| |
Main
Date: 13 May 2008 09:26:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar is right for once
|
Polgar is right for once
As everybody knows, I have been extremely critical of Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar. However, a posting by Polgar that became public today is
so obviously correct that I need to point that out.
In an online debate with Bill Goichberg, in a message dated 5/6/2008
10:05:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, SusanPolgar writes:
"You on your own made a number of decisions shortly after that
without consulting other board members. This clearly contributed to
the current problems. It is not too late to fix things but being
defensive about your records will not help alleviate these serious
problems."
"I am not interested in arguing with you. The USCF is in serious
trouble and it should no longer be the Bill Goichberg show. You need
to listen and take the advice from others in areas you have no
expertise in. If you continue the attitude that Bill Goichberg does
not lose any debate / argument, the USCF is doomed."
During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
things without even telling the other board members. It started right
after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
$4800.
Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
without asking the board that there should be four women players in
the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
rated below 2200.
Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
$20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.
These are just a few examples of the long list of things that Bill
Goichberg did without even telling the board about it.
Worse yet, when anything went wrong, Bill Goichberg would blame me,
Sam Sloan, for it, when I had nothing to do with it.
After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
person. Channing declined apparently thinking he would become
president after the next election, which was not to be.
Now, after I was defeated and lost my seat on the board, Goichberg is
doing the same thing again. Susan Polgar writes, =93You on your own made
a number of decisions shortly after that without consulting other
board members.=94
This is exactly what is wrong with Bill Goichberg. He seems simply to
be incapable of understanding that he might be wrong about something.
Since he is never wrong, there is never any need for him to consult
other members of the board before making a decision.
Goichberg's so-called New Plan is to make Chess Life magazine
optional. This will cause Chess Life to lose so many readers that
before long the print version of the magazine will be stopped
completely. If you read his proposal, you will see that he recognizes
this.
The reason Goichberg gives for this drastic measure is that we are
losing big money again this year. He thinks that since he along with
only the Pope is infallible it must be the "Internet" that is causing
these huge financial losses every year.
However, during the eight years that Al Lawrence was executive
director the USCF enjoyed a big surplus every year on much smaller
revenues than the USCF receives. Al Lawrence got along on about $1.7
million. The USCF now gets $3.2 million but under Goichberg still
loses money every year.
So the real problem causing all these losses is Bill Goichberg and
Bill Hall. To stop the losses the USCF keeps suffering it is not
necessary to stop publishing Chess Life. It is only necessary to
remove Bill Goichberg from the position of USCF President.
I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
now. The only suitable candidates to replace him are Randy Bauer and
Jim Berry or possibly Randy Hough. Take your pick but at all cost
remove Bill Goichberg now. It will be a disaster if he goes to the
Delegates Meeting in Dallas as USCF President with his plan to stop
the publication of Chess Life. This disastrous plan must be nipped in
the bud now.
Truong and Polgar will vote this. Hough is always afraid to vote
against Goichberg but in view of the desperate nature of the situation
even he might vote to remove Goichberg.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 14:15:25
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
samsloan wrote:
> quote="Randy Bauer"]Sam, who harps on endlessly about the move to
> Crossville, doesn't grasp the reality of USCF expenses. Payroll and
> benefits (some of which support the magazine) are 32 percent of the
> USCF budget - and are actually running under budget for the fiscal
> year. While not a minimal amount, it isn't the albatross that Sam
> would claim. The magazine itself, when considering indirect costs, is
> nearly as much.
>
> I haven't done the analysis about number of staff pre and post the
> move, comparing other expenses, etc. I wasn't on the Board when some
> of those personnel and benefits decisions were made, and it's a moot
> point anyway. It's time to move on to new challenges, Sam - it's a
> new century, try not to focus on the USCF in "the good old days" of
> the last one.
>
> Randy Bauer[/quote]
>
> I was sanctioned before on the USCF Issues Forum for posting this old
> quote from Randy Bauer which is one of the reasons why I am on
> moderated status now and they cannot read what I wrote until the
> following day if at all, but here is what Randy wrote back in 2005
> when he was advocating the move to Crossville and claimed that we
> would make back $90,000 per year due to the lower personnel costs in
> Crossville.
>
> We all know how that that turned out. The personnel costs proved to be
> higher in Crossville than in New Windsor.
>
> Here is what Randy Bauer wrote in reply to me:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/833de593e53fb465?dmode=source
>
> "While the New Windsor building cost may have been less than
> constructing a new facility, we owned a building with far more space
> than the USCF needed, with various repairs that needed to be made, and
> in a higher cost area with higher labor costs, property taxes,
> insurance, and utility payments as a result. Hardly free. Beatriz'
> estimate is that we will save somewhere in the range of $90,000 a year
> on employee costs alone -- it doesn't take long for that to dwarf the
> $200,000 to move.
>
> >
> > But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> > the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
> > employees.
> >
> > Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
> >
> > Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
> > being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the cost
> > of the new building?
>
> "If I thought you had the money, I'd be happy to make a bet with you
> on it. I calculate it will be a matter of a few years. In the
> meantime, the USCF will benefit from rightsizing its workforce, better
> aligning staff to provide services, and improving its technology and
> physical plant. That's what profitable businesses do to maintain a
> comparative advantage -- and the USCF will be better for it as well.
>
> "Randy Bauer"
1) Why exactly are you attacking Bauer for a claim made by Beatriz
Marinello? He was quoting her.
2) The phrase used was "employee costs," not "salaries." The problem
seems to be that more people took the benefits package in Crossville,
because in New Windsor their spouses had had health insurance
elsewhere. Obviously Marinello was wrong about this, and it would be
legitimate to criticize her for it. But since she's no longer on the
Board and not running for anything, it seems kind of pointless.
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 13:26:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
quote="Randy Bauer"]Sam, who harps on endlessly about the move to
Crossville, doesn't grasp the reality of USCF expenses. Payroll and
benefits (some of which support the magazine) are 32 percent of the
USCF budget - and are actually running under budget for the fiscal
year. While not a minimal amount, it isn't the albatross that Sam
would claim. The magazine itself, when considering indirect costs, is
nearly as much.
I haven't done the analysis about number of staff pre and post the
move, comparing other expenses, etc. I wasn't on the Board when some
of those personnel and benefits decisions were made, and it's a moot
point anyway. It's time to move on to new challenges, Sam - it's a
new century, try not to focus on the USCF in "the good old days" of
the last one.
Randy Bauer[/quote]
I was sanctioned before on the USCF Issues Forum for posting this old
quote from Randy Bauer which is one of the reasons why I am on
moderated status now and they cannot read what I wrote until the
following day if at all, but here is what Randy wrote back in 2005
when he was advocating the move to Crossville and claimed that we
would make back $90,000 per year due to the lower personnel costs in
Crossville.
We all know how that that turned out. The personnel costs proved to be
higher in Crossville than in New Windsor.
Here is what Randy Bauer wrote in reply to me:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/833de593e53fb465?dmode=source
"While the New Windsor building cost may have been less than
constructing a new facility, we owned a building with far more space
than the USCF needed, with various repairs that needed to be made, and
in a higher cost area with higher labor costs, property taxes,
insurance, and utility payments as a result. Hardly free. Beatriz'
estimate is that we will save somewhere in the range of $90,000 a year
on employee costs alone -- it doesn't take long for that to dwarf the
$200,000 to move.
>
> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
> employees.
>
> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
>
> Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
> being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the cost
> of the new building?
"If I thought you had the money, I'd be happy to make a bet with you
on it. I calculate it will be a matter of a few years. In the
meantime, the USCF will benefit from rightsizing its workforce, better
aligning staff to provide services, and improving its technology and
physical plant. That's what profitable businesses do to maintain a
comparative advantage -- and the USCF will be better for it as well.
"Randy Bauer"
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 12:31:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
[quote="Randy Bauer"]Sam Sloan, who is an expert on every topic,
should stop by the Wall Street Journal's website sometime and read the
daily news - he will then encounter a pay site that will not let its
readers read every thing for free. Even less prominent publishers
keep some of their daily content off their free site - pick up a copy
of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune sometime and compare it to their free
Internet site.
Randy Bauer [/quote]
Have you bothered to find out how many subscribers actually pay to
read the Wall Street Journal Online? They just lowered their rates to
$40 per year for a daily newspaper, plus you can get a two week trial
subscription for free. http://www.wsj.com I subscribe to the New York
Times online because I get printouts from their archives going back to
1851. Those who play the stock market need to be able to read the Wall
Street Journal instantly. They cannot afford to wait for it to arrive
in the mail. Chess Life hardly compares with this. You are comparing
apples with oranges. You are planning to make a disastrous decision
without proper research of stopping the publication of the print
version of Chess Life, assuming that the members will pay to read it
online.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2008 04:53:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
[quote="Randy Bauer"][quote="samsloan"]In BINFO 200802923 Bill
Goichberg states:
"If costs would rise more than I expect, we might add a little bit on
to the Premium dues.
"Bill Goichberg"
Bill just does not get it. The question asked was: If Chess Life
magazine becomes optional and there are not enough subscribers to
support the editorial costs, what will the USCF do?
Goichberg's answer is simple: Simply raise the dues that the Premium
Members, those being the members who receive Chess Life, have to
pay !!??!!
That will really solve the problem.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
In reality, it is Sam Sloan who doesn't "get it." There is a reason
that the business sector with the worst longterm credit outlook is
print media - that is not the way that many - if not most - people
wish to receive their news any more. It's fine to chant the rant
about the need to continue to impose a fossilized business model upon
your customers, but ultimately it is better to adjust.
A large part of the USCF target audience doesn't fully appreciate the
value of Chess Life. They want other choices. Bill's proposal, while
not perfect, is the first major proposal to provide what many have
been asking for, here and in other forums - real CHOICE about the
content members receive and the price they pay for it.
Sam Sloan wishes to claim that we need to focus on cutting costs, but
he is squeezing a very small part of the operation that is already
doing so - during this fiscal year, the actual expense for personnel
is below the budgeted amount. In fact, we need to focus on larger
expenses, such as preparing, printing and mailing Chess Life - often
to an audience that doesn't really care that much about that method of
contact.
As the father of teenagers, I fully believe that lots will choose a
lower overall membership cost with access to information through the
Web. Ultimately, this will reduce our costs more than the reduction
in dues - a win win.
If that means that others might ultimately have to more fully support
the services that they value - such as Chess Life - that is
economically efficient, right? Isn't that what we, as officers of a
member-driven organization, should be seeking to accomplish? I think
so.
Randy Bauer [/quote]
Sorry, but it is you, Randy Bauer, who does not get it. Yes, it is
true that the publishing and magazine business has gone way down and
people are getting their news and content over the Internet.
However, the point that evades you is that people who read the
Internet want their content for free. Nobody is going to pay anything
at all for an online magazine.
So, you have a choice, providing a paper print magazine for $41 per
year or giving them an online Chess Life free of charge. Which will
they prefer? Of course, the online free one. Which one do you suppose
is better for the USCF?
I know because I am now a book publisher. I sell several printed books
every day online. I also sell ebooks. However, sales of ebooks are few
and far between. I am lucky to sell one a month, even though many
buyers are overseas and the additional cost of shipping printed books
is considerable.
It is to be recalled that it was you, Randy Bauer, who said on this
forum that the USCF would save $90,000 per year in costs by moving to
Crossville. We can see how that turned out. Now you are leading us to
another disaster.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 23:48:16
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
On May 13, 10:21 pm, "Ray Gordon,
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Thanks for sharing.
Sam is no saint, but he has
the t of inducing the small
and dishonest people into
showing their true (read dirty) color.
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2008 01:21:49
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
>I even offered the USCF
>oresidency through an
>intermediary to Joel Channing,
Thanks for sharing.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 18:48:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan is wrong as usual
|
On May 13, 7:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > During my one year on the board there were constant problems with
> > this. Bill Goichberg would use his position as USCF President to do
> > things without even telling the other board members. It started right
> > after I was elected but before I took office when Bill Goichberg wrote
> > five letters without board approval to the USCFs litigation lawyer
> > asking for ways to stop Sam Sloan from taking office. The legal bill
> > that the USCF had to pay just for responding to these five letters was
> > $4800.
>
> False. They asked for a legal opinion on what would happen if the
> Delegates tried to block you from being seated. Sloan 1 - Truth 0
Anybody who has actually seen the five letters written by Bill
Goichberg to Mike Matsler, the attorney who represents the USCF in
cases in court, has found it obvious that there letters were written
not because Goichberg was afraid that some other group would try to
stop me from taking office but because Goichberg himself wanted to
stop me from taking office.
If Goichberg had simply wanted an advisory opinion, he could have
consulted one of the many lawyers who are USCF members who would have
offered opinions for free, such as for example, Harold Dondis, Stephen
Jones, Harold Winston and many others. Goichberg asked Matsler about
this obviously because Matsler would have been the one to go to court
and file or fight the case to keep me out.
> > Later, Bill Goichberg did other things like deciding on his own
> > without asking the board that there should be four women players in
> > the US Championship and when only two women with reasonably high
> > ratings accepted Goichberg when down the list as token woman after
> > token women declined until finally two women were accepted who were
> > rated below 2200.
>
> No one on the Board except you objected. If they had, four members
> could have voted it down. Of course, it would be hard to find three
> people who could stand the shame of voting with you. Sloan 2 - Truth 0
A lot of people objected. Did you read Joel Benjamin's article in New
in Chess? I should have explained that while Goichberg was letting in
two girls rated under 2200 he was excluding strong players rated over
2600 like Ben Finegold for example. Allowing two girls to play in the
US Championship whose only qualifications were that they were
attractive girls was ridiculous.
> > Worse than that, Bill Goichberg decided on his own to make the
> > formerly prestigious US Championship into an open Swiss tournament
> > where anybody could play. The entry fee for a rank beginner was
> > $20,000. Although no rank beginners accepted, this got many people
> > upset as it demeaned the prestige of the US Championship.
>
> Since AF4C ran it as a Swiss for the last decade, I assume your
> complaint is _only_ about allowing players to buy in. Since the
> result was a modest increase in the prize fund, I doubt any of the
> players would agree with you. I don't recall you making any
> counter proposals to fund the tournament. As I recall, _your_
> suggestion was that the USCF turn down the $50K donation and run it as
> a round-robin in New York with a prize fund of $14K (which the USCF
> did not have). Sloan 3 - Truth 0.
AF4C never let in anybody just because they were willing to pay a big
entry fee. Eric Moskow told me that he offered to pay $200,000 to Erik
Anderson so that he could play in the 2006 US Championship but was
turned down. However, by 2007 Moskow was only willing to pay $10,000
and he wanted to play online over the Internet which was not
acceptable.
As to there being no objection by the other players, Joel Benjamin
wrote in the 4/2007 issue of New In Chess magazine that he refused to
play in the 2007 US Championship, the first time in 23 years that he
had not played, for exactly that reason.
> > After this kept happening, I became so desperate to somehow get Bill
> > Goichberg removed as president that I even offered the USCF presidency
> > through an intermediary to Joel Channing, who I thought was a terrible
> > person.
>
> Since Channing regarded you as a lower life form, I doubt you got much
> of a response.
Apparently Channing believed that the 2007 election would result in a
deadlocked board and he as the man in the middle could become
president.
> > I am calling on the board to vote Bill Goichberg out of office right
> > now.
>
> And I'm sure this will have just as much effect as Mad Marcus's calls
> to the State Department. Face it, Sam. Nobody cares. (Well, you're
> nobody, and you care.)
>
> There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Goichberg, and I'm
> not convinced by his new proposal, but he does have one major asset.
> You. As long as you're his opposition, Bill looks awfully good.
The fiscal year ends on May 31 and when the results are out you will
see that the USCF will have lost another $300,000. Bill Goichberg will
have been USCF President for three consecutive years and every year
has shown a 6-digit loss. (The reported surplus of $3,000 last year
was fake. The real loss was about $150,000.)
If the board does not throw out Bill Goichberg as President and also
throw out Bill Hall as Executive Director after another loss of
$300,000, then every USCF member will blame all of the board members
for these horrific loses.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 11:08:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar is right for once
|
--- [email protected] wrote:
>
> looks like DD the Mad Hatter
> Jerry
Thanks for the plug.
Might I remind you that I have a book out about that too.
Alice and Wonderland Made Simple for Kids
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891919
I took the original complex story of Alice in Wonderland and re-wrote
it so that a girl aged 5-8 like my daughter can read it plus I kept
all of the original 42 drawings.
Sam Sloan
|
|
