Heresy

[stalkor]

ah, thats true, but they have chosen and the choice is now up to the assocs to take that offer or not. Unless you get a convincing vote at the next egf meeting for changing this of course:)

[Harleqin]

Why is it reasonable to have a minimum fee?

[Aeneas]

Why is it reasonable to have a minimum fee?

By "minimum fee" you mean a smaller fee for small associations?

[HermanHiddema]

Why is it reasonable to have a minimum fee?

Why is it reasonable that different associations pay different amounts?

[hman]

Why is it reasonable to have a minimum fee?

Why is it reasonable that different associations pay different amounts?

Because an association with 50 members has differents needs (possibly more) and means (probably less) than an association with 10000 members?

[HermanHiddema]

Why is it reasonable to have a minimum fee?

Why is it reasonable that different associations pay different amounts?

Because an association with 50 members has differents needs (possibly more) and means (probably less) than an association with 10000 members?

I know. IMO, both Harleqin's question and my own counter-question represent a uselessly oversimplified look at the issue. I asked it as a devils advocate.

In reality it is a complex issue, where there are many factors to consider and there is no easy answer. There is a certain fairness both to a fixed fee and to a membership number based fee, and some balance need to be struck.

[jts]

Is there some sort of benefit that the EGF disburses on a per country basis, such that arithmetically similar contributions from each country would be proportionate to benefits received? It's not like the EGF sets monetary policy or anything.

At a minimum, if the majority of the members/leaders of the EGF have a strong common feeling that small national organizations absolutely must pay at least X$ to be part of the EGF, why not work out what X$ is per capita for the small countries and make that the common per capita rate?

[Vesa]

I think that one of the reason for the base fee is that you can't very easily create or maintain dead souls organizations to win something in the EGF general meeting voting or maintain other substantial benefits only for a handful of players. For a European association the membership fee is very cheap in comparison to any other sports or mindgames.

And then, don't we all want Go to gain more ground and to get more players everywhere? I met very happy but suspicious looks when I once suggested in the WAGC that Finland would like to pay a bigger membership fee because of the increased go population.

Cheers,
Vesa

[henric]

Is there some sort of benefit that the EGF disburses on a per country basis, such that arithmetically similar contributions from each country would be proportionate to benefits received?

The answer is yes, there are and have all the time been benefits that come per country. The problem in this discussion appears to be that Javaness and policeps don't accept reference to an average estimate over many years, they claim that the benefits are small this particular year and probably don't think they will be bigger again in the future. Moreover Javaness insists, wrongly in my opinion, on disregarding completely the value of the invitations to the far east.

* Typically, when championships like the European Pairgo Championship or the European Student Championship or (I believe) the European Youth Championship, the European Team Championship etc have been sponsored, there have een benefits per country, such as travel money for one participant per EGF member country. The European Oza was a similar example. The amounts could be something like 200 euro per country and event, in typical cases. I don't have any precise statistics. There weren't any complaints then about the big countries getting a "raw deal" when they had to share the benefit between many hundred or even thousands of players, whereas the smallest EGF members shared the benefit between numbers of players like 10-20.

* If we do consider the invitations to the far east (WAGC, WPGC, KPMC, World mind sports games ), the value per country may have been typically 2000 euro per year or more. Likewise, no complaints were heard about sharing that between 10 active players vs sharing it between 1000 players.

* The WPGC might be a special case, it is explicitly the EGF which has been asked to distribute the invitations among the European countries. There is a size scaling in the point system, but it is logarithmic in numbers of players/members, so it strongly favors the small countries. How much is that worth to a small country? If the value (flight tickets for two people, food and accommodation for a couple of days) is something like 3000 euro (?) and if a small country is invited to send a pair every five years or so, it's worth about 600 euro per year to that small country. Per capita the corresponding value for a big country can be neglected, so the WPGC alone is a per country benefit that is worth more than 200 euro per year.

* The most important benefit could of course be the voting powers in the EGF, the small country has in principle the same possibility as the big country to decide how he common resources in the EGF should be used. If many countries, especially the small ones, have not taken their role in the EGF seriously, at least not at the AGM:s, maybe an increased membership fee can help them to do so, that might be an additional advantage. The EGF is in principle democratic (on a per country basis) and in principle transparent. In practice I can agree with those who think that the EGF has not been sufficiently transparent, it hasn't been easy to follow what's going on or what is being planned, in time to have any influence.

For a European association the membership fee is very cheap in comparison to any other sports or mindgames.
And then, don't we all want Go to gain more ground and to get more players everywhere?

I agree completely with this. This is why I find it a bit irritating to have to discuss the benefits from the EGF membership fee as some kind of subscription fee to some private service. The idea of an association is for the members to contribute something towards a common goal.

best regards,
Henric

[jts]

@henric,

I think you need to distinguish between money that flows through the EGF and money that comes from the EGF. If the Ing Foundation, the IGF or the Nihon Kiin gives money to the EGF for international events that then gets distributed on a per country basis, presumably that's because the sponsor wants it that way. If, for historical reasons, the EGF only had five members and all the other go associations in Europe were independent, presumably the sponsors would have given less to the EGF and more to the independent countries or rival federations.

The pair go subsidy sounds like more of a genuine EGF disbursement. If you conceive of the EGF primarily as a convenient way to fund expenses for a European Pair Go tournament, with one pair per country, then it makes sense to want a flatter schedule of fees.

[Javaness2]

I recognise the benefits the EGF has given in the past, and I really find the idea of leaving the EGF distasteful; however, to convince people not to vote to leave, you need reasons. When Ireland recently increased its membership fee we lost nearly half our members, this is the kind of economic issue we are concerned with. I spend over 200 euro on Go a year, but why should I buy my own personal EGF membership? An organisation has to be self sustaining. Look at the UK, they lost 300 members over 5 years - as the economy tightens people reassess what they buy. The BGA membership is not disimiliar to Ireland`s, it should not surprise us that we can look and see a budgetary black hole when we quadruple a fee. If the EGF really wants and needs the money, then why do they avoid, AGGRESSIVELY avoid, the question. If 10 euro per member is nothing, why doesn`t everyone pay this?

I don`t understand the point about EGF congress giving financial benefit to member nations. Given 1 or 2 people from Ireland will attend, this will not influence the event`s budget.

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.

[henric]

I recognise the benefits the EGF has given in the past, and I really find the idea of leaving the EGF distasteful; however, to convince people not to vote to leave, you need reasons.
(...)
I don`t understand the point about EGF congress giving financial benefit to member nations. Given 1 or 2 people from Ireland will attend, this will not influence the event`s budget.

Well, I think one of the reasons you can give them is that Ireland and other small countries get more back from EGF membership than they pay for.

As I said in an earlier message, my estimate is that the invitations to WPGC alone is worth 600 euro per year, give or take. What would be your estimate? You wouldn't get any invitations if you were to leave the EGF. The possibility to borrow equipment to organise big events, how much is that worth you think? 100 per year, something like that, on average? When I look at the 2010 EGF financial statement I see that there were contributions to the European pairgo, youth, students and womens championships totalling 6370 euro, I won't go back and check the details, but usually in these cases the benefits have been distributed by country, at least partly, if all was it would be worth some 200 per country. So even if you insist on telling your members that the EGF membership has nothing to do with the invitations to far East ( A dubious position IMO. How does the fee EGF pays to the IGF fit with that separation for example? ), for sure you get back more than you pay for, and you would be doing your members a disservice if you leave the EGF. Beyond that consumers' perspective you could add that the support to the EGF is for developing European go and suggest that this might be a good thing.

Some might argue that the benefits from membership go just to the individuals who participate in sponsored events, not to all your members. But that's a matter of organisation and something you can arrange as you see fit. The Swedish association for example gets most of its income from fees that we agreed on for participation in the tournaments where one can qualify for WAGC, KPMC, WPGC and other invitation events. Those who are invited to big events also pay a modest fee to the association. This system may not be perfect for you, but it can be a way for a small association to handle the costs and distribute the benefits from international support not only among a few individuals, but also a bit to all.

The point about the EGC support was of a slightly different kind. You can argue that the EGC is open to all anyway, so your members can participate without paying an EGF fee, and enjoy the 20 euro per participant or so international support that the EGC gets thanks to the efforts from the EGF and its officials. Likewise your members can have use for the EGF website, the rating system and various other items that the EGF pays for, even if you don't want to contribute anything yourselves. Not to mention that there wouldn't even be an EGC etc if it weren't for the EGF. But another way of looking at it is that the irish who participate in the EGC do get something back from their contribution to the EGF, and that this needs to be taken into account. Actually it is also possible that in the future the EGF might not allow participants at the EGC who are not associated with members of the EGF, or not admit players into the rating system who are not in an EGF member - both things have been suggested now and then, but fortunately haven't had any support.

What do you think about your IGF fee btw, that fee doesn't go to zero when your number of players goes to zero either, there is a minimum fee per country in the IGF too?

Regardless of all this, it is of course important that the available resources are used well and efficiently.

best regards,
Henric

[gofr]

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!

Yes, more or less, you can check ING grants on the EGF web site.
There was also sponsorship from other sources than ING in the past. And the EGCC with full time working employees.
I would estimate at least 1.000.000/1.500.000 US$ in about 15 years.
Add to this the WAGC, KPMC and Pair Go sponsorship (by the way I heard also Pair Go sponsorship has been cut from this year and part of the flight costs will no more be covered).

My feeling is that even if a huge amount of money has been available for many years to the EGF, the Go population in Europe did not grow much. And things don't look so good now, expecially with tournament circuits. I think that the way this money has been spent doesn't seem to have promoted enough the spreading of Go in Europe in the last decade.
I don't know if it's possible to find out how much of the sponsorship money has reached the single national associations, in which proportion among bigger and smaller EGF members, and in general if all money has been spent or if there's still some available. Understanding what has gone wrong in the past could be useful to EGF members for future decisions.
It's a pity I could not find the EGF financial reports on the web site, perhaps they are not public.

[henric]

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!

Yes, more or less, you can check ING grants on the EGF web site.
There was also sponsorship from other sources than ING in the past. And the EGCC with full time working employees.
I would estimate at least 1.000.000/1.500.000 US$ in about 15 years.
Add to this the WAGC, KPMC and Pair Go sponsorship (by the way I heard also Pair Go sponsorship has been cut from this year and part of the flight costs will no more be covered).

My feeling is that even if a huge amount of money has been available for many years to the EGF, the Go population in Europe did not grow much. And things don't look so good now, expecially with tournament circuits. I think that the way this money has been spent doesn't seem to have promoted enough the spreading of Go in Europe in the last decade.
I don't know if it's possible to find out how much of the sponsorship money has reached the single national associations, in which proportion among bigger and smaller EGF members, and in general if all money has been spent or if there's still some available. Understanding what has gone wrong in the past could be useful to EGF members for future decisions.
It's a pity I could not find the EGF financial reports on the web site, perhaps they are not public.

The Ing grants were 40-80 k$ per year, I think including the yearly deliveries of go equipment. A lot, but no need to exaggerate. You exaggerate the EGCC resourses too, there was an exhaustive discussion of those last year. Still, I agree that one might have expected more in terms of results. It would be nice to see some ideas about how money would be best spent to develop go, but such thoughts are much more rare than unfocussed complaints. Last year there were several calls for a more coherent strategy for how to develop go in Europe, as a prerequisite for getting more suport from China and Korea. Plenty for the EGF and its members to think about.
The financial reports are not public but distributed to the EGF members, I don't see any reason for any secretiveness in the EGF myself, I think full transparency is the most healthy.The habits in this respect may not have been fully satisfactory, but it's also a matter of the EGF members taking active interest.

cheers,
Henric

[Laman]

Javaness:
i know a little about how EGF and even our national association financially work, so just for an idea - how much were Irish member fees before and how much are they now (i mean how much has a person pay to be a member of Irish go association)? i realise that economic situation differs from country to country, but this discussion is interesting for me and i lack a good comparison