Page 3 of 4
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:49 am
by Hsiang
I just caught on to this discussion which derived from a proposal I made to AGA, so let me first apologize for not having come in earlier.
The tap (or "tax" if you will) is intended to compensate AGA for its cost in bringing opportunities of playing in professional tournaments to the American strong players and to build a "war chest" for AGA's future efforts. For the former, so far AGA has incurred very little cost because its officials' time was volunteered, their travel has been subsidized by foreign sponsors, and entertainment/gift cost has been borne by the officials themselves. While we can continue to expect the volunteers' time, it is quite restrictive to say AGA officials can only travel for developmental purposes when they themselves or someone else pay for it. It is also very unfair to expect our officials to have ZERO budget for diplomacy purposes.
The recent record shows that the AGA players got to participate in the SAMG, the Women's championship, the Chunlan Cup -- all DIRECTLY because of AGA officials' effort. Currently they are strongly involved in developing still more such opportunities.
It seems eminently fair to ask the players to contribute 20% of their prize money to ensure AGA is well represented and effective in advocating for the players.
By the way, the tap is applied only on the prize money after the cost of travel and R/B that the players may need to pay (so far, zero for all tournaments) is deducted. Also, note that the EGF formula is much more taxing and is justified for the same reasons above.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:17 am
by daniel_the_smith
Hsiang, thank you for explaining. Not all of your rational had been explained to me.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:57 am
by John Fairbairn
My reading of Thomas Hsiang's version of the proposal appears is that it is only slightly different from the one assumed here earlier. The difference I infer from his phrasing is that he intends the levy to be hypothecated and used for stronger players in future. Either way, I still think it is a good proposal.
The depressing part is his statement "While we can continue to expect the volunteers' time". I'm sure that's right, but for certain stronger players to have already opposed the proposal under those circumstances suggests to me me that those players are, at best, unthinking, but arrogant and contemptuous of ordinary members at worst.
There is a parallel thread about the need to boost AGA volunteers. I'd say the President should therefore have a stiff word in the ear of certain top players.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:23 am
by Horibe
Joaz Banbeck wrote:The major concern that I have with this scheme is that there is an asymetrical definition of obligations. The player would be obligated to give X percent of his winnings to the AGA, and the AGA is obligated to err..uhh...do exactly what for the player?
This is a fascinating analysis. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I read the above, you are suggesting that the AGA does nothing for the strong players, and yet it is asking to the player to give up something. I am assuming this is the analysis.
While I am not sure I agree with a tap (I much prefer the 10 game participation rule), I certainly maintain that Joaz has the "asymetry" all wrong here.
On the player's side, he earned the money by winning the games.
But why did he have the chance? Because a foriegn Go association decided that an invitation to a player selected by the AGA was a good idea. These invitations are prized and they are earned and they are deserved because the AGA has earned them - through diplomatic efforts, through organizing go in this country, through IGF activities and contacts. People here have no idea the good that Thomas Hsiang and Barbara Calhoun before him have done.
Of course, there are "selfish" reasons foriegn go associations want US and European participation - but to them, US go IS the AGA - that is how they see things themselves and that is how they operate. Everything the AGA does, or has done, supports this strong individual getting this chance - putting aside whatever impact AGA activities have played in getting the player to be strong.
It mystifies me that anyone could see this as such an imposition. The AGA asks a go player to pay $30 a year. All the player has to do is sit at home and play go online, win a few games - challenging games which presumably a go player would enjoy playing. AGA volunteers set up the games, and AGA fans watch and support them. The AGA does not demand that the player do anything but play the games, they do not have to set foot outside their homes until they leave for the airport. Where they get a free status filled trip to Asia and recieve playing fees, win or lose and more if they win. Fees they could not have receieved without their affiliation with the AGA, and without the supportive efforts of the AGA to get them there.
Again, I would rather see these strong players leave their homes, teach in our clubs and play in our tournaments.
But if we are not going to ask them to do that, you cannot call this unreasonable.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:32 am
by hyperpape
Indeed, ask yourself what Congress would cost if all the volunteers were paid labor. No Congress, no US Open, no NAIM.
Maybe the Asian countries would invite our players if we all sat at home and played internet qualifiers. Maybe.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:54 am
by Kirby
Horibe wrote:...
But why did he have the chance? Because a foriegn Go association decided that an invitation to a player selected by the AGA was a good idea. These invitations are prized and they are earned and they are deserved because the AGA has earned them - through diplomatic efforts, through organizing go in this country, through IGF activities and contacts. ...
I agree, mostly, but I think that it stands to point out that foreign go associations likely work with the AGA simply because the AGA is the most predominant go organization in the USA, rather than something specific that the AGA has done.
People from Asian countries might simply think that a go organization in the USA is cool, even without knowing specifically what the AGA has done.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:11 am
by daniel_the_smith
John Fairbairn wrote:I'd say the President should therefore have a stiff word in the ear of certain top players.
The AGA usually does this the other way around. More seriously, I'd just like to reiterate that it was reported at the general assembly that the strong players at the strong players' meeting were generally OK with the proposal.
Also, the note about the tap being post-player's-expenses makes me a lot happier with the proposal.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 9:22 am
by Hsiang
Kirby wrote:
I agree, mostly, but I think that it stands to point out that foreign go associations likely work with the AGA simply because the AGA is the most predominant go organization in the USA, rather than something specific that the AGA has done.
It would indeed seem so to people unfamiliar with how these invitations work. I won't go into details, but let me just say that Chunlan Cup was out of AGA's hand for many years until the last round. To change the mind of the sponsors took a big effort over a long time. In the previous versions of the Korean Cups (Samsung, LG, etc), they all bypassed AGA with their invitations. The Women's World Championship last year would have been handled "around" AGA as well, had AGA officials not caught it in time. The SAMG this year would also have taken on a very different format if the EGF and AGA representatives in IGF did not work very hard to change it.
So, yes, there is indeed something specific that AGA has done in all cases that made it possible to have representatives selected from open competitions accessible to all strong players. Actually, most of these players know at least part of this history.
Someone asked the level of prize. In the World Championships, the payment is 1K to 4K USD each for the first-round losers (Ing at the highest end; Fujitsu at 3K USD). The 2011 SAMG guarantees each team USD 12,000 (five members) even if they do not win a single game! Transportation and high-end R/B are all extra. So we are not talking about trivial sums here; nor is the prize money the only reward to the players.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 10:14 am
by judicata
John Fairbairn wrote:My reading of Thomas Hsiang's version of the proposal appears is that it is only slightly different from the one assumed here earlier. The difference I infer from his phrasing is that he intends the levy to be hypothecated and used for stronger players in future. Either way, I still think it is a good proposal.
The depressing part is his statement "While we can continue to expect the volunteers' time". I'm sure that's right, but for certain stronger players to have already opposed the proposal under those circumstances suggests to me me that those players are, at best, unthinking, but arrogant and contemptuous of ordinary members at worst.
There is a parallel thread about the need to boost AGA volunteers. I'd say the President should therefore have a stiff word in the ear of certain top players.
I generally agree with this sentiment, but perhaps those opposed to the tax/tap have another idea about where the funds should come from. Or maybe they don't-I really don't know. I'd just be a little hesitant to attack someone's character without knowing more about his or her position. (I'm not saying you're wrong--just a thought.)
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:28 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Horibe wrote:Joaz Banbeck wrote:The major concern that I have with this scheme is that there is an asymetrical definition of obligations. The player would be obligated to give X percent of his winnings to the AGA, and the AGA is obligated to err..uhh...do exactly what for the player?
This is a fascinating analysis. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I read the above, you are suggesting that the AGA does nothing for the strong players, and yet it is asking to the player to give up something. I am assuming this is the analysis....
You mis-read me completely. I did not say that the AGA does nothing. I did say that what it does in the future is not clearly defined. I am not saying that there is an asymmetry of contribution. I am saying that there is an asymmetry of definition.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:07 pm
by hyperpape
Joaz Banbeck wrote:You mis-read me completely. I did not say that the AGA does nothing. I did say that what it does in the future is not clearly defined. I am not saying that there is an asymmetry of contribution. I am saying that there is an asymmetry of definition.
This makes some sense--the caveat being that you can't perfectly specify future contributions. The tap will not by itself cover the AGA programs that benefit strong players, so some of those programs/actions will be contingent on outside factors.
As for the misreading:
Joaz Banbeck wrote:At my most cynical, I fear that this could degenerate into a defacto extortion racket. If Asian tournament sponsors give the AGA the right to decide who gets to go, then the AGA would have a monopoly, and could demand almost any cut it wants from the players.
Folks were reacting to what you said.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:15 pm
by Kirby
Hsiang wrote:...
So, yes, there is indeed something specific that AGA has done in all cases that made it possible to have representatives selected from open competitions accessible to all strong players. ...
Fair enough. I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:17 am
by daniel_the_smith
At the board meeting last night, this was discussed. You'll all be able to read the minutes when they're approved, but the gist is that the board didn't do anything, and the only "decision" was that nothing would be done in advance of the Sport Accord games.
Re: Tap?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:11 am
by vash3g
I forgot I had these and I want to share it. This is the original proposal with comments by Allan. I just copied and pasted from the PDF I received from a strong player.
Issue Paper: Proposal for AGA “Tap” of International Players’ Prizes/Appearance Fees
Thomas Hsiang, our International Vice President, has proposed requiring AGA
representatives in international tournaments to pay back 20% of their prize and/or appearance
fees, after foreign taxes.
The justification for the “tap” is the following: AGA officers brought us these tournament
opportunities. In particular, U. S. participation in the Chunlan Cup and the Sports Accord
Mind Games are ENTIRELY due to the effort of AGA diplomacy and development. The
women’s championship could have been lost to us as well had it not been because of the
AGA effort. AGA does not get management fees, but does incur real effort in making these
events happen. Up to now, liaison costs have been out of volunteers’ pockets. The “tap” can
help support further development without burdening individuals.
A quick estimate of this income to AGA in 2011 would be:
Fujitsu - $600; Chunlan - $400; Women's - $400; Sports Accord Mind Games - $2-4,000.
If we were to go in this direction, then I would suggest that a minimum be set, below which no
“tap” would be assessed, perhaps $2,000.
Our professionals and strong amateurs are being asked for their comments. As a start, I
asked the members of the Policy and Governance Committee for their comments. Here is a
condensed version of their responses, with no consensus:
O I think 10% on top of any government taxes should be plenty.
O I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. We can take a lesson from our big
brethren in the Chess world. They are facing the same issues of member retention and
financing.
[url]http://www.chessville.com/editorials/Interviews/20Questions/Marinello.htm
[/url]
AFAIK, the USCF makes no attempt to impose such a fee on its professional players, which
still hasn't prevented bad relationships and acrimony over the balance of amateur and
professional support.
As a fund-raiser, it doesn't add enough to make a big difference. As an irritant to our meager
handful of US professionals, it may be significant. They can easily tell the AGA to go jump in
a lake. They don't need us; we need them.
O I think we're putting the emphasis in the wrong place. If you want to compensate for the
value the organization is putting into choosing representatives, then charge ENTRY fees for
people to participate in qualifying tournaments. That pays directly for the work the
organization puts into the tournaments. Then let people enjoy their winnings.
Pulling money out of winnings that are already diminished by taxes just adds insult to injury
that we have so small a prize pool available for this game. When we have truly impressive
prize pools or so many tournaments that there's enough money to go around comfortably,
then the organization should consider skimming off its due, not before.
O "Tax" on the prize money is a traditional idea and a common practice in Asian Go
organizations. Although I think "AGA service fee" is a better name for it in our case.
O But isn't it also true that the Asian Go associations provide more services than we do to the
pros? It's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If we want to charge money, we have to
provide service in return; but if we don't have resources, we can't.
O Unfortunately, I think on balance it's negative if we try to impose it by fiat as AGA board
policy. It might fly eventually if it were discussed with the pros one-on-one over time, in the
light of building support for an American pro system. But we'd have to have some kind of plan
for that worked out first.
O The critical point is that in that situation, the strong players (professionals that
is) support the system. Not without some degree of irritation, but also not with any sense that
they are being exploited beyond reason. It is a rare person indeed who thinks they get their
money's worth from taxes, or are adequately paid for their work. But both are accepted as the
cost of getting on with life.
While we don't want to copy the Asian approaches exactly, there are elements well worthy of
emulation. The buy in of the group in question, seems paramount to me.
Re: Tap? Let the player choose
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:17 pm
by Joaz Banbeck
Perhaps there is a way for both alternatives - tap and no tap - to exist simultaneously.
Let the player choose prior to the tournament. Does he want AGA backing for that specific tournament or not? And to what level? The AGA could have a choice of options, much like insurance companies do now.
The player could choose, for example, to accept that the AGA pays flight, room and board, and entry fee. In return, he would agree to contribute, say, 30% of his winnings, if any. This is a very useful option for the player who is short on cash, as many of our most promising young players are.
A second example would be for a player who wants to do it all on his own. He could decline any assistance, and if he wins, he keeps it all.
Those are the endpoints. There could be intermediate levels between. If a player has relatives/friends near the tounament, he would only need assistance from the AGA for airfare. He could then choose that option in return for a 15% tap. ( Like the above mentioned 30%, this 15% is just an example. )
==================================================
Note that
the tap idea is basically reverse insurance. Conventional insurance is betting on how to split the bills in the event of a bad outcome. With a tap, we are talking about how to split the profits from good outcome.
If insurance companies can offer various levels to choose from, then the AGA could offer a menu also.
==================================================
Also, please note that this is an attempt to allow the AGA to precisely define what its contributions will be. As I observed in this post,
viewtopic.php?p=74679#p74679, there has not yet been a clear definition of what the AGA intends to contribute.
===================================================
Lastly, implicit in this idea is the belief that the AGA should not get compensated by a tap for things that is does for the improvement of American go generally. It should only be able to ask for compensation from individuals when it makes a specific contribution to a particular person. All of the effort spent developing a pro system and making connections with foreign organizations and the mind games benefit American go in general, and should be paid for by dues from the membership at large.