| |
Main
Date: 30 Jan 2008 15:50:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
Bill Goichberg is not the right man for the job. It is perfectly
obvious what needs to be done, and Bill Goichberg refuses to do it.
Instead he advocates eliminating Chess Life For Kids magazine and
cutting the print version of Chess Life magazine.
It is also not true that we are losing $100,000. We are actually
losing more like $300,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR. And this time he cannot
blame Sam Sloan for all the troubles the USCF has, because he
succeeded in having me defeated for re-election.
Bill Goichberg is not a businessman. He is a race horse handicapper
and a chess tournament organizer. He should go back to doing what he
knows best, and leave the board and allow people who know how to run a
business run the USCF.
Sam Sloan
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/is-the-united-states-chess-federation-in-trouble/#comment-9850
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 08:54:34
From: Rob
Subject: Re: USCF's Obit, FIle Copy
|
On Jan 31, 9:02=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f72ce497-bb98-4401-88dd-4ff4447913f3@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Bill Goichberg is not the right man for the job. It is perfectly
> >> obvious what needs to be done, and Bill Goichberg refuses to do it.
> >> Instead he advocates eliminating Chess Life For Kids magazine and
> >> cutting the print version of Chess Life magazine.
>
> >> It is also not true that we are losing $100,000. We are actually
> >> losing more like $300,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR.
>
> > =A0This is the um-teenth time I have read here that
> > the USCF is "losing" hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars; please explain how it can be that all these
> > millions of dollars in combined losses have not
> > already resulted in bankruptcy. =A0I can think of a
> > few possibilities:
>
> =A0 =A0 USCF's OBITUARTY NOTICE - File Copy
>
> You reduce all other assets to leave yourself in this endgame:-
>
> Basically you sell your sole remaining asset, a building - take a mortgage=
> on a new one which costs much more, but spend the cash balance differentia=
l
> on operations..
>
> You also gayly forgive $100,000+ debt to a for-profit, then renew and exte=
nd
> their contract as your sales agent - for a trading entity you previously
> possessed which used to turn as much as $3,000,000 a year in gross revenue=
.
>
> You pay $40,000 a year salary for an on-line editor whose output is less
> than my own column, and whose readership is less than half of half that.
>
> Additionally you pay $50,000 for a site-overhaul which doesn't work, but
> which seems to have no performance criteria at all, and which was unbid.
> Unless I am incorrect about this, and the contract is secret, so secret we=
> are not allowed to know if it exists.
>
> Then you invest in huge amounts of insurance for a forum which even
> ex-President Redman said is entirely political - which is to say, its not
> about chess for members and players, its about chess by and for politician=
s.
> You then persist with the politi-forum until a law-suit emerges over a
> scandal of identity where you have to obtain even more insurance and new
> legal fees - thus fracturing your base of further decision making, the
> board.
>
> Cause of death was unclear. The last known photograph featured the expired=
> USCF board playing chess with one of those large sets. Rumor has it that t=
he
> organisation died trying to swallow a Queen [bits of dead Queen found in i=
ts
> maw - but conspiracy theorists think the photo was staged.
>
> I doubt that I will need to change this file-copy notice even after the
> event occurs - but if I missed anything significant please let me know.
>
> The Memorial Service will be held in the parking lot outside ChessHut on
> date ________ , and an auction of contents proceding immediately afterward=
s.
> Remaining friends ask that no flowers be sent, but instead send 10 bucks t=
o
> anyone you can think off who actually promotes chess.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> cc: FILE-COPY, USCF, death of/obit
>
>
>
> > 1. the years in which they "gain" are not reported
>
> > 2. the losses are not really losses, except on paper
>
> > 3. they started out with many millions of dollars in
> > =A0 =A0surplus
>
> > 4. the reports are bogus
>
> > =A0-- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 06:25:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
On Jan 31, 8:12 am, "Brian Mottershead" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Polgar's going on about legal
> fees, internet insurance, and web development costs, etc, is both
> incorrect and misleading -- not to mention self-serving.
Talk about self-serving, please note that she says that Channing
agrees with her, but it was Channing who did the things she complains
about.
It was Channing's idea to play $50,000 to upgrade the website and he
had hire an Internet guru to tell us how to do that.
It was also Channing's idea that we pay $15,000 for "Internet
Insurance".
It was also Channing's idea to spend $10,000 to fly all the USCF
insiders to Florida for a "retreat".
In short, most of the wasteful expenditures that Susan complains about
were done by Channing who is now her ally.
Also, recall that after making a brief presentation at the Finance
Committee Workshop in Cherry Hill, Channing said, "If you have any
questions, I will be in the bar."
He is still in the bar, dead drunk, and he has never answered any of
our questions.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 05:01:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
You fail to understand. Yes, we need to cut expenses, but the place to
cut is not to cut the magazine which is the only benefit most members
receive.
We need to cut staff. We have a bloated, overpaid and under-worked
staff. We have a lazy, unqualified and incompetent Executive Director
who had never even worked in an office before he was hired as
Executive Director and is often out "sick". At the May 20, 2007 board
meeting at Stillwater Oklahoma I asked him to provide a simple list of
how many employees we have and brief job descriptions. Bill Hall
refused to answer the questions or to provide the list. We still do
not know how many employees we have. We still do not know what
happened to the $2 million we had in a money ket fund in 1999 that
subsequently disappeared. In 2003 we had 23 employees and we also had
$6.5 million in revenues. Now, I understand that we have 28 employees
and only $3.1 million in revenues. Why will nobody answer the
questions about where all the money went? Why are we taking about
eliminating one magazine and cutting the other, both of which are
produced out of the office, when we should be talking about cutting
our payroll?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 20:11:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
On Jan 30, 10:18 pm, "Brian Mottershead" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> The USCF generally runs at a loss during the first half of the fiscal
> year. This is because there are fewer big tournaments and people signing
> up or renewing as members during the first half of the year than the
> second half. The situation is supposed to reverse itself in the second
> half, and break even by the end of the year. The nerve-wracking part is
> that big scholastic tournaments which need to be successful for the USCF
> to break even, are right at the end of the fiscal year.
>
> Anyway, it was budgeted for the USCF to be showing about a $309K loss at
> this point in the year. However, it is actually showing a $350K loss, and
> it looks like things are not turning around for the second half, as much
> as usual or as planned.
Is it possible that players tend to sign up or renew
their memberships more in anticipation of winter?
What sort of expenses, in general, are there that
suck up $300K in less than a year? Legal
expenses-- like defending spurious lawsuits, for
example? Printing Chess Lies?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 08:12:51
From: Brian Mottershead
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
> Is it possible that players tend to sign up or renew
> their memberships more in anticipation of winter?
>
> What sort of expenses, in general, are there that
> suck up $300K in less than a year? Legal
> expenses-- like defending spurious lawsuits, for
> example? Printing Chess Lies?
>
>
> -- help bot
The seasonality comes partly from the influence of scholastics which is a
major part of the budget. There is fewer scholastic tournament activity
during the summer months and the big scholastic tournaments tend to be in
the second half of the year. Scholastic memberships are very much driven
by tournament activity -- much more so than adult memberships where
renewals and the magazine are bigger elements of the equation. But there
are also fewer adult tournaments in the summer, and the seasonality
affects the revenue from adult membership categories also.
The USCF has a $3 million budget with over 25 staff people handling
memberships, ratings, and the magazines. Those are the main programs, the
magazines being the most significant. The personnel costs and the
overheads to support this staff (office space, phones, computers, etc) do
not vary significantly throughout the year. Printing and mailing Chess
Life and Chess Life for Kids are also significant costs (about 20% of the
budget), and this does not vary much throughout the year either. However,
the expenses overall are actually below budget so far this year, despite
professional fees (including more than just legal fees) being over budget
by $28K.
So the financial situation is (a) not a $300K loss at this point, although
there is certainly cause for concern; and (b) results from concern about a
shortfall in revenue and memberships not mainly from an increase in
expenses. At this point, it is fairly difficult to project what the
loss will be by the end of the year, since it involves guess work about
the membership and tournament revenue in the second half of the fiscal
year, which is still ahead. (The fiscal year ends May 31.) It is getting
late in the year to be able to adjust to the problems in time to prevent a
loss by fiscal year end.
Sam Sloan's comment about the year to date loss being over $300K is
technically correct, but it is somewhat misleading because most of this
loss is something that happens every year due to seasonal variation in the
revenue, and is expected and planned for. Polgar's going on about legal
fees, internet insurance, and web development costs, etc, is both
incorrect and misleading -- not to mention self-serving.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 19:08:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Bill Goichberg is not the right man for the job. It is perfectly
> obvious what needs to be done, and Bill Goichberg refuses to do it.
> Instead he advocates eliminating Chess Life For Kids magazine and
> cutting the print version of Chess Life magazine.
>
> It is also not true that we are losing $100,000. We are actually
> losing more like $300,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR.
This is the um-teenth time I have read here that
the USCF is "losing" hundreds of thousands of
dollars; please explain how it can be that all these
millions of dollars in combined losses have not
already resulted in bankruptcy. I can think of a
few possibilities:
1. the years in which they "gain" are not reported
2. the losses are not really losses, except on paper
3. they started out with many millions of dollars in
surplus
4. the reports are bogus
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jan 2008 10:02:51
From: Chess One
Subject: USCF's Obit, FIle Copy
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f72ce497-bb98-4401-88dd-4ff4447913f3@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 6:50 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bill Goichberg is not the right man for the job. It is perfectly
>> obvious what needs to be done, and Bill Goichberg refuses to do it.
>> Instead he advocates eliminating Chess Life For Kids magazine and
>> cutting the print version of Chess Life magazine.
>>
>> It is also not true that we are losing $100,000. We are actually
>> losing more like $300,000 SO FAR THIS YEAR.
>
> This is the um-teenth time I have read here that
> the USCF is "losing" hundreds of thousands of
> dollars; please explain how it can be that all these
> millions of dollars in combined losses have not
> already resulted in bankruptcy. I can think of a
> few possibilities:
USCF's OBITUARTY NOTICE - File Copy
You reduce all other assets to leave yourself in this endgame:-
Basically you sell your sole remaining asset, a building - take a mortgage
on a new one which costs much more, but spend the cash balance differential
on operations..
You also gayly forgive $100,000+ debt to a for-profit, then renew and extend
their contract as your sales agent - for a trading entity you previously
possessed which used to turn as much as $3,000,000 a year in gross revenue.
You pay $40,000 a year salary for an on-line editor whose output is less
than my own column, and whose readership is less than half of half that.
Additionally you pay $50,000 for a site-overhaul which doesn't work, but
which seems to have no performance criteria at all, and which was unbid.
Unless I am incorrect about this, and the contract is secret, so secret we
are not allowed to know if it exists.
Then you invest in huge amounts of insurance for a forum which even
ex-President Redman said is entirely political - which is to say, its not
about chess for members and players, its about chess by and for politicians.
You then persist with the politi-forum until a law-suit emerges over a
scandal of identity where you have to obtain even more insurance and new
legal fees - thus fracturing your base of further decision making, the
board.
Cause of death was unclear. The last known photograph featured the expired
USCF board playing chess with one of those large sets. Rumor has it that the
organisation died trying to swallow a Queen [bits of dead Queen found in its
maw - but conspiracy theorists think the photo was staged.
I doubt that I will need to change this file-copy notice even after the
event occurs - but if I missed anything significant please let me know.
The Memorial Service will be held in the parking lot outside ChessHut on
date ________ , and an auction of contents proceding immediately afterwards.
Remaining friends ask that no flowers be sent, but instead send 10 bucks to
anyone you can think off who actually promotes chess.
Phil Innes
cc: FILE-COPY, USCF, death of/obit
> 1. the years in which they "gain" are not reported
>
> 2. the losses are not really losses, except on paper
>
> 3. they started out with many millions of dollars in
> surplus
>
> 4. the reports are bogus
>
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 22:18:56
From: Brian Mottershead
Subject: Re: Goichberg Plans to Eliminate Chess Life for Kids
|
> This is the um-teenth time I have read here that
> the USCF is "losing" hundreds of thousands of
> dollars; please explain how it can be that all these
> millions of dollars in combined losses have not
> already resulted in bankruptcy. I can think of a
> few possibilities:
>
> 1. the years in which they "gain" are not reported
>
> 2. the losses are not really losses, except on paper
>
> 3. they started out with many millions of dollars in
> surplus
>
> 4. the reports are bogus
>
>
> -- help bot
>
The USCF generally runs at a loss during the first half of the fiscal
year. This is because there are fewer big tournaments and people signing
up or renewing as members during the first half of the year than the
second half. The situation is supposed to reverse itself in the second
half, and break even by the end of the year. The nerve-wracking part is
that big scholastic tournaments which need to be successful for the USCF
to break even, are right at the end of the fiscal year.
Anyway, it was budgeted for the USCF to be showing about a $309K loss at
this point in the year. However, it is actually showing a $350K loss, and
it looks like things are not turning around for the second half, as much
as usual or as planned.
|
|
