Grand Prix Participation
Author: Mark
Kaprielian
December
1997
I.
Participation in Grand Prix program
1.
From the USCF description of the program, "...is a
year-long contest to promote high standards in American chess"
2.
It will attract some of the very active and top players to
attend.
3.
It provides, by the nature of the rules, a contribution to the
Professional Players Health and Benefits Fund.
By participating, the club if supporting chess at the Professional
level.
4.
By the nature of the rules, it helps impart a positive image
of the stability and organization of the club.
I.e. the criteria for participating are not easily met by small,
individual clubs.
1.
The prize fund for which all masters are eligible must equal
or exceed $300 guaranteed.
2.
Top prizes must be unconditionally guaranteed.
3.
Even if prizes are raised at the tournament, no additional
points can be awarded.
1.
We currently have two events that, by nature of the prize
fund, qualify as GPP event, namely the Club Championships and the Stan Crowe
Memorial. In the past, we have met the
minimum criteria and hence the minimal number of points for a GPP event. The following details the financial impact
of raising the GPP for the events and taking advantage of the rule that moves
you to the next level of GPP for contributions to the Benefits Fund.
a)
Assumptions:
(1)
Targeting a GPP of 15
(2)
Entry fee is projected at the member rate for minimal income.
(as most of our players have now joined the club this has proven to be a good
assumption)
(3)
Projected number of
paid entries is 40
(4)
Projected number of non-paid entries 10
(5)
Entry Fee of $5 per round minus 1 round for Members
(6)
$1 contribution per player to Benefits fund to get next level
of GPP points awarded.
(7)
Computerized pairings and submittal to get $ .15 per game
rating fee.
(8)
5 Rounds (small # of
rounds cost more larger)
(9)
Prize fund for the Open Section is $500 ($360/$140 for
example)
(10) Class
Prizes totaling $120 (60/40/20)
b)
Financial Analysis
(1)
Expenses
(a)
$500 prize fund
(b)
$120 Class Prizes
(c)
$ 50 contribution to Benefits Fund
(d)
$ 22 rating fee
(e)
Total equals $692
(2)
Income
(a)
$800 Entry fees (40 *
$20)
(3)
Associated costs not considered
(a)
Pro-rated advertising costs
(b)
Pro-rated facility costs
(c)
Gain/loss of other events during the year
c)
Conclusions
(1)
If projections are met, the event is self-supporting with $120
projected net. This number is actually
less when other associated costs are considered.
(2)
As long as the assumptions hold true, then the event, when
considered on it's own is relatively low risk.
1.
Why we may want to.
a)
Even greater attraction for masters to attend.
b)
Makes it easier for masters to obtain GPP points as it
accommodates their schedules by having some GPP points in this area always
available.
c)
Assuming two events at 15 points and nine events at 10 points,
if one master won all eleven events, they would earn 74 points. This would place them in the top twenty
based on 11 months of 1997.
d)
Requires no additional labor
e)
Greater prestige for our club
2.
Arguments against.
a)
The number of Masters in the area likely to participate is
relatively small. In 1997 with 11
months reported, only two Massachusetts masters are in the top 25 contenders.
b)
To date, with free entries for Master being in place for a
year, we've only had five masters play in an event at the club.
c)
Money diverted from other uses at little concrete benefit to
club members.
3.
Financial Analysis
Without
attempting to present a great deal of detail here, given the current Budget
which has no Newsletter costs then running different attendance scenarios
through the current budgetary spreadsheets yields :
|
Paid
Attendance
|
Prize
Money Returned
|
Comments
|
|
25
|
100%
|
All other expenses including Facility
donations would have to come out of Dues income
|
|
30
|
85%
|
|
|
35
|
75%.
|
Would probably give us a balanced budget
if we keep printing and mailing costs down
|
|
40
|
66%
|
Would put us money wise about where we are
now
|
|
45
|
60%
|
Puts us on Prize money % of where we are
now. Could support additional expense
beyond what we have now.
|
The
Average attendance at the club is shown below:
Since
last July we've averaged about 40 people
Let's
assume that on average we've had either two masters or 1 master and one new to
USCF who isn't paying each month. Also
assume, that in the past, for some of the events, the TD did not pay and in the
future, will not pay. If you do that
then our paying averages are three less, making our effective attendance as
follows:
The
difference in usable income to the club, holding all things constant except the
changes for making the nine additional events GPP qualified is a few dollars
short of $1000.
4.
Conclusions
a)
If we used our last six months average attendance and all
other projections and expenses remained the same, we could probably go to
having GPP points available for every tournament without too much financial
risk.
b)
Additional funds raised due to increase in attendance become
locked into this program. Further
expansion of programs requiring money will require additional increase in
attendance or a reduction of budgeted expenses.
5.
Recommendations
a)
Wait at least six months to see if the average attendance
remains at a level of at least 40 paying players, which is the number required
to maintain the club with it's current programs.
b)
Review the clubs programs to establish a new budget before
committing to this cash outlay.
c)
Weigh the benefit of instituting this program versus others
programs.