The Short-term option
This option would involve a more positive role for the ACF within its existing structure. I deal with it first as it is of a practical and immediate nature and could be begun this year.
The ACF now has more funds available to devote to its constitutional object of fostering chess throughout Australia and so has some capacity actively to promote chess undertakings.
Possible projects that immediately come to mind are a Player Development Fund as an expansion of the present Ergas Junior Program and chess development in less-developed areas such as the Northern Territory already set out to us by David Cordover.
Careful consideration would need to be given to what funds are available to this end, what projects would be suitable for the use of those funds and what priorities are to be allocated to those projects.
Another consideration is the possibility of cooperation with commercial chess businesses to perform functions on behalf of the ACF as a business undertaking, that is for a fee. The first steps have already been taken here in respect of a well-established ACF event - the Grand Prix.
There is no reason why this could not be extended to other projects or to other ACF events such as the Australian Championships for which the ACF should be prepared to take responsibility instead of passing it to the States. Indeed, the ACF's traditional ducking of responsibility for the financial outcome of those events may be one reason for the Mt Buller shambles.
I have to say what a greate job Brian Jones has done to get this Grand pPrix up and running. However i do have a few little things to pick on it...... I believe that the Categories should be of total Prizemoney and not just the open prizemoney. I suppose doing things this wayit attempts to get the top players playing in Australia. The second blemish is that I know for one the prizes for the under 1600 division is in fact less than the 2005 prizes. I know it could be a bit of a stretch but rather than offering a second Junior the opportunity to go to Malaysia to play chess, what about the u1600 or u2000 player who cannot realistically win the Open but is rewarded to win a divisional first prize in the GP.
I think that the ACF should steer way clear of David Cordover due to the dodgy dealings with SAJCL and also his contribution to the MT Buller Fiaco. But honestly I do not think it would be worth the ACF's money to sbsidise something that may not work considering that Chess in the NT has already been tried and failed.
The Long-term Option
I believe that there needs to be a complete reconsideration of the structure of the ACF to reflect adequately its national character. Such things as individual membership and a reassessment of the role of State Associations would need to be addressed.
Australia may be unique in that it had a national championship before it was a nation. But the ACF was not formed until 1922 when it was a loose assemblage of State bodies to oversee the running of the Australian Championship. It remained in that general condition for 65 years until its incorporation in 1987. That incorporation had an effect that seems not to have been fully appreciated. Upon incorporation, a legal entity separate from the State Associations was created with nationally-expressed objectives. Unfortunately, the old concept of the new body merely as an assemblage of State Associations was preserved by the new Constitution. Thus we have a national body unable adequately to pursue its national objectives because of a dominance of State interests in matters that largely do not concern them. While State and Territory Associations and their affiliated clubs are responsible for the running of 90% or more of chess activities in Australia, there are national matters that are properly the responsibility of the national body as such, not of the States. Such a concept was recognised upon the establishment of the Australian Federal Government in 1901 but has yet to be recognised in the chess federation.
To achieve this end a considerable amount of re-education will be needed and that is why it is long-term.
I personally agree that the ACF should have individual membership. I know that this may not be acceptable to some state associations due to having some resposibilities taken off of the states. If my memory serves me correct the NSWCA at that point in time rejected Graeme Gardiners motion which included individual membership of the ACF.
I think individual membership of the ACF would be a good idea because it may enable the Grand prix to have more of a "tour" feel rather than just a whole conglomerate of tournaments Whenever. The ACF would be able to determine when tournaments are to take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment