Life In 19x19

This will have to be the next line of attack. Generally, it is quite hard to bring budgetary matters up, because the budget isn't available to discuss before an AGM. For instance, one obvious point to mention is this: I don't like seeing amounts which are as large, or larger, than a national membership fee being given to committees which don't even bother to present a report on what they have done for the entire year. I think the EGF should not be awarding expenses (or in some cases notional salaries) for what might be zero work in the job.
This though, is an example of financial restructuring.

henric wrote:Secondly Javaness, you think that the resources of the EGF are not well spent?
I think that such a discussion might be more constructive than opposing increased membership fees in times when external sponsoring drops.

But I've been to very many EGF AGM:s and oddly I nearly don't recall any discussion at all of the budget content. I don't recall any significant suggestions from the members about what money should be spent on and which expenses should be cut, not even when the EGF treasurer and auditor remarked that there was so much money on the EGF accounts that the EGF should think of starting to spend some. Has Ireland ever suggested new budget items or what needs to be cut down? The small countries have as much voting power as the big, and even if you don't count that for much, it does give us both opportunities and responsabilities for how the EGF is operated, IMO.

cheers,
H.

I would tend to agree with Javaness on this topic. Mostly on the monitary aspects of the problem, though. I do not have enough knowledge of the inner workings of EGF to comment on that aspect.

But as from a small country (Denmark) I can say that we now pay 4 times as much per member as the larger countries do. The membership fee for EGF per member is 1€ (0.5€ for children but we have none) and the minimum fee per country is 200. You can get it reduced to 50€ if you are a developing country but we are not really that and pay the full amount. Last year we had 49 paying members so that is 4€ per member. Not much but still. This is the problem Javaness hints too, and apparently he thinks we as a little country do not get much from EGF. I tend to agree with him. It is very hard to see what EGF do for us at some times.

I know that several small countries have tried to reduce this problem but apparently the larger counties control enough small countries to have full control of EGF. (the small counties make up half the votes). Also it was in 2009, when the fees was raised, not possible for the small counties to prepare for this large raise in the minimum fee as it was not in the original proposal from the treasure. There the minimum fee was just doubled as was the fee per member.


If it was not for generous donations from the Danish gorvernment, we would probably have to raise our membership fees so much that it would affect our number of members. At the same time we would probably not be able to support our WAGC reprecentative financially. This is in part due to the high EGF and IGF membership fees.

All that said I would also say that it is hard to know what javaness originally talked about if you did not know beforehand

Podiceps wrote:(...)

But as from a small country (Denmark) I can say that we now pay 4 times as much per member as the larger countries do. The membership fee for EGF per member is 1€ (0.5€ for children but we have none) and the minimum fee per country is 200. You can get it reduced to 50€ if you are a developing country but we are not really that and pay the full amount. Last year we had 49 paying members so that is 4€ per member. Not much but still. This is the problem Javaness hints too, and apparently he thinks we as a little country do not get much from EGF. I tend to agree with him. It is very hard to see what EGF do for us at some times.

I know that several small countries have tried to reduce this problem but apparently the larger counties control enough small countries to have full control of EGF. (the small counties make up half the votes). Also it was in 2009, when the fees was raised, not possible for the small counties to prepare for this large raise in the minimum fee as it was not in the original proposal from the treasure. There the minimum fee was just doubled as was the fee per member.
(...)

I agree with you on two points.
Firstly that the increase to 200 was not on the agenda in 2009, so it was questionable to decide that way. However, the level was confirmed at the AGM
2010, when the item was on the agenda.
Secondly my personal feeling is that the original 100 minimum fee might have
been more optimal than 200, but I don't think the precise level is that
important.

On the other hand I find it on the verge of insulting to claim that big countries
"control" small countries. That's not a reasonable theory on any account anyway,
since the fee increase costs the small countries more than the big countries "gain".
I believe most countries voted for the fee increase because they find it fair
and reasonable and because the EGF needs more income.

Finally it could be an interesting exercise to sum up all the support e.g.
Denmark has received through being a member of the EGF and IGF over the past
quarter of a century, either through WAGC etc or more directly channelled through
the EGF. If divided by number of players I don't think it would look like a "raw"
deal at all, compared to the bigger countries, even if the EGF fee would have
been minimum 200 euro. Secondly it wouldn't appear like science fiction in retrospect
that Denmark have at least 200 members in the national go association by 2011.
I would think it must generally be a good thing if all rules
(like for selections to sponsored international events, or membership fees)
contain some element of stimulus/incentive to make go grow in numbers
(members and active players).

A more important issue IMO is how the resources are used. There isn't any point in
increasing the EGF membership fees if the money is not used constructively. It's
of course more difficult to say what the EGF should do to promote go in the most
efficient way than to say that "my country should pay less", but it is also
proportionately more valuable.

cheers,
Henric

Henric I think we agree on most parts of this issue. I also think that the raise in membership feew was needed to fund EGF after 2009. But I would still protest over the disproportional raise in membership fee for small and large countries. Also I think that the issue is not over how membership fees and benefits have been in the past (where EGF had more sponsors) but how it is now. And how it is money are spend in within EGF, but again I do not know enough of the inner workings of EGF. I just know what we pay and what we get in Denmark. Granted we do not ask for much either.

On the issue of woting control in EGF I can only refer what I have heard from our representatives (and others) at the EGF meetings. I myself have sadly never found the time or money to attend. What I heard was that large countries like Russia have gained power of attorney from smaller countries, who counld not attend themselves. Thereby gaining more political infuence in EGF. It might not be true but it is what I heard.

As the case of membership fee looks settled to me I do not think that Denmark would gain anything in persuing it further. Anyways it is just my thoughts. I hope go will spred in all countries so we all have more than 200 members and the problem will vanish.

Podiceps wrote:Also I think that the issue is not over how membership fees and benefits have been in the past (where EGF had more sponsors) but how it is now.

Which implies that you want to be an EGF member when times are good (high sponsorship), but are not willing to stick by it when times are hard (low sponsorship). I do not think that is a very fair way to look at it.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Podiceps wrote:Also I think that the issue is not over how membership fees and benefits have been in the past (where EGF had more sponsors) but how it is now.

Which implies that you want to be an EGF member when times are good (high sponsorship), but are not willing to stick by it when times are hard (low sponsorship). I do not think that is a very fair way to look at it.

Well it does not, but I can see how you might read that from the line taken out of context. I do not think anyone in this debate really want not to be part of EGF. In all aspects it is a good thing to stand together. It is just that you do not really want to pay more for a membership than others. I find it reasonable to have a lower limit on the membership fee. But EGF has many countries with less than 100 members of their go assosations. Actually half the countries in EGF has 200 or less organized go players. I think the old lower limit of 100 national members is better suited. Thereby fewer of the "poor" countries will pay for the "rich". Right now each member of the Danish Go Assosation pay 4€ compared to less than 1€ in i.g. Netherlands, Germany and France. With the old limit of 100 members it would have been only 2€. So as the membership fee to EGF was doubled for the large countries it is quadrupled.

Sorry that I cannot give you other examples than Denmark. Last year I made calculations for all members of EGF but I cannot remember where I put it.

The EGF has spent a lot of money in the past, the ING money for example, about 100.000 US$ worth per year. What is the outcome? In my opinion had these expenses been successful there should be many more go players in Europe.

gofr wrote:The EGF has spent a lot of money in the past, the ING money for example, about 100.000 US$ worth per year. What is the outcome? In my opinion had these expenses been successful there should be many more go players in Europe.

wow, , US$ per year!

seems odd that the European Go congress appears vibrant

http://egc2011.eu/

equally look at the AGA website - it's full of ideas and initiatives.

The BGA website is a little dated but at least an effort has been made.

The lead website for the EGF looks awful: Dead links, little in the way of useful resource, a small hint at sponsorship.. The site appears old and tired. The saving grace seems to be the European Go Database although in the current climate where lower ranks are won online the value of the EGF ranking might seem questionable.

Looks like the time is ripe for new ideas and enthusiasm..

if were looking at sites, what does the IGF site tell us apart from basically nothing...

The way i see it is that a country has a go association and if it wants to be part of the egf you have to buy an entrancefee. The number of members is irrelevant.
In my opinion, a association should decide wether or not the want to be part of the EGF and if costs for participation is worth it. If not then don't.

Podiceps wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Podiceps wrote:Also I think that the issue is not over how membership fees and benefits have been in the past (where EGF had more sponsors) but how it is now.

Which implies that you want to be an EGF member when times are good (high sponsorship), but are not willing to stick by it when times are hard (low sponsorship). I do not think that is a very fair way to look at it.

Well it does not, but I can see how you might read that from the line taken out of context. I do not think anyone in this debate really want not to be part of EGF.

Yes, sorry, I did not mean to imply that you, personally, or the Danish Go Association would want to quit the EGF. My remark was just aimed at the general sentiment.

In all aspects it is a good thing to stand together. It is just that you do not really want to pay more for a membership than others. I find it reasonable to have a lower limit on the membership fee. But EGF has many countries with less than 100 members of their go assosations. Actually half the countries in EGF has 200 or less organized go players. I think the old lower limit of 100 national members is better suited. Thereby fewer of the "poor" countries will pay for the "rich". Right now each member of the Danish Go Assosation pay 4€ compared to less than 1€ in i.g. Netherlands, Germany and France. With the old limit of 100 members it would have been only 2€. So as the membership fee to EGF was doubled for the large countries it is quadrupled.

Sorry that I cannot give you other examples than Denmark. Last year I made calculations for all members of EGF but I cannot remember where I put it.

I think that a system where each association pays the same amount is, theoretically, a fair system. As long as each association receives the same rights in return, that is. In practice, that does not work because it is either high enough to be an insurmountable burden upon the smaller countries, or low enough that the EGF receives too little income.

How about a system where each association pays some fixed basic amount, say 100 euro, then on top of that pays 1 euro per member (no minimum) So if you have 20 members you pay 120, if you have 50 you pay 150, is you have 500 you pay 600.

If such a system were introduced, it would probably give the EGF just as much extra income, if not more, compared to a raise of the minimum fee. But unlike the current system, it would burden all associations about equally.

stalkor wrote: In my opinion, a association should decide wether or not the want to be part of the EGF and if costs for participation is worth it. If not then don't.

Sounds like you do not care whether small associations are members or not?

Personally, I think the EGF should make sure that membership is worthwhile even to the smallest national associations and above all that fees should never be so high that the effect is stiffling to small go communities. Or am I wrong that EGF is meant to spread go in Europe and unite European go-players in one organisation?

If I were a member of a very big national go association like for example the German one (of which I have been a member), I would feel it a bit strange that contribution to the EGC should be limited to the capacities of a very small nation go association such as the Irish one. But of course having a common fee for all may be convenient and does not necessarily prevent rich associations from voluntarily providing further funding to keep the common fee at a reasonable rate ...

That said, 200 Euro does not really sound like that much to me, but what do I know.

Podiceps wrote:On the issue of woting control in EGF I can only refer what I have heard from our representatives (and others) at the EGF meetings. I myself have sadly never found the time or money to attend. What I heard was that large countries like Russia have gained power of attorney from smaller countries, who counld not attend themselves. Thereby gaining more political infuence in EGF. (...)

As the case of membership fee looks settled to me I do not think that Denmark would gain anything in persuing it further. Anyways it is just my thoughts. I hope go will spred in all countries so we all have more than 200 members and the problem will vanish.

I suppose Russia has been a special case in this respect, but the majority of small
EGF members don't vote with Russia all the time.

In my opinion you and Javaness are under estimating the benefit from EGF membership. Even if you disregard completely the value of participation in WAGC, KPMC, WPGC and other invitation events i the far east, there are still big advantages directly through the EGF.

The European Go congress has from the very start been the most valuable thing the EGF is involved with. It is particularly valuable to the smaller countries I think. Try and estimate the value more precisely. Except a few eyars, the EGC has had support from an international main sponsor, which naturally goes directly through the EGF and which has been the direct results of efforts by the EGF. Typically this main external cash support was around 10 keuro. If we generously take the average number of participants at the EGC to be 500, the EGC support is worth 20 euro per participant. If Denmark or Ireland have say EGC 5 participants they immediately cash in 100 euro support through the EGF, or half the membership fee. All you need to do to reach break even is to get the EGC participation up to 10, and that would probably
greatly contribute to enhancing the go level in the country.

But of course this benefit is just a minor fraction of what you potentially get through the EGF. For many years the EGF/EGCC got yearly deliveries of playing material through the support from the Ing foundation. One foggy issue in the EGF is where that material ended up and on what conditions. Some was handed out to EGF members as Ing grants, Sweden got quite a lot of playing material for free and bought some at low price, I don't know what Denmark did, but if you asked for material you probably got some. Other boards, stones and clocks were handed out to EGC organisers who kept some after the EGC:s, sometimes selling it, oddly there doesn't seem to be any records of who got stuff, on what conditions or how much. This is wrong in my opinion, but in principle the EGF is transparent, so information like that should be available, if the EGF/EGCC officials stick to the rules and to common sense. What I'm arriving at though is that the EGF still controls large amounts of playing materials, which can be lended to organisers of big events (the EGC being the biggest). This makes it posible also for small go associations to organise big events. In EGC 2008 in Sweden we had 718 participants in the main tournament. If we had had to find the boards, stones and clocks ourselves, we wouldn't even have been able to bid for the congress. But thanks to EGF/EGCC (and Ing of course), a small country ( go-wise) like Denmark can easily orgnise a big event if you want to. The big countries are not dependent on the EGF for playing materials, countries like Germany or France can more easily bring sufficient materials together themselves. It's open for judgement how to value that in euro per year, but it is surely significant. Add to that some services such as website and rating system, and you will already be able to conlude that you are getting sufficient benefit from what you pay. But there will likely be many more benefits, even without counting the far east invitations, look for example at the various European championships and the support they can get, if not directly through the EGF, then at least indirectly.

Finally as said, all members have influence, so they should all work towards an EGF which makes efficient use of its resources and can help developing go as well as possible.

cheers,
Henric

Aeneas wrote:

stalkor wrote: In my opinion, a association should decide wether or not the want to be part of the EGF and if costs for participation is worth it. If not then don't.

Sounds like you do not care whether small associations are members or not?

Personally, I think the EGF should make sure that membership is worthwhile even to the smallest national associations and above all that fees should never be so high that the effect is stiffling to small go communities. Or am I wrong that EGF is meant to spread go in Europe and unite European go-players in one organisation?

If I were a member of a very big national go association like for example the German one (of which I have been a member), I would feel it a bit strange that contribution to the EGC should be limited to the capacities of a very small nation go association such as the Irish one. But of course having a common fee for all may be convenient and does not necessarily prevent rich associations from voluntarily providing further funding to keep the common fee at a reasonable rate ...

That said, 200 Euro does not really sound like that much to me, but what do I know.

i was just pointing out that joining the EGF is not something you HAVE to do but you CHOOSE to do. If your go association only has 15 members, is it really worth paying all that money to the EGF? do you get something back? can't you spend that 200 euro's yourself to make go bigger in your country? only after answering all these questions you can decide if its worth CHOOSING to be part of the EGF.

stalkor wrote: i was just pointing out that joining the EGF is not something you HAVE to do but you CHOOSE to do. If your go association only has 15 members, is it really worth paying all that money to the EGF? do you get something back? can't you spend that 200 euro's yourself to make go bigger in your country? only after answering all these questions you can decide if its worth CHOOSING to be part of the EGF.

I see your point. My point is that the EGF does not HAVE to exclude national go associations of a size which makes 200 euro too much to pay. It could CHOOSE to let them become members for a smaller fee. I think it might sometimes be in the interest of the EGF to do so.