Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Re: Good deal / bad deal (was: A question for Bill Goichberg





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: Good deal / bad deal (was: A question for Bill Goichberg
Louis Blair

2005-01-29, 6:45 am

Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:

> Right now, it's looking to me like we are
> not even going to get the $170,000, unless
> ChessCafe dips into its pockets at the end
> of the year and takes a bath in red ink.


I wrote:
quote:

> Previously, Timothy Hanke told us:
>
> "The net result of Bill's deal is
> somewhat LESS than the deal I had
> negotiated with another outsourcing
> partner." - Timothy Hanke (Fri, 21 Jan
> 2005 09:17:01 -0500)
>
> Does this mean that, under the Timothy
> Hanke deal, the outsourcing partner would
> have taken an even bigger bath in red ink?


Randy Bauer wrote:
quote:

> Just conjecture, but I would assume reasons
> [to believe his favored partner would have
> sold a whole lot more books and chess sets
> than ChessCafe is able to sell] could be
> better marketing, more efficient operation,
> better capitalized ownership, performance
> -based incentives, etc.


Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:

> Hanke's answer would be similar to Bauer's
> answer but more detailed: better marketing
> materials; better partnering with other
> vendors; more international reach; cheaper
> wholesalers (e.g., ChessCafe gets chess sets
> from House of Staunton which gets them from
> manufacturers; Malcolm Pein gets them
> directly from manufacturers--this is
> simplistic, but you get the idea); a track
> record in working with USCF as our
> outsourcing partner; and performance-based
> initiatives.


_
What is the amount of additional profit that
Timothy Hanke is claiming would have appeared
due to these factors?

Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews