14-03-2014, 01:54 PM
Linda; I think that's a pretty exceptional case. Most juniors never play in international events, and very few actively travel to congresses around the country. For the majority, Chess is something they do at a very local level, where the costs are low. =)
Derek; I wasn't aware the 25p went as far as becoming a "proposal"? I was under the impression it was merely a suggested starting point for discussion, after which a proposal would be created (if the discussion went beyond a discussion). However, I entirely agree that it would be too high, and I do share your concerns regarding putting kids off attending their school clubs. That's why I think it would be a good idea to have safeguards in place (particularly in social priority areas) to ensure the costs involved with playing Chess are not preventing it from being played. So, for instance, ensuring players who are new to the game or below a certain age are not charged fees.
But I also think we have to be realistic about the situation we find ourselves in. It's a hard and irritating fact that money is a major problem for CS, and we'd certainly all benefit if we had more of it available. If some additional funds can be generated from some junior graded games without pushing juniors away from playing then it's an avenue we should consider. However, we do also need to ensure that it's worthwhile from a practical point of view. There's no point in introducing a system that generates a small amount of money if the time required to manage it will be disproportionately large. And as Mike says, I think if such a system was implemented then there should be a plan in place for where that money will go.
I would strongly urge some of the SJC guys to take up David's invitation to be involved in the discussions. And in particular I would also urge you not to jump to conclusions about how this will go and what the motives are, as David (and others) have been entirely clear that this is only a discussion, and that even if it did turn into an action plan it would not be implemented in the near future.
Derek; I wasn't aware the 25p went as far as becoming a "proposal"? I was under the impression it was merely a suggested starting point for discussion, after which a proposal would be created (if the discussion went beyond a discussion). However, I entirely agree that it would be too high, and I do share your concerns regarding putting kids off attending their school clubs. That's why I think it would be a good idea to have safeguards in place (particularly in social priority areas) to ensure the costs involved with playing Chess are not preventing it from being played. So, for instance, ensuring players who are new to the game or below a certain age are not charged fees.
But I also think we have to be realistic about the situation we find ourselves in. It's a hard and irritating fact that money is a major problem for CS, and we'd certainly all benefit if we had more of it available. If some additional funds can be generated from some junior graded games without pushing juniors away from playing then it's an avenue we should consider. However, we do also need to ensure that it's worthwhile from a practical point of view. There's no point in introducing a system that generates a small amount of money if the time required to manage it will be disproportionately large. And as Mike says, I think if such a system was implemented then there should be a plan in place for where that money will go.
I would strongly urge some of the SJC guys to take up David's invitation to be involved in the discussions. And in particular I would also urge you not to jump to conclusions about how this will go and what the motives are, as David (and others) have been entirely clear that this is only a discussion, and that even if it did turn into an action plan it would not be implemented in the near future.