I have two goals in this proposal: 1) To make it financially feasible to run small to medium size chess tournaments; 2) To minimize the workload for the organizer/affiliate and the USCF office. Since most organizers of these small tournaments are volunteers (or at best receiving less than minimum wage) we must not give them reasons to quit organizing events, as that will inevitably lead to reduced USCF membership.  The basic idea is to return to something like the pre-Cavallo structure, where TLA fees were collected as part of the rating fee.

This reduces the typical number of communications between the organizer and the USCF by 33% and the number of checks to be written (and processed) by 50%. This makes things simpler for the organizer and reduces USCF staff workload without reducing the number of tournaments. After this was originally changed, the deadlines for TLAs had to be increased by 5 days due to this increase in workload/communication.

I give an example of the necessary rating report form below. I am basically trying to make it as simple and fair as possible. For that reason, I have eliminated the differences for quick/regular and open/scholastic pricing and have used as a base rate the current lower figure of .10/game. Since the cost of rating the event does not differ for these options, there seems to be no reason to have different prices (and the resulting confusion for inexperienced organizers). The TLA fee will then be based upon a multiple of the base bill.  So, in essence, the TLA fee is proportional to the size of the event - which correlates well with the benefits provided by the USCF in supplying interested viewers of the TLA. In addition, the size of the TLA will set minimum prices for rating the event, so as to encourage organizers to produce the minimal length TLA appropriate to their event. After a TLA is processed by the USCF office, they would fill in lines 2 and 7 on the form sent to the organizer with his proof TLA.

I would also recommend eliminating the $2 crosstable fee and only send receipt/return requested for those enclosing a SASP, so these lines would be unnecessary on the rating report form.  There is also the Professional Players Health and Benefit Fund (as far as I know the USCF Tour has never actually existed other than a brief promotion). If the Grand Prix is continuing, then the Enhanced Grand Prix mandatory contribution is also needed in this form. In that case I would suggest changing it to be a multiple of three times the Base Bill rather than basing it on the number of players. Games rather than number of players is simpler and also probably fairer as you don't have questions about counting house players, cross-section players, etc.

The middle billing part of the rating report form would be changed to this:

__________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Number of rated games played (minimum 60)................................................................ Subtotal_______

2. TLA minimum number of games (10/line+5/line for each additional appearance in CL/SM)  Subtotal_______

3. Billable games - enter the greater of lines 1 and 2 above.................................................. Total_________ 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Base Bill (multiply line 3 by .10)............................................................................ Total Due $________

5. TLA charge (if TLA submitted, multiply line 4 by 2).................................................. Total Due $________

6. Manual Rating Report submission charge
        (if Rating Report is not submitted electronically, then enter amount from line 4)..... Total Due $________

7. Manual TLA submission charge
        (if TLA is not submitted electronically, then add $1/line)....................................... Total Due $________

8. Professional Players Health and Benefit Fund Enhanced Grand Prix fee
        (multiply line 4 by 3).........................................................................................  Total Due $________

9. Grand Total (sum of lines 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 above)..................................................................... $________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments on changes/numbers:

1. Elimination of $2 crosstable fee - this is built into the price of rating the event. It is in the interest of the USCF office for all organizers to receive the crosstable for their events. The organizer is in the best position to catch and correct mistakes and it will be simpler for the USCF staff to deal with the organizer (who has event codes, etc.) rather than concerned players. It also allows the USCF to recommend that concerned players first contact the organizer rather than the USCF.

2. I have tried to design the system so that the net income to the USCF will be roughly equivalent to the current system. In addition, I have specifically tried to avoid including hidden raising of fees. For scholastic events without TLAs, scholastic organizers sending in on disk will still see .10/game rating fee and those submitting by hand will still see a .20/game fee. In order to merge scholastic and open pricing schedules, open events without TLAs will see fees decrease from .30 to .20 per game and those submitting on disk will see a drop from .15 to .10 per game. However, the TLA fees will often balance this effect. Without complete data about tournaments, I can only summarize my rough view on the costs. For tournaments with less than 300 entries, it should be roughly equivalent to the pre-October TLA prices. For events of 300-500, it should be roughly equivalent to the current prices. For events with over 500 entries, it will be more expensive, but those are largely "professional" events and the increased costs should be balanced somewhat by the increase in use/size of TLAs. And it should be roughly equivalent to an inflation-adjusted pre-Cavallo system. Basically for open tournaments sent in on disk we have the equivalent of a .30/game rating fee - a 25% raise from the earlier .25/game rate.

B) Each affiliate is entitled to 4 free TLA insertions of up to 5 lines each, if submitted electronically in composed form. This means 2 TLAs with 2 insertions each, 4 TLAs of 1 insertion each, or one TLA of 2 insertions and 2 of one insertion each.

C) Any affiliate which agrees not to receive Chess Life is entitled to one additional TLA insertion of up to 5 lines instead.

D) For TLAs of over 20 lines, there is a surcharge of $5 per line for each line over 20 (half price for additional insertions), which must be paid regardless of what the rating fee is.

E) TLAs of over 60 lines are considered display ads.

F) Affiliates may choose either Chess Life, School Mates, or both for their free TLAs. However, placing the same TLA in both magazines counts as two insertions.

G) If the USCF office feels that it is more efficient, then they have the option of requiring that the minimum TLA payment be made with the TLA and any balance due be paid later with the rating report.