pay to enter a tournament which might have the prospect of setting aside part of the entry cost for the growth of their state & national associations?

Netball used to cost me about $150 for a 15-week season (per team, and I played in up to 5 or 6 teams at a time). If we made the grand final we each received a trophy, pizza and a beer.

It's all very well to desire sponsorship but most sport also sources revenue from it's participants. Most minor sports would see sponsorship as the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

Prizemoney goes only to the few. When it is a strong pillar of support for various tournaments it seems to overlook the fact that few win money. And many share money prizes, making the return even smaller for those who do. I can't understand why it matters so much to anyone other than the very elite few who have a reasonable guarantee of a return?

What our regime (in ACTJCL) does permit, in the absence of prizemoney, is a heavily subsidised program of coaching and development activities at all levels. In an adult organisation, you may have a lesser emphasis on development but you might want to upgrade your facilities, equipment, services and support of your elite level athletes.

Bob1
06-06-2005, 07:30 PM
In my view, Shaun, it should certainly disqualify you from executive office (usually President, Deputy President, Treasurer and Secretary).

If these officers are allowed to derive income from chess, where do we draw the line between $5 and $50,000 per annum? The income may not be their principal source of income but it would be income nevertheless (subject to tax office declaration). So when does an honorarium become a salary?


Brian - all good stuff and I agree where you are approaching this from - but I get caught up in the little bits

Does this mean that a DOP cannot be an executive if he/she is paid as a DOP ?


Politicians are allowed this type of conflict of interest as long as it is disclosed.

Denis_Jessop
06-06-2005, 10:23 PM
I have stated this before (many years ago before this BB came along).

If a person is a member of an executive, then that person should not in my view:

(1) have a chess-related business interest
(2) should not be a member of another executive

On this basis, anyone that does chess coaching for reward should stand down from all chess admin. Anybody with two or more chess admin jobs should give some away and cut back to one.

It might be argued that we are small and people have to do two jobs. But we could and should get big one day and the argument that there are too few people does not hold up with me. There are people waiting in the wings who might do jobs if the opportunity arose, particularly at the executive level.

This is not a criticism of the current ACF Treasurer, who does an excellent job. But it would be better if he was not NSWCA Treasurer at the same time.

I appreciate what Brian is saying and I was aware of his views previously. This view certainly indicates an approach of the highest integrity, if I may say so, though it goes further than the rule usually applied to committees or statutory authorities by legislation.

The usual rule is that if a committee member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered by the committee, the member must declare his interest and must not vote on the matter. Indeed, there is such a provision in section 65 of the Associations Incorporation Act 1991 of the ACT, under which the ACF is incorporated, but it is limited to contracts to which the Association is or may become a party. It is a penal provision, that is, breach of it is a criminal offence, so it is clear that this is regarded as a most serious matter.

My own view is, like Brian's, that it is better for a person who runs a chess-related business, especially a coaching business, not to be a Councillor but it is not illegal and, depending on all the circumstances, may be not as great a hinderance as may be thought. For example, the chess-related business may have little in common with ACF matters if it is confined to selling books and equipment unless the ACF decides to buy some books or equipment. In that case s.65 of the Act comes into play. I mention coaching businesses, as does Brian, because coaches are almost inevitably interested in selection of players for overseas representation which is a core function of the ACF. But even there a declaration of interest and non-participation in decision making may be enough to remedy the situation.

I think the holding of an position in another executive is perhaps taking the concept too far unless pecuniary interests are involved. I stood down as ACTCA President because the ACF President's position almost of necessity requires policy matters to be formulated or directed by him and I wanted to be seen to be completely independent, as far as can be. But the other executive positions, for example, Secretary or Treasurer are more of an administrative nature and are unlikely,in my view, to lead to conflicts of interest. In the company world, many people hold directorships in several companies and this is not thought to be irregular.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
06-06-2005, 11:00 PM
If a person is a member of an executive, then that person should not in my view:

(1) have a chess-related business interest

To me that depends on how frequently that interest is impacted on by the decisions that person has to make. It becomes pointless if the person is having to declare interests and abstein from voting on every second motion.


(2) should not be a member of another executive

I find this view rather inflexible. Firstly in some cases there simply are not other people waiting in the wings. In Tassie, filling all the club exec positions, the state exec positions and the federal Council position would require about one third of rated adult chess players in the state being involved in admin - not likely.

Secondly it benefits the ACF if its Councillors are continually active in local chess experience and gaining experience of local chess issues, hence seeing the impact of the ACF's decisions, rather than being involved only on a national level.

I'm on a club exec and a state exec and the federal Council and I certainly don't see any reason for throwing in two of those based on what you've said.

Brian_Jones
07-06-2005, 02:55 PM
From the comments above it clear to me that Australian ethics continue to be based on the USA (the country famous for cowboys) but seem to have got worse.

England, where I was brought up, has stronger ethical standards.
For example, England has statutory audit for limited liability companies whereas Australia does not. (As a result Australia has lots of $1 companies and gets its fair share of cowboys).

As regards chess organisations in Australia, they are currently very small but maybe we should think ahead to the kind of fiduciary responsibility we need if we were very big. Probably only the NSWJCL has a turnover over $100,000 at present so is hardly comparable to the USCF.

But would the comments above hold up if our turnover was $100 Million?

Bob1
07-06-2005, 08:17 PM
But would the comments above hold up if our turnover was $100 Million?

:D Who knows - but I guess at this stage there would be more lawyers than players!

(and not meaning to offend any of the legal profession that I know who play chess - as they are all better players than myself)

Kevin Bonham
07-06-2005, 10:23 PM
From the comments above it clear to me that Australian ethics continue to be based on the USA (the country famous for cowboys) but seem to have got worse.

It seems more to me that you are trying to apply arguments from the sphere of business ethics to the sphere of local chess organisation in spite of strong practical arguments for not applying these standards in that sphere.

I'd be more impressed if you could prove a strong practical link between applying those standards to chess now and chess growing, rather than just saying we should apply them now because we will need them if/when it does grow to that size.

pax
08-06-2005, 09:54 AM
It's all very well having idealistic rules preventing coaches, chess business people and other exec holders (including clubs applying Brian's logic) from holding ACF positions.

The practicality of Chess in Australia is that if you did that, you may well be unable to find anybody at all to run for ACF positions. And you may well be prohibiting the most competent people from doing the job. As it is, it is very unusual for executive positions to be contested.

I would agree that I probably don't want someone who runs a chess business full-time to be an ACF executive, but somebody who earns a few hundred bucks a year doing some coaching?? Come on, even the tax office doesn't care about that. In fact I think you can earn around $6k in "hobby income" before you even have to declare it!

peter_parr
08-06-2005, 03:47 PM
I have stated this before (many years ago before this BB came along).

If a person is a member of an executive, then that person should not in my view:

(1) have a chess-related business interest
(2) should not be a member of another executive

On this basis, anyone that does chess coaching for reward should stand down from all chess admin. Anybody with two or more chess admin jobs should give some away and cut back to one.

It might be argued that we are small and people have to do two jobs. But we could and should get big one day and the argument that there are too few people does not hold up with me. There are people waiting in the wings who might do jobs if the opportunity arose, particularly at the executive level.

This is not a criticism of the current ACF Treasurer, who does an excellent job. But it would be better if he was not NSWCA Treasurer at the same time.

At what level is income insignificant?
In my view, Shaun, it should certainly disqualify you from executive office (usually President, Deputy President, Treasurer and Secretary).

If these officers are allowed to derive income from chess, where do we draw the line between $5 and $50,000 per annum? The income may not be their principal source of income but it would be income nevertheless (subject to tax office declaration). So when does an honorarium become a salary?

I am trying to distinguish between, say, a CEO (a paid position) and President (an honorary position). This distinction is pretty clear at the top but gets foggier as you move down the ladder.

I am not entirely sure about Councillors (not usually cheque signataries), whose responsibilities are less clearly defined in the Constitution. But if you have a vote then it is better if you are not influenced by personal gain (or loss).



I disagree with Brian Jones.

Cecil Purdy, Garry Koshnitsky, Gunther Stock, Jaques Engelander and myself have all run very successful chess businesses over many years in the heart of the CBD of our respective cities (Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne) at the same time as each of the above being President for lengthy periods of our State Chess Associations.

Chess administration (National and State) has greatly benefited over the years by the considerable expertise of those who have dedicated their lives to chess and who offer their free services for the benefit of the chess community.

I personally have served on many NSWCA and ACF councils over the last 32 years while running a chess business. My fellow councillors at many meetings included Brian Jones and Denis Jessop.

I note, with alarm, that Brian Jones opinion is that anyone involved in a chess business should not be an administrator.

Jones administrated the Australian Open at Penrith – sponsorship $5,000, entry fees $20,000 – prizes $10,000. Jones personally received $1,500 for organising as well as his share ($904) of the declared $3,616 profit.

Sponsorship money should have been used to increase prizes. To the best of my knowledge none of my Presidential colleagues ever received an organiser fee or pocketed any profit from any State or ACF event.

Furthermore Jones will be paid a substantial (undisclosed) sum of money for administering the ACF Grand Prix for 2006 yet he claims no other administrator should have a financial involvement in chess.

He himself derives income from chess in the far Western Suburbs of Sydney.
My offer two months ago to run the 2006 Grand Prix (for no fee as I have in the past) was considered (too late!).

Prize funds in Grand Prix events, Penrith etc. are substantially reduced if organisers are paid large fees – the money from entry fees and sponsors belong to the players not the organisers.

Finally there are many players who derive an income from chess – largely teaching the game to Juniors. They should all be encouraged to assist in administration at both state and national level.

The number of players is rapidly expanding and there is more administration required than ever before.

Brian we need new keen young administrators at all levels.

Peter Parr

firegoat7
08-06-2005, 06:00 PM
Hello,

KB be quiet. Denis be quiet. Bill and Matty be quiet. Well at least for the next few posts. This is a very important occasion.

This could be the new super heavyweight championship round on the bulletin board.

Two equally talented protaganists, The grand Luluai of Australian chess are here. Ladies and gentlemen please be seated.

A hush fills the board as the crowd chant....two go in one comes out, two go in one comes out, two go in one comes out

Cheers Fg7

bergil
09-06-2005, 12:59 AM
Jones administrated the Australian Open at Penrith – sponsorship $5,000, entry fees $20,000 – prizes $10,000. Jones personally received $1,500 for organising as well as his share ($904) of the declared $3,616 profit.

Peter Parr


Sounds like he did a good job, everyone paid their money knowing how much prize money was on offer. I don't see why getting more money than you spend is a bad thing, they could use the money for teams in chess olympiad or any other worthwhile scheme.


Peter _Par
Sponsorship money should have been used to increase prizes. To the best of my knowledge none of my Presidential colleagues ever received an organiser fee or pocketed any profit from any State or ACF event.


Sponsorship money should be used to reduce entry fees. As for pocketing profits, unlucky!


Peter_Par
Furthermore Jones will be paid a substantial (undisclosed) sum of money for administering the ACF Grand Prix for 2006 yet he claims no other administrator should have a financial involvement in chess.


Substantial? If its undisclosed then you don't know how much he will be paid, but I'm not having a go at anyone when I say: If Brian can run the GP series like he did Penrith, it will be in much better shape than it has been for a while.


Peter_Par
Prize funds in Grand Prix events, Penrith etc. are substantially reduced if organisers are paid large fees – the money from entry fees and sponsors belong to the players not the organisers.


What sponsors? If Brian can attract them and takes a slice its better than none at all.

Brian_Jones
09-06-2005, 08:25 AM
Well my broadband went down for 24 hours just as it got foggy on this thread.

So for clarity, let me say that my current involvement in chess is:

(1) As a player (OTB and CC)
(2) As a partner in a chess business (ACE)
(3) As a paid professional chess promoter (fee negotiable)

The last time I was on any Council was in 1991 and I now only vote in AGMs.

For chess to be really successful in this country, we should look to the future not the past!

PHAT
09-06-2005, 08:30 AM
For chess to be really successful in this country, we should look to the future not the past!

:clap:

Do you have a manifesto? Or perhaps just a short list of "to do's".

Matthew Sweeney

Brian_Jones
09-06-2005, 09:27 AM
Already given some ideas Matt. But one other priority that immediately springs to mind (write this down Denis) is to create an Australian Chess Foundation as a Charitable Trust so that tax deductable money can be accumulated for the future.

Denis_Jessop
09-06-2005, 11:48 PM
Already given some ideas Matt. But one other priority that immediately springs to mind (write this down Denis) is to create an Australian Chess Foundation as a Charitable Trust so that tax deductable money can be accumulated for the future.

Thanks Brian. You remind me that during Graeme Gardiner's Presidency we were to investigate if that were legally possible, that is, whether we could arrange for donations to be tax deductible. The idea got buried somewhere but I'll resurrect it. I'm not sure that it is all that straight forward but we'll see.

DJ

antichrist
10-06-2005, 12:09 AM
Thanks Brian. You remind me that during Graeme Gardiner's Presidency we were to investigate if that were legally possible, that is, whether we could arrange for donations to be tax deductible. The idea got buried somewhere but I'll resurrect it. I'm not sure that it is all that straight forward but we'll see.

DJ

I checked up on these things 5 years ago and I doubt if you will find a loophole but certainly try.

You can get for education, sport, culture etc, even racing dogs, but not for philosophy.

That was another reason I was trying to link chess and table tennis centres combined -for the tax deductions.

antichrist
10-06-2005, 12:09 AM
Thanks Brian. You remind me that during Graeme Gardiner's Presidency we were to investigate if that were legally possible, that is, whether we could arrange for donations to be tax deductible. The idea got buried somewhere but I'll resurrect it. I'm not sure that it is all that straight forward but we'll see.

DJ

I checked up on these things 5 years ago and I doubt if you will find a loophole but certainly try.

You can get for education, sport, culture etc, even racing dogs, but not for philosophy. But can get for libraries.

That was another reason I was trying to link chess and table tennis centres combined -for the tax deductions.

Brian_Jones
10-06-2005, 09:08 AM
Thanks Brian. You remind me that during Graeme Gardiner's Presidency we were to investigate if that were legally possible, that is, whether we could arrange for donations to be tax deductible. The idea got buried somewhere but I'll resurrect it. I'm not sure that it is all that straight forward but we'll see.

DJ

Did you see the recent BRW article on the new churches eg Hillsong and other evangelists that do not pay any tax on their business interests. Gloria Jeans Coffee is a typical religious organisation exempt from tax.

Maybe the ACF needs to start its own church? Or what about "The House with No Rooks"?

But seriously there are some changes being considered, I think Australia is looking at the english Charities Commission system.

firegoat7
10-06-2005, 10:02 AM
t from tax.

Maybe the ACF needs to start its own church?

Well we certainly have enough bishops :owned:

Cheers Fg7

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 10:06 AM
Did you see the recent BRW article on the new churches eg Hillsong and other evangelists that do not pay any tax on their business interests. Gloria Jeans Coffee is a typical religious organisation exempt from tax.

I think you may find that you have mis-read that article. Gloria Jeans Coffee is not a religious organisation exempt from tax. Neither is it owned by a religious organisation. It is privately owned and pays tax just like any other business. If BRW says otherwise, then BRW is wrong.

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 10:10 AM
You can get for education, sport, culture etc, even racing dogs, but not for philosophy. But can get for libraries.

Why not create a "Certificate III in Club Administration" or similar.
Partner with a registered training organisation (RTO).
Hook in with Centrelink (et al) and leverage training credits that are available.
Great source of income. Revenue-split with the RTO.
RTO delivers the training, ACF gets $$$ for providing the "intellectual capital".

antichrist
10-06-2005, 10:42 AM
Why not create a "Certificate III in Club Administration" or similar.
Partner with a registered training organisation (RTO).
Hook in with Centrelink (et al) and leverage training credits that are available.
Great source of income. Revenue-split with the RTO.
RTO delivers the training, ACF gets $$$ for providing the "intellectual capital".

I don't know this area at all but does it accommodate our aims in chess?

The books I have on this are 500 miles away and 5 years redundant but I have not heard of any major changes or minor.

I know no one is interested but what could be better than a chess/table tennis centre. So not on our backsides all the time becoming fat and unhealthy. I loved it at Fairfield RSL. You continually get a respite. And all our local Asians are into both games.

I used to get great pleasure in thrashing in ping pong all the upperity chess players I came across.

In fact I liked it so much I might buy the company and set up my own centre.

Denis_Jessop
10-06-2005, 04:38 PM
I checked up on these things 5 years ago and I doubt if you will find a loophole but certainly try.

You can get for education, sport, culture etc, even racing dogs, but not for philosophy. But can get for libraries.

That was another reason I was trying to link chess and table tennis centres combined -for the tax deductions.

Thanks. That's my understanding too but we should nevertheless try to find out if we'll be accepted so I'll try to do that and see what happens.

DJ

Spiny Norman
10-06-2005, 06:51 PM
I don't know this area at all but does it accommodate our aims in chess?

Depends what your aims are. Perhaps it might be possible to set up a not-for-profit organisation that not only was eligible for tax deductible contributions but was also a recipient of government funding as it trained people, thus killing two birds with one stone. e.g. I know a number of churches that have set up community programs that make them eligible for government funding through Centrelink, etc. I know others that have registered "care" organisations that provide other services to the community and are therefore eligible for tax deductible donations. Whether you could reasonably bring the two together, I can't say ... I'm neither a lawyer nor an accountant! But I though it might be worth mentioning the Centrelink one as it can generate a fair amount of income once its up and running and once you've established your credibility with the department.

antichrist
10-06-2005, 07:09 PM
Depends what your aims are. Perhaps it might be possible to set up a not-for-profit organisation that not only was eligible for tax deductible contributions but was also a recipient of government funding as it trained people, thus killing two birds with one stone. e.g. I know a number of churches that have set up community programs that make them eligible for government funding through Centrelink, etc. I know others that have registered "care" organisations that provide other services to the community and are therefore eligible for tax deductible donations. Whether you could reasonably bring the two together, I can't say ... I'm neither a lawyer nor an accountant! But I though it might be worth mentioning the Centrelink one as it can generate a fair amount of income once its up and running and once you've established your credibility with the department.

Thanks very much, actually I did not what you were getting at but had no idea if we could pull it off.

WHO CAN RESEARCH IT PLEASE???????????????????????

antichrist
10-06-2005, 07:14 PM
Thanks. That's my understanding too but we should nevertheless try to find out if we'll be accepted so I'll try to do that and see what happens.

DJ

I forget the original posts and I am going out so not checking, but the very important part is the building fund tax deductibility.

We could almost do with a health farm for the chess fatties (myself included) and by biggest co-incidence it has enough space to run tournaments wouldn't that be terrific. All tax deductible.

Lucena
10-06-2005, 09:14 PM
I think you may find that you have mis-read that article. Gloria Jeans Coffee is not a religious organisation exempt from tax. Neither is it owned by a religious organisation. It is privately owned and pays tax just like any other business. If BRW says otherwise, then BRW is wrong.

I have read the article in question and as far as I can tell, it doesn't quite say that Gloria Jean's is a religious organisation, and I believe Gloria Jean's is a normal tax-paying organisation. I think the article was talking more about the connection between Hillsong and Gloria Jean's, and in general the growing connection between religion, politics and business as exemplified by certain members of the Pentecostal movement. For example the wife and daughter of Nabi Saleh, a Hillsong elder, own 50% of Gloria Jean's, and the other 50% belongs to Peter Irvine, who is a Hillsong member. So although Hillsong does not "own" Gloria Jean's, there are connections, the article elucidates on these. Judge for yourselves: [Brian let us know if this is not the same article]

http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/prophet_minded.pdf

here's another interesting one (you have to scroll down a bit)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/03/1093939141357.html?from=storyrhs

Spiny Norman
11-06-2005, 07:54 AM
Gareth, yes, that's the article that I meant. Not sure about Brian?

Just so that we're clear on this ... Gloria Jeans is a business. It pays tax. The owners go to church and, because they are respected business people, have a measure of recognition and influence (i.e. it makes sense for a church to have sensible business people advising you on how to run things well, yes?).

I agree that there are connections. Everyone's got connections! Even me! ;) Any time people work with others there are connections and influences at work. There are far more worrying trends however IMHO. Church involvement in politics for example. But that's for another thread...

Some might say that the AntiChrist has undue influence over our church of course. AC and I have a very cordial relationship here. One might even say that AC has influenced me on occasions? Crikey ... and I am an elder at my church, and my wife is a board member. We'll be excommunicated!!!

antichrist
11-06-2005, 11:39 PM
Concerning my non-profit health farm idea for chess players it could run comps to raise money to sustain itself. So all legit. Donations would be tax deductible as well as building fund would be tax deductions. Pay no taxes, maybe no rates and other discounts, etc.

That's a combo I would like to see!

We could have nursing home accomm for oldies which they cough up for. Like the churches do.

The same deductions could apply for a chess library or chess players health place in the city.