Cost of congresses

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Some congresses may use their surpluses to support chess causes.

[Stewart Reuben]

Roger >Entry Fees + Sponsorship should be at least equal to Prize Money plus Hire of premises plus the other 87 expenses.<

There are also other sources of income sometimes. I listed 14 of those, including donations, but didn't mention:
Seed money. The Friends of Chess and, in earlier days, BCF and FIDE have all been sources of that. Coulsdon and e2e4 are relatively recent reciprocants from FIDE. The FOC is part funding Brambles Administration Ltd Hampstead International 15-23 December.
I am assuming people equate local government support, such as Hastings Council, with sponsorship.

[Francis Fields]

When I use to play in the major, the ratio of potential first prize to entry fee was what I considered as this made the event attractive. 7 times was what I thought acceptable.

[Jon Mahony]

Some congresses may use their surpluses to support chess causes.

Yes, last year the Leeds Congress donated a considerable sum of the surplus to help pay expenses for a local junior to play the world junior championships. We aren’t just lining our own pockets - in fact the only payment we personally get is a curry on the Saturday night

All remaining surplus is kept in the bank to go towards gambling one year and hiring of a bigger venue, should entries demand that in the future, or just to cover a bad year.

Trying to make any sort of profit would be pointless by the time the government has had it’s bite, we wouldn’t have anything worth talking about left.

[Stewart Reuben]

Jon, the administrators of the Leeds Congress are perfectly entitled to take their legitimate expenses. There is travel, phone bills, computer maintenance, food on other evenings, etc. Your budget should include an item, not only for sundries, but also contingencies. That is, unexpected expenses over and above anything expected.
For Hastings that has included somebody being mugged; help to players; a wish to provide extra prizes; an unknown 14 year old £700 debt to David Bronstein!

[Jon Mahony]

Jon, the administrators of the Leeds Congress are perfectly entitled to take their legitimate expenses. There is travel, phone bills, computer maintenance, food on other evenings, etc. Your budget should include an item, not only for sundries, but also contingencies. That is, unexpected expenses over and above anything expected.
For Hastings that has included somebody being mugged; help to players; a wish to provide extra prizes; an unknown 14 year old £700 debt to David Bronstein!

Any expence we go to is covered by the congress Stewart, we just don't make any personal profit. The curry and a couple of beers is just a little reward

[David Blower]

OK the reason for the thread was because I thought that £30 was a bit steep to enter the MCCU congress when others around my local area were £20. It obviously has made a bit of a difference to my thinking.

It is only £10 more. Alternatively you could say it is 50% more!

And its the same prize money as the Shropshire Chess Congress for my grading section.

[Jon Mahony]

To be honest, I think it’s a moot point, it might be a bit steep but most Chess players will pay it because they want to play Chess

I’m off to the British Championship for the first time this year, the cost of entry fees for the tourneys I’m entering, are way over the odds for the ratio of prize money (about the same as a medium sized congress) But I suspect most people aren’t going to complain, because at the end of the day, it’s the British.

[Stewart Reuben]

The expenses for the British are higher than for a local weekend congress. e.g., the admin team have to be provided with travelling expenses and accommodation. The event is supported from the John Robinson Trust. Otherwise either the prize money for the British would have to be lower, the start money for GMs lower or the entry fees higher.
Not everybody realises that VAT has to be paid on the entry fees solely for the British. Other congresses do not have high enough turnover.
It is very hard in chess to find a business sponsor these days. In the press alone there will be about 400 column inches of publicity. For a suitable sponsor this would be valuable.
The London Chess Classic has a somewhat different business model. That is supported by the charity Chess in Schools and Communities and attracts philanthropy.

[Jon Mahony]

Yeah, I’m not complaining. I can only imagine the costs entailed in running such a big, 2 week long operation, such as the British. The VAT on the prize money was news to me.

You could argue that the players also incur extra expenses by having to stay the full 1-2 weeks (one of the main reasons I’m going this year, is because the university campus makes accommodation affordable, we don’t earn much in the NHS!) but this is obviously unavoidable.

I’m really looking forward, laptop is coming with me, when I’m not playing or watching I’m going to be studying, see what it’s like to be a pro for a week

[Andrew Zigmond]

OK the reason for the thread was because I thought that £30 was a bit steep to enter the MCCU congress when others around my local area were £20. It obviously has made a bit of a difference to my thinking.

It is only £10 more. Alternatively you could say it is 50% more!

And its the same prize money as the Shropshire Chess Congress for my grading section.

I suppose the best people to direct the query to would be the congress organisers, ie politely note that other congresses seem to be cheaper and ask if there is a specific reason. At the end of the day there are no rules governing the cost of chess congresses and it is a buyer's market. You either choose to pay or you don't, obviously if organisers price themselves too high then they won't be able to sustain their venture.

As has been stated upthread there are different overheads organisers have to consider; prize money being one and venue hire another. Don't forget that venues, be it a hotel, a leisure centre or a working man's club, are not obliged to offer consistent rates or terms - taking a working man's club as an example, in one town the local WMC may be happy to support a local venture and take some extra money behind the bar, in the neighbouring town the WMC might be popular for functions and charge for the use of their premises accordingly.

It is true that when I play in a congress hoteliers and national rail normally get more from me pound for pound than the congress organisers do. At the same time if we as the chess playing public are not prepared to support events then we can't complain when they simply do not happen.

[David Blower]

To be honest, I think it’s a moot point, it might be a bit steep but most Chess players will pay it because they want to play Chess

That is true to an extent (to be honest if it was 100% about the money for me, it would be best if I didn't play chess at all) but that quote leads to thinking that a cost of £50, £100, £500 etc is acceptable to play in a congress to most players because: "they just want to play chess." Which wouldn't be true at that price point. So there is some sort of balance to be had.

Of course the overall point to contact the congress organisers had not slipped my mind but I wanted to check some of the possible reasons for the price of congresses before doing so.

[Stewart Reuben]

On this thread, I have noticed no sign that people recognise the organiser or arbiter is entitled to make a surplus. In about 1970 I was getting presents for my staff at the Islington Congress in late December. Then I realised that nobody was thinking of getting one for me. So I started to take a fee. In many countries people are puzzled why anybody would work for nothing. Of course it is because they are part of what I call 'the white economy'.

[Ian Thompson]

On this thread, I have noticed no sign that people recognise the organiser or arbiter is entitled to make a surplus. In about 1970 I was getting presents for my staff at the Islington Congress in late December. Then I realised that nobody was thinking of getting one for me. So I started to take a fee. In many countries people are puzzled why anybody would work for nothing. Of course it is because they are part of what I call 'the white economy'.

Perhaps because organisers do it because they enjoy it as a leisure activity, just as players enjoy playing. They would no more expect to be paid for it than an amateur player would expect to be paid for playing.

It's to everyone's benefit if everyone does their bit of organising (in all forms, not just congresses) for nothing, so there is an equal amount of give and take. The problem arises when some people want to do the taking, and either not do the giving, or expect to be paid for the giving, so they end up profiting at other people's expense.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

On this thread, I have noticed no sign that people recognise the organiser or arbiter is entitled to make a surplus. In about 1970 I was getting presents for my staff at the Islington Congress in late December. Then I realised that nobody was thinking of getting one for me. So I started to take a fee. In many countries people are puzzled why anybody would work for nothing. Of course it is because they are part of what I call 'the white economy'.

Perhaps because organisers do it because they enjoy it as a leisure activity, just as players enjoy playing. They would no more expect to be paid for it than an amateur player would expect to be paid for playing.

It's to everyone's benefit if everyone does their bit of organising (in all forms, not just congresses) for nothing, so there is an equal amount of give and take. The problem arises when some people want to do the taking, and either not do the giving, or expect to be paid for the giving, so they end up profiting at other people's expense.

Sorry, Ian, but I have to protest strongly. While it's great that there are generous folk willing to put on chess events at cost only, it's a strange prejudice that others shouldn't provide such services for profit.