PDA

View Full Version : ACF Junior Sub-Committee



jenni
17-07-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
The handling of juniors is probably best handled at the local club and state level.
The ACF involvment is best left at things like the NECG, the Aus schools, the Aus junior and junior representation overseas.

Of course before forming any sort of firm opinion one way or the other I'd want to know the opinions of the likes of Jenni, Libby, Kerry, Charles Z and Richard Gastineau-Hills to name a few.

I guess I only half agree. As far as day to day running of activities goes. Yes this should definitely be left to the states and preferably junior organisations to handle.

However there is a definite vacuum in Australia when it comes to junior development. Even things like getting the juniors ready to play overseas - there is just no national focus or plan. This is where I hoped the NECG stuff would help, as it gave parents and children the opportunity to talk to other juniors and coaches and get advise and recommendations.

It seems to me, that often decisions are taken by the ACF on Junior matters, without them having a proper undersanding or the full facts. Often junior friendly people such as Bill Gletsos and Denis Jessop try to get the junior bodies recommendations and vote accordingly. However this practise is not across the board. If a motion is put forward without notice, and they can't get hold of the junior people, they will often abstain and although this is very noble and correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a correct decision being made.

I have given this a lot of thought over the last few years - I toyed with the idea of a National Junior Organisation, which took on responsibility for our own tournaments etc. However the juniors and adults are very intertwined at the elite level and it would not be good to go in different directions.

I have come to the conclusion that what we need is a permanent Junior sub-committee. One of the ACF Vice-Presidents could also be the sub-committee head, so there is a link between the ACF executive and the sub-committee. Each state and territory would have 1 vote, although more than 1 person could take part in e-mail debates. I would suggest using e-mail, rather than phone hookups, as a cost saving mechanism, although MSN messenger or something like that could be used as well.

The Junior sub-committee would then take on responsibility for all National junior matters and organisation. A forum would exist for coming up with development ideas, there would be a true national focus. As an example Charles Zworestine and Roly Eime have DOP'd many Aus Juniors. There are a number of problems with the Aus juniors and Charles and Roly keep documenting these in their reports to the ACF and the ACF keep filing them and nothing is done. These reports could go to the junior sub-committee and action taken - amend bylaws whatever.

The Junior Sub-committee would be responsible for allocating tournaments etc. All recommendations and by-law changes would then go to the ACF council meeting for approval and ratification. The ACF would thus keep control of the juniors (I know there will be some adults in there having a panic attack at the thought of losing control ). However the junior people are the ones with the knowledge and interest in taking the juniors forward, so it makes sense to have a sub-committee. I have to say at the moment I find the current way of doing things, very patronising.

I'm going to create a thread for this for comment, but please let's have a decent debate on this and not slanging matches at each other.

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2004, 04:39 PM
It seems to me, that often decisions are taken by the ACF on Junior matters, without them having a proper undersanding or the full facts. Often junior friendly people such as Bill Gletsos and Denis Jessop try to get the junior bodies recommendations and vote accordingly. However this practise is not across the board. If a motion is put forward without notice, and they can't get hold of the junior people, they will often abstain and although this is very noble and correct, it doesn't necessarily result in a correct decision being made.
Yes I always discuss junior matters with Richard and try and get input from Charles and Kerry. Where possible if a motion without notice is put forward involving juniors, I'll try and get this delayed by a week or two and have it decided by email vote, however if this fails or is not practical, I would generally vote based on my understanding of the NSWJCL's views as they stand, otherwise if I have no feeling for what their views might be I'll abstain.

Personally I would have no problem with supporting your ACF Junior Sub-Committee proposal.

jeffrei
17-07-2004, 06:34 PM
I have come to the conclusion that what we need is a permanent Junior sub-committee. One of the ACF Vice-Presidents could also be the sub-committee head, so there is a link between the ACF executive and the sub-committee. Each state and territory would have 1 vote, although more than 1 person could take part in e-mail debates. I would suggest using e-mail, rather than phone hookups, as a cost saving mechanism, although MSN messenger or something like that could be used as well. The Junior sub-committee would then take on responsibility for all National junior matters and organisation. A forum would exist for coming up with development ideas, there would be a true national focus.

Ya, this sounds like a good idea to me. What exactly is required to put it into action?

jenni
17-07-2004, 06:52 PM
Ya, this sounds like a good idea to me. What exactly is required to put it into action?
Well I would assume a period of debate to get different ideas and then modify the basic idea accordingly. It would need to be put into a wider forum than this. e.g. it needs to go to people like Ian Murray, etc who are aren't BB denizens.

Then it needs to go up to ACF for agreement and implementation.

I'll start sending the basic idea off to other people to think about it and I'll also ask Denis Jessop how the exact implementation would work. I would think sub-committees can be set up at any time. It doesn't need constitution changes or anything like that.

PHAT
17-07-2004, 06:55 PM
I'll start sending the basic idea off to other people to think about it and I'll also ask Denis Jessop how the exact implementation would work.

Go for it! It has my non-existant vote.

Bill Gletsos
17-07-2004, 07:30 PM
I'll start sending the basic idea off to other people to think about it and I'll also ask Denis Jessop how the exact implementation would work. I would think sub-committees can be set up at any time. It doesn't need constitution changes or anything like that.
Correct.
Also By-Laws can be created or changed at anytime by simple majority vote of Council.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2004, 07:33 PM
I have been thinking along similar lines, as there are far too many Council matters where things have to be held-up, drawn-out or in some cases even outright reversed because of the difficulties involved in getting junior chess input into ACF Council decisions relevant to junior chess.

Kerry Stead
17-07-2004, 10:02 PM
Jenni,
Sounds like a good idea ... I've noticed the non-issue that junior chess is on many occasions too, particularly now that I'm more 'in the loop' in regards to decision-making.
However I fear that you may have already booked my place on the sub-committee ... conveniently its an ACF Vice-President that is the head of the it! :eek:
Somehow I think I'll have to try and scale back some of my chess commitments if people want me to fulfil a role like this, which has a more 'big picture' outlook than the usual 'day to day' admin roles.

Garvinator
18-07-2004, 07:57 AM
However I fear that you may have already booked my place on the sub-committee ... conveniently its an ACF Vice-President that is the head of the it! :eek:
or is it GW that jenni has in mind to combat the guru in the vic ;)

Kerry Stead
18-07-2004, 10:08 AM
or is it GW that jenni has in mind to combat the guru in the vic ;)
Gary Wastell is the ACF Deputy President ... Paul Broekhuyse is the other Vice President

jenni
18-07-2004, 10:09 AM
or is it GW that jenni has in mind to combat the guru in the vic ;)

It has to be some-one with real knowledge and understanding of both children and parents and I do not belive that GW has that.

Garvinator
18-07-2004, 10:12 AM
It has to be some-one with real knowledge and understanding of both children and parents and I do not belive that GW has that.
so, it has to be kerry then ;)

jenni
18-07-2004, 10:12 AM
However I fear that you may have already booked my place on the sub-committee ... conveniently its an ACF Vice-President that is the head of the it! :eek:
Somehow I think I'll have to try and scale back some of my chess commitments if people want me to fulfil a role like this, which has a more 'big picture' outlook than the usual 'day to day' admin roles.

I have to admit I did have you in mind :) I think this is important enough to take priority. The problem is we are all spread too thin and it is easy to get to the point that you no longer function effectively.

Long term this could actual result in an easing of work load, as there will be a committee of hopefully dedicated junior aligned people to take on tasks.

jenni
18-07-2004, 10:15 AM
so, it has to be kerry then ;)

Not really - Kerry would be good to kick this off, as he has so much experience in junior affairs. However long term all it would take is someone who is prepared to head the sub-committee and take back recommendations and promote them to the council.

Cat
18-07-2004, 02:21 PM
Obviously I would think the Gold Coast club would want to be kept in the loop. I'll talk to our other committee members to see what our expectations would be. I think Box Hill would deserve an input also.

Committee's have a tendancy to get bogged down by protocols. There's only any point in going down this track if it becomes an instrument for dyanamic change (where change is necesssary). It should be implicit that any recommendations made by the sub-committee are adopted by the ACF, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

jenni
18-07-2004, 02:28 PM
Obviously I would think the Gold Coast club would want to be kept in the loop. I'll talk to our other committee members to see what our expectations would be. I think Box Hill would deserve an input also.

Committee's have a tendancy to get bogged down by protocols. There's only any point in going down this track if it becomes an instrument for dyanamic change (where change is necesssary). It should be implicit that any recommendations made by the sub-committee are adopted by the ACF, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

There would be one vote per state/territory, but as far as I can see the more people on the e-mail discussion list the better. The idea is to get wide ranging input from everyone with an interest in Juniors.

This committee couldn't get any more bogged down than the current format :)

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2004, 03:25 PM
It should be implicit that any recommendations made by the sub-committee are adopted by the ACF, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
Exceptional circumstances is too limiting.
Like any sub-committee they can put up recommendations but there should be no implied automatic acceptance of them by the Council.
What may be good for one group may not be of benefit to australian chess overall.
It is the Councils responsability to act on behalf of all player groups not just specific sections of it.

That said I would however expect the Council to give siginificant weight to any of the sub-committee's recommendations on junior chess, especially if the impact on adult chess was small to non-existant. Where there was any reasonable impact on adult chess, the Council would need to weigh up the pros and cons of any recommendation and act accordingly.

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2004, 03:31 PM
There would be one vote per state/territory, but as far as I can see the more people on the e-mail discussion list the better. The idea is to get wide ranging input from everyone with an interest in Juniors.
I would agree with this.
You want wide ranging input but not bog down a committee with representatives from every junior club in Australia involved.

The sub-committee would probably be comprised of a chairman(a ACF Vice President) and 7 members representing the current active states and territories(8 if the NT becomes active again).

PHAT
18-07-2004, 05:40 PM
What may be good for one group may not be of benefit to australian chess overall.
It is the Councils responsability to act on behalf of all player groups not just specific sections of it.


Dare I say, anything that is good for junior chess is good for chess overall. In fact, I might suggest that junior chess should run the ACF, change its name to AJCF and have the adults as the sub committee.

Ah, but that would be to novel for the grey brigade.

Libby
18-07-2004, 06:12 PM
Exceptional circumstances is too limiting.
Like any sub-committee they can put up recommendations but there should be no implied automatic acceptance of them by the Council.
What may be good for one group may not be of benefit to australian chess overall.
It is the Councils responsability to act on behalf of all player groups not just specific sections of it.

That said I would however expect the Council to give siginificant weight to any of the sub-committee's recommendations on junior chess, especially if the impact on adult chess was small to non-existant. Where there was any reasonable impact on adult chess, the Council would need to weigh up the pros and cons of any recommendation and act accordingly.

And "less than exceptional circumstances" is too open. There is little point having a toothless tiger for a junior sub-committee. It just gives a group of dedicated people who are striving to meet the needs of junior players a bit more work to do for no real result. They can happily do all the work and make a bunch of recommendations and have those promptly ignored in the interests of the future of Australian chess (as judged by others). It's nice to know weight is given to your opinions - it can feel like a gentle pat on the head as you get sent away to eat your playlunch. Tell me what difference we would have from the current situation where we may advise our delegates of our feelings but not have any say in the eventual outcomes for our players? I can't see any future for this idea unless the junior cub-committee had real power for advocacy and change. :(

jenni
18-07-2004, 06:56 PM
Ok - calm down everyone :)

I think the important thing is getting the sub-committee established and the e-mail conference forum as well. I am quite sure that over time as the ACF gets used to having junior matters properly reviewed and debated the recommendations of the junior sub-committee will always be accepted, apart from when they clash head on with adult needs.

This should be a very rare scenario and we wouldn't want to sink this idea by focusing too much on that possibility.

(I do like the Sweeney's idea though)

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2004, 09:41 PM
And "less than exceptional circumstances" is too open. There is little point having a toothless tiger for a junior sub-committee. It just gives a group of dedicated people who are striving to meet the needs of junior players a bit more work to do for no real result. They can happily do all the work and make a bunch of recommendations and have those promptly ignored in the interests of the future of Australian chess (as judged by others). It's nice to know weight is given to your opinions - it can feel like a gentle pat on the head as you get sent away to eat your playlunch.
I think I'm fairly as Jenni called it "junior friendly" and I've always voted on junior matters in line with the recommendation of the NSWJCL.
My point was that automatic acceptance of any proposal should not be a given, and using exceptional circumstances as the only way out can be undesirable.

Of course using exceptional circumstances as a reason to get a recommendation passed is also fraught with danger.
Just look at the original Mt. Buller bid and decision last January. All the delegates were basically told this was a special "exceptional" circumstance and a decison had to be made ASAP. A more reasoned, thoughtful and delayed decision back then would have been beneficial to all.


Tell me what difference we would have from the current situation where we may advise our delegates of our feelings but not have any say in the eventual outcomes for our players? I can't see any future for this idea unless the junior cub-committee had real power for advocacy and change. :(
I would expect virtually all the sub-committees recommendations to be passed.

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2004, 09:47 PM
Ok - calm down everyone :)

I think the important thing is getting the sub-committee established and the e-mail conference forum as well. I am quite sure that over time as the ACF gets used to having junior matters properly reviewed and debated the recommendations of the junior sub-committee will always be accepted, apart from when they clash head on with adult needs.
Agreed.
I think it would be desireable to get this going by the next council meeting at the latest.


This should be a very rare scenario and we wouldn't want to sink this idea by focusing too much on that possibility.
True.
As I said I would expect virtually all its recommenmdations to be accepted.


(I do like the Sweeney's idea though)
Some times you worry me. ;)

Chess Dad
18-07-2004, 11:11 PM
That said I would however expect the Council to give siginificant weight to any of the sub-committee's recommendations on junior chess, especially if the impact on adult chess was small to non-existant.


Where there was any reasonable impact on adult chess, the Council would need to weigh up the pros and cons of any recommendation and act accordingly.

But This is part of the problem with ACF decisions in that they consider Junior Chess as long as it does not affect Adult chess. What Jenni has suggected hopefully will result in proper cosideration by the ACF of both Senior & Junior Chess as both being stake holders in the developement of "Australian Chess".

From a NSW State perspective the NSWCA appears to take advise from the NSWJCL on matters affecting Juniors in NSW. From an outsiders point of view this also appears to happen in the ACT (hi Jenni ;) ) but I am not sure about how active or effective the junior voice is in other states.

Part of the problem appears to me is that issues affecting Juniors have been raised and decided without the time or availability of views properly reflecting Junior concerns. Mt Buller being a case in point, I know many families feel that the Junior event has been added on to the senior event to make the senior event viable and feel no consideration was given to the additional cost of a "family" attending such a venue. I wait with anticipation for details so that we can start to make a rational decision as to which tournament/s to attend.

To some degree Junior Chess activities are self funding as parents are often prepared to pay tournament entry fees (whatever level), the cost of overseas tournaments etc because they like to see their children happy and develope. Fund raising activities are therefore not undertaken for events like the recently completed U16 Chess Olympiad in India or the upcoming World Chess festival in Greece which are equally important to the developement of our Juniors as the Senior Olympiad is to Australian (Senior) Chess.

In the case of NSW the NSWJCL contributes greatly towards its members participating in these events and actively presents its views to the NSWCA thanks very much in part to Richard G-H. At this point I should thank the NSWJCL for its contribution towards its 2 members in the U16 Olympiad in India and also the ACf for paying our entry fee.

I however believe that the the contribution of juniors participating and contributing towards senior events (agreed at a disounted entry fee) and therefore the ACF may also not be adequately considered. There are many juniors that participate at this level and rely upon their parents to ensure that their interests are being looked after.

I would therefore support Jenni in pushing for the setting up of a separate Sub Committee to represent juniors interests and hope that it would have an appropriate level of authority to make decisions on the Juniors behalf.

Bill Gletsos
18-07-2004, 11:48 PM
But This is part of the problem with ACF decisions in that they consider Junior Chess as long as it does not affect Adult chess. What Jenni has suggected hopefully will result in proper cosideration by the ACF of both Senior & Junior Chess as both being stake holders in the developement of "Australian Chess".
I think some of us on the council do that already.


From a NSW State perspective the NSWCA appears to take advise from the NSWJCL on matters affecting Juniors in NSW. From an outsiders point of view this also appears to happen in the ACT (hi Jenni ;) ) but I am not sure about how active or effective the junior voice is in other states.
I agree.
As far as I know Victoria has no junior body and the gurus vision may not be everyones.


Part of the problem appears to me is that issues affecting Juniors have been raised and decided without the time or availability of views properly reflecting Junior concerns. Mt Buller being a case in point, I know many families feel that the Junior event has been added on to the senior event to make the senior event viable and feel no consideration was given to the additional cost of a "family" attending such a venue.
As far as I am aware there is no plan to use funds obtained from the junior event to go towards the senior event or vice versa. I'm not so sure this was the case under the guru's plan.


I wait with anticipation for details so that we can start to make a rational decision as to which tournament/s to attend.
We are all waiting to see the final details.


To some degree Junior Chess activities are self funding as parents are often prepared to pay tournament entry fees (whatever level), the cost of overseas tournaments etc because they like to see their children happy and develope. Fund raising activities are therefore not undertaken for events like the recently completed U16 Chess Olympiad in India or the upcoming World Chess festival in Greece which are equally important to the developement of our Juniors as the Senior Olympiad is to Australian (Senior) Chess.

In the case of NSW the NSWJCL contributes greatly towards its members participating in these events and actively presents its views to the NSWCA thanks very much in part to Richard G-H. At this point I should thank the NSWJCL for its contribution towards its 2 members in the U16 Olympiad in India and also the ACf for paying our entry fee.
Agreed the NSWJCL does an excellent job.
Perhaps like the Adult Olympiad Appeals the ACF should run appeals for the World Juniors etc.


I however believe that the the contribution of juniors participating and contributing towards senior events (agreed at a disounted entry fee) and therefore the ACF may also not be adequately considered. There are many juniors that participate at this level and rely upon their parents to ensure that their interests are being looked after.
As a generality this is probably true. Given in this case we are talking about what are essentially adult events I suspect this may be one of those areas where the needs of the adults and juniors dont exactly align.

Kerry Stead
19-07-2004, 01:47 AM
Of course using exceptional circumstances as a reason to get a recommendation passed is also fraught with danger.
Just look at the original Mt. Buller bid and decision last January. All the delegates were basically told this was a special "exceptional" circumstance and a decison had to be made ASAP. A more reasoned, thoughtful and delayed decision back then would have been beneficial to all.

As I stated from day 1 (the ACF National Conference where the CV/Cordover Mount Buller bid was first presented), I wanted more time to look at the bid in more detail, and I stated this at the conference. Charles Zworestine was in agreement with me on this, however the rest of the conference chose to accept the bid as presented, with the urging from not only David Cordover, but also Gary Wastell and the Mount Buller representative who was there, that the offer was only on the table for 2 weeks. When Charles & I suggested deferring the vote to an email vote in a fortnight, this was almost unanimously defeated (myself and Charles were the only in favour) ... needless to say with the benefit of hindsight, it seems as though an alternate course of action might have been preferable.
:doh:

PHAT
19-07-2004, 08:12 AM
I can't see any future for this idea unless the junior cub-committee had real power for advocacy and change.

Spot on!

Libby
19-07-2004, 08:19 AM
Ok - calm down everyone :)

I think the important thing is getting the sub-committee established and the e-mail conference forum as well. I am quite sure that over time as the ACF gets used to having junior matters properly reviewed and debated the recommendations of the junior sub-committee will always be accepted, apart from when they clash head on with adult needs.

This should be a very rare scenario and we wouldn't want to sink this idea by focusing too much on that possibility.

(I do like the Sweeney's idea though)

Not actually my intention to raise a level of aggro :D Only to make the point that there must be real power in such a sub-committee or it's just another layer in the process without power for change.

And whilst the juniors may make no direct financial subsidy of senior events (such as the upcoming Aus Jnr, Aus Schools, Aus Champs) they can still be tied to the events in terms of their overall viability ie no juniors = no Mt Buller.

Perhaps we need to consider defining those areas where the junior committee may act with authority and where they may not. ;)

ursogr8
19-07-2004, 08:23 AM
As I stated from day 1 (the ACF National Conference where the CV/Cordover Mount Buller bid was first presented), I wanted more time to look at the bid in more detail, and I stated this at the conference. Charles Zworestine was in agreement with me on this, however the rest of the conference chose to accept the bid as presented, with the urging from not only David Cordover, but also Gary Wastell and the Mount Buller representative who was there(starters edit:..changed font size, & colour), that the offer was only on the table for 2 weeks. When Charles & I suggested deferring the vote to an email vote in a fortnight, this was almost unanimously defeated (myself and Charles were the only in favour) ... needless to say with the benefit of hindsight, it seems as though an alternate course of action might have been preferable.
:doh:

Kerry
Who do you regard as having put forward (initiated) the misleading information that the deal was on the table for two weeks only?
starter

Cat
19-07-2004, 08:24 AM
And "less than exceptional circumstances" is too open. There is little point having a toothless tiger for a junior sub-committee. It just gives a group of dedicated people who are striving to meet the needs of junior players a bit more work to do for no real result. They can happily do all the work and make a bunch of recommendations and have those promptly ignored in the interests of the future of Australian chess (as judged by others). It's nice to know weight is given to your opinions - it can feel like a gentle pat on the head as you get sent away to eat your playlunch. Tell me what difference we would have from the current situation where we may advise our delegates of our feelings but not have any say in the eventual outcomes for our players? I can't see any future for this idea unless the junior cub-committee had real power for advocacy and change. :(

I agree completely, there is little point in seeking to create a new committee without tacit agreement that the decisions it passes are binding, otherwise it is a complete waste of everybodies time. When I said rare exceptions that's exactly what I meant and thet should be accurately described beforehand so there can be no confusion about what this means.

The fact that Bill is being considered 'junior friendly' is a measure how much work needs to be done to redirect attention.

Jenni, I wonder whether such a large sub-committee is workable, given distance and individual commitments. The larger the committee, the harder to gain a concensus, it would be doomed to failure. I would suggest a committee of 3 (say), with each region/club feeding the committee with it's opinions and ideas and maybe feed-back from the committee.

ursogr8
19-07-2004, 08:27 AM
I think some of us on the council do that already.


I agree.
As far as I know Victoria has no junior body and the gurus vision may not be everyones.

There is an office-bearer of CV called something like Director of Junior Activities. Chris Potter has been in the job for 8 months.
The guru has left the building.





As far as I am aware there is no plan to use funds obtained from the junior event to go towards the senior event or vice versa. I'm not so sure this was the case under the guru's plan.


I thought the criticism from some quarters was this
> junior parents have Mt B. as their only option
> adults pay $120 per night
> Mt B uses part of this $120 to create a pool of money that can be directed to seniors tournament infrastructure.
Hence it was argued that there was a transfer of funds from the junior community to the senior.
In addition, under the gurus plan, I thought junior entrance fees were diverted also.

starter

arosar
19-07-2004, 08:46 AM
I might suggest that junior chess should run the ACF, change its name to AJCF and have the adults as the sub committee.

This must never be allowed to happen.

AR

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 10:51 AM
As I stated from day 1 (the ACF National Conference where the CV/Cordover Mount Buller bid was first presented), I wanted more time to look at the bid in more detail, and I stated this at the conference. Charles Zworestine was in agreement with me on this, however the rest of the conference chose to accept the bid as presented, with the urging from not only David Cordover, but also Gary Wastell and the Mount Buller representative who was there, that the offer was only on the table for 2 weeks. When Charles & I suggested deferring the vote to an email vote in a fortnight, this was almost unanimously defeated (myself and Charles were the only in favour) ... needless to say with the benefit of hindsight, it seems as though an alternate course of action might have been preferable.
:doh:
Yes, as soon as I heard about the Mt. Buller plan I mentioned it to Richard G-H and then called Charles Z and informed him that the NSWCA delegates were to vote to delay it by at least a week so a considered decision could be made.
I too had heard that there was only a two week window of opportunity for this. I believe my source was GW.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 10:56 AM
The fact that Bill is being considered 'junior friendly' is a measure how much work needs to be done to redirect attention.
Actually contrary to your opinion I am "junior friendly". What I am is averse to bullcrap.


Jenni, I wonder whether such a large sub-committee is workable, given distance and individual commitments. The larger the committee, the harder to gain a concensus, it would be doomed to failure. I would suggest a committee of 3 (say), with each region/club feeding the committee with it's opinions and ideas and maybe feed-back from the committee.
A group of 3 will never work or be supported because it will disenfranchise the states without any represenation on it.
I believe jenni's proposed model is the best chance of working and being supported as her proposal allows for the views of all states to be considered.

jenni
19-07-2004, 11:06 AM
Jenni, I wonder whether such a large sub-committee is workable, given distance and individual commitments. The larger the committee, the harder to gain a concensus, it would be doomed to failure. I would suggest a committee of 3 (say), with each region/club feeding the committee with it's opinions and ideas and maybe feed-back from the committee.

The committee would be 6 (7 if you included Tas) i.e one from each state and territory. However I see no reason not to allow the debate to be open to as many as possible. e.g. I've already had an e-mail from Manuel Weeks, supporting the idea of the Junior sub-committee. I would love to have his input into any e-mail/forum debate.

Jeo has offered to set up a resricted access forum on here for debate, rather than an e-mail list - what do people think?

Any Junior matter would be opened to the larger group for debate and then the committee could have a final e-mail discussion and vote. This final one would be limited to the committee only.

I think it is workable. Of course we could have just a committee of 6/7 and the ideas fed up through these. I find hierarachical models like this are too limiting. e.g take Queensland. Ian Murray might be the committee member and Graeme and yourself could feed your ideas to him. Or we could have a free debate with all 3 taking part. Rather than Ian filtering comments all the other people on the e-mail list would have the benefit of seeing all comments, which could be important in people from other states getting a true picture of juniors needs.

I don't think the list needs to be huge and I suspect on most issues only a % of the people on the list will want to contribute, but I do think there is no reason not to make it fairly inclusive. e.g. in Victoria you would have to include a number of people, in order to get a true picture, as the junior environment is very fragmented there.

Garvinator
19-07-2004, 11:37 AM
in terms of the size of the committee, i would say that the larger number is a better idea. One the biggest killers for any idea is ppl standing around saying it wont work. If there was to be a committee of three, then that will leave many ppl disenfrachised and have the feeling that their opinions are not being listened to, a large concern for the far away states like tassie and wa.

Cat
19-07-2004, 12:53 PM
A group of 3 will never work or be supported because it will disenfranchise the states without any represenation on it.
I believe jenni's proposed model is the best chance of working and being supported as her proposal allows for the views of all states to be considered.

I think if there were nominations put forward for the office-bearers and there was an annual vote then I don't think there'd be any objections. I don't see that it's necessary that each state has a standing member, as long as their input was registered. I'd much rather see an effective committee making decisions than a grid-locked system.

Cat
19-07-2004, 12:58 PM
The committee would be 6 (7 if you included Tas) i.e one from each state and territory. However I see no reason not to allow the debate to be open to as many as possible. e.g. I've already had an e-mail from Manuel Weeks, supporting the idea of the Junior sub-committee. I would love to have his input into any e-mail/forum debate.

Jeo has offered to set up a resricted access forum on here for debate, rather than an e-mail list - what do people think?

Any Junior matter would be opened to the larger group for debate and then the committee could have a final e-mail discussion and vote. This final one would be limited to the committee only.

I think it is workable. Of course we could have just a committee of 6/7 and the ideas fed up through these. I find hierarachical models like this are too limiting. e.g take Queensland. Ian Murray might be the committee member and Graeme and yourself could feed your ideas to him. Or we could have a free debate with all 3 taking part. Rather than Ian filtering comments all the other people on the e-mail list would have the benefit of seeing all comments, which could be important in people from other states getting a true picture of juniors needs.

I don't think the list needs to be huge and I suspect on most issues only a % of the people on the list will want to contribute, but I do think there is no reason not to make it fairly inclusive. e.g. in Victoria you would have to include a number of people, in order to get a true picture, as the junior environment is very fragmented there.

I reckon that would put enormous pressure on the state representives to reflect everyones point of view. As I see it, disagreement is often greater between individual within states than inidviduals between states. It sounds like you would be more than ready to recieve opinions and if the Gold Coast Chess club felt that they had your ear, I reckon we'd be happy with that.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 01:26 PM
I think if there were nominations put forward for the office-bearers and there was an annual vote then I don't think there'd be any objections.
I would think the committee members would be determined by each Junior State League/Association and where there is none then the State association would determine who it would be.


I don't see that it's necessary that each state has a standing member, as long as their input was registered.
Having the same state committee member has advantages over chopping and changing.


I'd much rather see an effective committee making decisions than a grid-locked system.
I see no reason to assume that latter rather than the former based on jenni's idea.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 01:34 PM
I reckon that would put enormous pressure on the state representives to reflect everyones point of view.
I would think the junior state represenative should be reflecting the views of the majority of their state. If a particular idea cant get support from its own state organistion/rep then it can always be raised via the planned email discussion list.


As I see it, disagreement is often greater between individual within states than inidviduals between states.
As far as I can tell this isnt the case with the NSWJCL.
Even so the majority view of the state should hold precedence.


It sounds like you would be more than ready to recieve opinions and if the Gold Coast Chess club felt that they had your ear, I reckon we'd be happy with that.
Under jenni's plan you would have the means to do this via the email discussions.

arosar
19-07-2004, 01:44 PM
Just teasin' you Bill...Jeezzz...

It's just that you seem to feel compelled to reply to whatever he says point-by-point.

AR

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 02:06 PM
It's just that you seem to feel compelled to reply to whatever he says point-by-point.
I do that in my reply's to everyone not just DR.

Cat
19-07-2004, 02:34 PM
I would think the committee members would be determined by each Junior State League/Association and where there is none then the State association would determine who it would be.


Having the same state committee member has advantages over chopping and changing.


I see no reason to assume that latter rather than the former based on jenni's idea.

Of course there is also the danger that this initiative simply becomes window-dressing to placate the dissatisified. If the ACF excutive doesn't recognise it's need to stand arms length from this fledgling sub-committee, there will be a real sense that nothing has really changed and the ACF remains as autocratic as it always was.

jenni
19-07-2004, 03:27 PM
Of course there is also the danger that this initiative simply becomes window-dressing to placate the dissatisified. If the ACF excutive doesn't recognise it's need to stand arms length from this fledgling sub-committee, there will be a real sense that nothing has really changed and the ACF remains as autocratic as it always was.

The main complaints about me are usually that I am too aggressive, too blunt and too impatient. (Apart from that I am quite nice :) )

So I think in the initial years, if I am involved, it is unlikely to be window dressing.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 04:07 PM
The main complaints about me are usually that I am too aggressive, too blunt and too impatient. (Apart from that I am quite nice :) )
That must be your evil twin sister. ;)
I've always found you very easy to get along with.

Libby
19-07-2004, 04:08 PM
The main complaints about me are usually that I am too aggressive, too blunt and too impatient. (Apart from that I am quite nice :) )



With so many positive ;) attributes in common, it's quite interesting that we have been able to work together over the past few years.

Might be a lesson in that for some :owned:

jenni
19-07-2004, 04:09 PM
That must be your evil twin sister. ;)
I've always found you very easy to get along with.

we haven't disagreed yet......

arosar
19-07-2004, 04:15 PM
While we're ever so slightly off-topic, lemme just temporarily b.u.tt in and say that it sure is nice to have another sheila posting here on a regular basis. It's good for variety I reckon.

AR

jenni
19-07-2004, 04:15 PM
With so many positive ;) attributes in common, it's quite interesting that we have been able to work together over the past few years.

Might be a lesson in that for some :owned:

Libby is teasing of course, but there is merit in what she says. We have had our clashes, with the air sometimes getting quite frigid between us and I suspect our respective husbands bearing the brunt of our "Do you know what she has done NOW" complaints.

However we have managed to have a mutual respect for each other and have worked together very successfully now for 3 years. I don't think either of us is likely to start sueing the other one, slanging at each other on the BB, or starting to build power bases with the aim of side lining the other person. :)

arosar
19-07-2004, 04:20 PM
Libby is teasing of course, but there is merit in what she says. We have had our clashes, with the air sometimes getting quite frigid between us and I suspect our respective husbands bearing the brunt of our "Do you know what she has done NOW" complaints.

Now listen . . . that's all well and good but we don't wanna see any Oprah Winfrey moments in here OK - you know, giving away too much info ala Mr Sike.

AR

PHAT
19-07-2004, 04:33 PM
WAIT!

You junior movers and shakers need to be very very wary of the ACF. It will not cede power at any point. I think you would be better off following the following timetable.

1. Form the/a new AJCF.

2. For the purposes of legitamacy, adopt a slightly modified and pared down version of the current ACF constitution.

3a. Have a meeting to decide your demands of the current ACF.

3b. One of the demands should be that Junior interests must have a number of delagates proportional to the size of its membership.
*** This condition should be non-negociable *** If you don't get that level of power/representation on the ACF, the ACF will have the power to roll you. Remember, a body that has the power to control you, will control you. You have to play hardball or you risk being rolled. Take no chances with the estabished ACF powers, they owe you nothing and that is how theyy have treated you in the past. They will treat you like dirt in the future too.

4. If the ACF agrees to your demands, simply merge the new AJCF into the current ACF, and you will start with the power you need and deserve.

As an aside, I think that since there are 3 times as many paid-up junior members of chess associations than adults, the junior interests could reasonable expect 75% of the voting power! Perhaps you could settle for 49% - after all, 51% is too much power for any one sector.

Rincewind
19-07-2004, 05:03 PM
3b. One of the demands should be that Junior interests must have a number of delagates proportional to the size of its membership.
*** This condition should be non-negociable *** If you don't get that level of power/representation on the ACF, the ACF will have the power to roll you. Remember, a body that has the power to control you, will control you. You have to play hardball or you risk being rolled. Take no chances with the estabished ACF powers, they owe you nothing and that is how theyy have treated you in the past. They will treat you like dirt in the future too.

Should one of these demands be that you want to have babies and be known as Loretta? ;)

Ian Rout
19-07-2004, 05:15 PM
Of course the quickest way for a junior committee to lose all credibility would be for it to be turned into an outlet for disgruntled adults.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 05:17 PM
WAIT!

You junior movers and shakers need to be very very wary of the ACF. It will not cede power at any point. I think you would be better off following the following timetable.

1. Form the/a new AJCF.

2. For the purposes of legitamacy, adopt a slightly modified and pared down version of the current ACF constitution.

3a. Have a meeting to decide your demands of the current ACF.

3b. One of the demands should be that Junior interests must have a number of delagates proportional to the size of its membership.
*** This condition should be non-negociable *** If you don't get that level of power/representation on the ACF, the ACF will have the power to roll you. Remember, a body that has the power to control you, will control you. You have to play hardball or you risk being rolled. Take no chances with the estabished ACF powers, they owe you nothing and that is how theyy have treated you in the past. They will treat you like dirt in the future too.

4. If the ACF agrees to your demands, simply merge the new AJCF into the current ACF, and you will start with the power you need and deserve.

As an aside, I think that since there are 3 times as many paid-up junior members of chess associations than adults, the junior interests could reasonable expect 75% of the voting power! Perhaps you could settle for 49% - after all, 51% is too much power for any one sector.
You are a moron of the highest order and as usual speak out on issues about which you have no understanding.
I suggest you leave this issue in the capable hands of jenni.

PHAT
19-07-2004, 05:17 PM
Should one of these demands be that you want to have babies and be known as Loretta? ;)

:lol: No, but I was hoping that you would support my right as a man, in my struggle against reality.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 05:20 PM
Of course the quickest way for a junior committee to lose all credibility would be for it to be turned into an outlet for disgruntled adults.
Or follow any suggestion of Matt's.
If Matt wants some influence in junior matters he should join the NSWJCL committee.
Of course having said that I suspect the next time Charles Z, or Richard G-H sees me they will really thank me for that suggestion. :doh:

PHAT
19-07-2004, 05:29 PM
You are a moron of the highest order ...

That would make me ........... boarderline normal! WOW, I feel great.

Why do you say I am a moron. I am just trying to make a point. That point being that; power is not just given away, matey. I have no confidence that the ACF will do the right thing by the juniors if the junior interests confict with those of the adults.

Garvinator
19-07-2004, 05:33 PM
and now you have both had your opportunity to speak, now move on and let others comment and not have this thread end in disgrace like alot of the others.

PHAT
19-07-2004, 05:46 PM
If Matt wants some influence in junior matters he should join the NSWJCL committee.
Of course having said that I suspect the next time Charles Z, or Richard G-H sees me they will really thank me for that suggestion. :doh:


Sorry dude, but unlike you, I am not consumed by a burning desire to control everything in Chessdom. Furthermore, regardless of what pisture you wish to paint of me, we all know that I do more than most and less than some, making me a net positive.



And one more thing. I am a little concerned that you keep on dropping other people's names, without their knowledge, in an effort to slander me. It would be unfortunate if you choose to continue doing so.

PHAT
19-07-2004, 05:54 PM
and now you have both had your opportunity to speak, now move on and let others comment and not have this thread end in disgrace like alot of the others.

Just remember who called who a "moron", without any other objective discussion. Bill starts the name calling all the time. Bill has not contibuted any contructive words or initiatives to this thread so far (go back and check). You tell Bill, to cut it out, because he is the boil that needs lancing.

Cat
19-07-2004, 06:33 PM
Of course the quickest way for a junior committee to lose all credibility would be for it to be turned into an outlet for disgruntled adults.

This is a little unfair - I would have expected a little more from you, Ian. I have been campaigning for juniors on this BB for the last 12/12 and if I have sounded disgruntled, then its because until now little significant change has occurred. Its ture that there have been significant changes in the rating system, but it's not convincing that these changes will create lasting improvement. Although George has done a tremendous job with Mt Buller, again it seems to have been the juniors left behind.

I reckon I've had every reason to be disgruntled, and some members of the ACF seem to think that attempts to colour my character pass as an acceptable response to disquiet. It's against this background that I raise these concerns, and it seems that Matt, who has has similar treatment, feels pretty much the same way.

For too long the chess community has suffered from the paralysing effects of 'group-think'. It was a breathe of fresh air to see George's handling of the Mt Buller affair, and I feel a sense of genuine optimism in seeing Jenni picking up the reigns of this sub-commitee.

It would be tragic if this sub-committee were made to cow-tow to the flawed prevailing wisdom within the ACF. It should objective, innovative and independant. It's role should be to take chess to the kid's, so that any child in any part of Australia has some chance of reasonable reward, without to travel the length & breadth of the country. We have a thousand or so chess playing juniors on the Gold Coast, but I'd be surprised if more than a handful continue to adulthood. Something isn't working, I'm sure our experience isn't unique.

I am cheer by Jenni's & Libby's words but share Matts concerns. If anything is challenging the credibility of this committee it's Bill's ever-present shadow. I am confident Jenni can assert herself - give her a chance Bill, but out!!

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 08:12 PM
That would make me ........... boarderline normal! WOW, I feel great.

Why do you say I am a moron. I am just trying to make a point. That point being that; power is not just given away, matey. I have no confidence that the ACF will do the right thing by the juniors if the junior interests confict with those of the adults.
Of course that could easily be turned around as people having no confidence that your stupid suggestion of an ACJF would do the right thing by the adults if the adult interest conflicted with those of the juniors.
It works both ways.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 08:17 PM
Sorry dude, but unlike you, I am not consumed by a burning desire to control everything in Chessdom. Furthermore, regardless of what pisture you wish to paint of me, we all know that I do more than most and less than some, making me a net positive.
I dont have to draw any picture of you.
You drew your own picture when you got yourself elected to the NSWCA and did absolutely nothing.



And one more thing. I am a little concerned that you keep on dropping other people's names, without their knowledge, in an effort to slander me.
I have mentioned no one elses names in any other threads or posts in regard to you, so to suggest I keep doing it is incorrect.


It would be unfortunate if you choose to continue doing so.
Yet it is alright for you to suggest that people may not want to work with me.
You are a joke.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 08:20 PM
Just remember who called who a "moron", without any other objective discussion. Bill starts the name calling all the time. Bill has not contibuted any contructive words or initiatives to this thread so far (go back and check). You tell Bill, to cut it out, because he is the boil that needs lancing.
If the shoe fits.
Everyone has made reasonable comments on this thread even the doc.
You were the only one to make a totally stupid suggestion.

PHAT
19-07-2004, 08:47 PM
You were the only one to make a totally stupid suggestion.

After several years of BB battles with me, you still don't know an ambit position when it is stated. Unbloody believable. :rolleyes: Is it any wonder you habitually get your knickers in a knot, and then spew out abuse without a moment's cogitation.

The idea of an AJCF is not that bad. It would have significant clout relative to the ACF and might be able to inject some inspiration into the adult end of chess. Let's face it, over the last decade, the junior admins around the country have been running rings round the adult admins.

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 08:58 PM
After several years of BB battles with me, you still don't know an ambit position when it is stated. Unbloody believable. :rolleyes: Is it any wonder you habitually get your knickers in a knot, and then spew out abuse without a moment's cogitation.
Ha ha ha.
You are the epitome of spewing unthinking comments on this and the previous BB.


The idea of an AJCF is not that bad. It would have significant clout relative to the ACF and might be able to inject some inspiration into the adult end of chess. Let's face it, over the last decade, the junior admins around the country have been running rings round the adult admins.
Lets face it you would not have a clue about the functioning of the states adult and junior associations.

Garvinator
19-07-2004, 09:07 PM
do you notice that as soon as you two got going again, no one else has posted except for dr :evil:

Bill Gletsos
19-07-2004, 09:21 PM
do you notice that as soon as you two got going again, no one else has posted except for dr :evil:
And you. ;)

PHAT
20-07-2004, 07:55 AM
do you notice that as soon as you two got going again, no one else has posted except for dr :evil:If thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out.

ursogr8
20-07-2004, 04:35 PM
As far as I know Victoria has no junior body... .

.

Bill
I know I can't say you are wrong ;)
BUT
Victoria has an active affiliated junior chess organisation in the form of Whitehorse Junior Chess with close ties to the Box Hill Chess Club of which Chris Potter the CV junior director is a member. Whitehorse Junior Chess was the unsuccesful bidder for 05 Australian junior with an offer superior to anything Mt Buller had to offer*but was rejected by senior chess. :cool:

starter

arosar
20-07-2004, 04:51 PM
. . . an offer superior to anything Mt Buller had to offer*but was rejected by senior chess.

How was it superior? Can you tell us this?

From the way these organisers have characterised the whole deal, it looks like they've chosen an inferior option for long-term strategic gain. But I am quite skeptical.

AR

Garvinator
20-07-2004, 04:54 PM
How was it superior? Can you tell us this?

From the way these organisers have characterised the whole deal, it looks like they've chosen an inferior option for long-term strategic gain. But I am quite skeptical.

ARyou would be sceptical if the prize money was a million dollars just cause the venue is not party town like you want
:lol:

arosar
20-07-2004, 04:58 PM
you would be sceptical if the prize money was a million dollars just cause the venue is not party town like you want.

I'd be skeptical because no idiot would give the ACF a million bucks.

AR

Kevin Bonham
21-07-2004, 02:18 AM
I would strongly suggest that ratings be explicitly excluded from the responsibilities of the committee. I noticed in some of the abuse that spun off the "Olympiad Selections" thread, that David wrote:


With Jenni about to start her junior sub-committee, my reasons for keeping in touch with the BB have reduced. If I need to lobby then another, probably more effective avenue that bi-passes the blockhead now exists. Hopefully Jenni and her group will be able to tread the open road without fear and without cowardice.

Not too hard to read between the lines here.

Ratings is by far the predominant junior-related issue David has "lobbied" on and I feel that the junior subcommittee is an idea that deserves better than to be used as a pawn in his battles over ratings with Bill.

Garvinator
21-07-2004, 02:25 AM
Ratings is by far the predominant junior-related issue David has "lobbied" on and I feel that the junior subcommittee is an idea that deserves better than to be used as a pawn in his battles over ratings with Bill.
i would strongly suspect that if David tried to use the junor sub committee as you state it, he would be :wall: and getting the response of :hand:

ursogr8
21-07-2004, 08:06 AM
How was it superior? Can you tell us this?

From the way these organisers have characterised the whole deal, it looks like they've chosen an inferior option for long-term strategic gain. But I am quite skeptical.

AR

hi Amiel

Matey, mate mate mate.

There are already two long posts that detail the benefits of the Whitehorse bid. I am not going to re-heat them as it is time to move on. Besides, the only thing that improves after re-heating is a good spicy curry.

Be assured, if you visit Melbourne some time in the future, in January, there will be no sinister sky. The organisers will guarantee you need :cool: :cool:

starter

Cat
05-08-2004, 06:58 PM
My wife told me the other day that she'd signed our kids up for 'Auskick' (Junior ARL). I told her it wasn't a real sport and that they pass the ball forward, but I felt a bit better when she said it was only $40.

For $40 my kids get an AFL ball, an AFL bag, AFL drink bottle, CD ROM, loads of great pictures and a season ticket to the Brisbane Lions games. So instead of going to Suncorp to see the Queensland Reds, we'll be off to the Gabba - a bitter pill to swallow!

Great marketing, but more importantly it demonstrates how much importance the AFL places on recruting young players to their sport. The days when chess can continue as an elitist male club belong to the days of Empire. Its true that the AFL have an immense funding base, but we can learn from their approach.

Kerry, your post on the Mt Buller thread was very encouraging. Maybe you could use a bit of AFL psychology up there?

Kerry Stead
06-08-2004, 04:50 AM
Kerry, your post on the Mt Buller thread was very encouraging. Maybe you could use a bit of AFL psychology up there?
David, are you suggesting some quasi-corporate brainwashing while the kiddies are in the rarified air of Mount Buller? ;) The y are stuck there for a bit over a week after all ... how to 'utilise' this possibility?
I know Jenni had floated the idea of souveneir drink bottles, I think in reference to the Schools Event, for the event, which could be a good opportunity for some of the 'brainwashing' I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

jay_vee
06-08-2004, 05:03 AM
David, are you suggesting some quasi-corporate brainwashing while the kiddies are in the rarified air of Mount Buller? ;) The y are stuck there for a bit over a week after all ... how to 'utilise' this possibility?
I know Jenni had floated the idea of souveneir drink bottles, I think in reference to the Schools Event, for the event, which could be a good opportunity for some of the 'brainwashing' I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

A junior tournament I once went to handed out mugs with some small chess cartoon and the date and place for next year's event. Very good idea, imho, and should work with drink bottles :-). Of course, that would require some advance planning...

PHAT
06-08-2004, 06:57 AM
I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

Give free entry tickets to watch the Open.

jenni
06-08-2004, 10:14 AM
My wife told me the other day that she'd signed our kids up for 'Auskick' (Junior ARL). I told her it wasn't a real sport and that they pass the ball forward, but I felt a bit better when she said it was only $40.

For $40 my kids get an AFL ball, an AFL bag, AFL drink bottle, CD ROM, loads of great pictures and a season ticket to the Brisbane Lions games. So instead of going to Suncorp to see the Queensland Reds, we'll be off to the Gabba - a bitter pill to swallow!

Great marketing, but more importantly it demonstrates how much importance the AFL places on recruting young players to their sport. The days when chess can continue as an elitist male club belong to the days of Empire. Its true that the AFL have an immense funding base, but we can learn from their approach.

Kerry, your post on the Mt Buller thread was very encouraging. Maybe you could use a bit of AFL psychology up there?
This of course raises the wider issue. In many sports the financially viable adult organisations have the money and vision to nuture the juniors. In chess it seems the other way round. It is the junior organisations who seem to have the money and the adults often seem to fear and dislike the juniors (and use them when necessary to obtain funding for themselves).

jenni
06-08-2004, 10:21 AM
David, are you suggesting some quasi-corporate brainwashing while the kiddies are in the rarified air of Mount Buller? ;) The y are stuck there for a bit over a week after all ... how to 'utilise' this possibility?
I know Jenni had floated the idea of souveneir drink bottles, I think in reference to the Schools Event, for the event, which could be a good opportunity for some of the 'brainwashing' I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

Drink bottles idea was more for the Aus Juniors. It wouldn't cost that much and the kids always use drink bottles. It could have the sponsor on one side and Aus juniors 2005 on the other. I assume it would have to be Hospitality industries, because that is the sponsor. The kids would use the bottle at other chess comps/school and it would be a promotion both for chess and the sponsor.

Alan Shore
06-08-2004, 11:28 AM
My wife told me the other day that she'd signed our kids up for 'Auskick' (Junior ARL). I told her it wasn't a real sport and that they pass the ball forward, but I felt a bit better when she said it was only $40.

You bastard! Makes more sense than having to go backward to go forward :confused:


For $40 my kids get an AFL ball, an AFL bag, AFL drink bottle, CD ROM, loads of great pictures and a season ticket to the Brisbane Lions games. So instead of going to Suncorp to see the Queensland Reds, we'll be off to the Gabba - a bitter pill to swallow!

That's such a good deal.. can I get this too somehow? If I pretend to be u10 or something?

Alan Shore
06-08-2004, 11:29 AM
Give free entry tickets to watch the Open.

Wow, a free ticket to watch the Open! I'm off to pack my bags right now! :rolleyes:

Garvinator
06-08-2004, 11:54 AM
Wow, a free ticket to watch the Open! I'm off to pack my bags right now! :rolleyes:
dont forget your drink bottle ;)

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2004, 12:25 PM
dont forget your drink bottle ;)
I thought the drink bottle idea would only be available to participants in the Aus Junior.

Garvinator
06-08-2004, 12:26 PM
I thought the drink bottle idea would only be available to participants in the Aus Junior.
we might include it for all the three events as a package for everyone :lol:

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2004, 12:34 PM
we might include it for all the three events as a package for everyone :lol:
Yes, but BD was not implying he was going to be a participant.
He just was being sarcastic regarding getting a free ticket to be a spectator at the Open.

Garvinator
06-08-2004, 12:55 PM
Yes, but BD was not implying he was going to be a participant.
He just was being sarcastic regarding getting a free ticket to be a spectator at the Open.
oh dear :doh: i had been taking this whole drink bottle, free tickets as competely sarcastic and meant for laughs.

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2004, 01:07 PM
oh dear :doh: i had been taking this whole drink bottle, free tickets as competely sarcastic and meant for laughs.
;)

Well I dont think anyone took Matt's free tickets for the Open seriously.
The same was not true once jenni replied regarding the drink bottles.

Cat
06-08-2004, 01:50 PM
David, are you suggesting some quasi-corporate brainwashing while the kiddies are in the rarified air of Mount Buller? ;) The y are stuck there for a bit over a week after all ... how to 'utilise' this possibility?
I know Jenni had floated the idea of souveneir drink bottles, I think in reference to the Schools Event, for the event, which could be a good opportunity for some of the 'brainwashing' I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

Tell you what, I'll do some market research and ask the kids. There'll be lots of 'in things' and what us old blokes think are good ideas is often the last thing that appeals. How many kids do you expect ?

jenni
06-08-2004, 02:25 PM
oh dear :doh: i had been taking this whole drink bottle, free tickets as competely sarcastic and meant for laughs.

It is standard in kids sports that they get freebies when entering comps, or going to training camps. Even in chess they do e.g. at world youth they usually get some sort of showbag when they register - what they get varies from year to year, but has included caps, posters, clip boards, pens etc.

PHAT
06-08-2004, 05:39 PM
Wow, a free ticket to watch the Open! I'm off to pack my bags right now! :rolleyes:

Actually, Bruce, I was being very clever. If you think about the idea, you might see that I suggested that chess now, does not sell it self. Therefore, make the Open more prestigous, by charging perhaps $1 per day to enter the Open hall to watch games. Proceeds to go to XYZ. Also, the value to the juniors of a free hall entry is $11.

peanbrain
06-08-2004, 11:20 PM
Actually, Bruce, I was being very clever. If you think about the idea, you might see that I suggested that chess now, does not sell it self. Therefore, make the Open more prestigous, by charging perhaps $1 per day to enter the Open hall to watch games. Proceeds to go to XYZ. Also, the value to the juniors of a free hall entry is $11.

wow, no kidding common man (or should that be con-man?!), just who the hell is going all the way to mt buller as spectator? :doh:

Matt is used to shoot from the hip so nothing new.

PHAT
07-08-2004, 11:44 AM
...just who the hell is going all the way to mt buller as spectator? :doh:


Maybe none, but many will be there but no playing because they have to be there.

An "All Rounds Pass" at $10 says: this is a spectical worth paying for. Since there are very likely to be a lot more than one GM, the spectical should be "worth" something, don't you agree? If/when the TV dudes come, we charge the reporters $10, (which their employers pay), and thus cause the reporter to understand that top Australia chess is serious stuff. That then effects teh way the reporter presents the story.

Ian Rout
07-08-2004, 01:20 PM
A related observation from "Mig on Chess" at chessbase

http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=182

"The folks running Dortmund had the bright idea of broadcasting the games live with commentary and charging a daily fee to watch them. It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to reinvent this wheel. Instead of going for maximum PR for the sponsors and the event, they want to keep it secret in exchange for a few bucks that won’t pay Kramnik’s coffee bill."

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2004, 05:25 PM
A related observation from "Mig on Chess" at chessbase

http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=182

"The folks running Dortmund had the bright idea of broadcasting the games live with commentary and charging a daily fee to watch them. It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to reinvent this wheel. Instead of going for maximum PR for the sponsors and the event, they want to keep it secret in exchange for a few bucks that won’t pay Kramnik’s coffee bill."
Yes, that sums it up nicely.

One way to p.ss of the media is to charge them for covering your event.

Garvinator
07-08-2004, 05:29 PM
One way to p.ss of the media is to charge them for covering your event. especially when we are trying to get media to chess events, not fighting them off with a stick. If a player at the open complains to me or other organisers that they are doing too many interviews for media organisations ill be pleasently surprised ;)

PHAT
07-08-2004, 05:49 PM
Hmmm, yes. I twould seem that media should get in free :uhoh:

Garvinator
07-08-2004, 05:50 PM
:hmm: how does all this relate to acf junior sub committee :doh: :uhoh:

Cat
07-08-2004, 10:45 PM
David, are you suggesting some quasi-corporate brainwashing while the kiddies are in the rarified air of Mount Buller? ;) The y are stuck there for a bit over a week after all ... how to 'utilise' this possibility?
I know Jenni had floated the idea of souveneir drink bottles, I think in reference to the Schools Event, for the event, which could be a good opportunity for some of the 'brainwashing' I mean marketing you're talking about.
Any other ideas?

OK, I've done some research and would suggest the following;

Bags are big, a real hit. I reckon you could find some sponsorship for some trendy bags, like a small ruck sack or something.

Military images impressed, a king being sliced in 2 by a pawn was a popular motif.

Tokens were a favorite, to be exchanged for a drink or snack.

CD ROM's were a must, I reckon some easily pasted simple fun games, maybe some images from Mt Buller Corporation?

Drink bottles were a little passe, but ok.

My idea of trading cards was considered really naff.

Transfer competitions were a popular idea.

I'll post some more if I come up with anything else.

Bill Gletsos
07-08-2004, 11:39 PM
OK, I've done some research and would suggest the following;
Lets hope this research is better than your usual stuff since that generally sucks. :hand:

PHAT
08-08-2004, 07:40 AM
Lets hope this research is better than your usual stuff since that generally sucks. :hand:

WTF was this post for? It says more about you than DR.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 04:25 PM
WTF was this post for? It says more about you than DR.
His posts on the rating threads lack any real research.
I was therefore just hoping his current research in this area was better.