|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > October 2005 > Another sweetheart deal?
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 |
Another sweetheart deal?
|
|
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-12, 11:30 pm |
| Executive Board Caves to ChessCafe
The USCF Executive Board has caved to the
ChessCafe. That is the report I received from a source.
By a 5-1 vote the EB has decided WITHOUT
OFFERING A PUBLIC TENDER to alter favorably for the
Cafe the terms of its contract and to extend the
Cafe's sales agreement until 2012. Further, the Cafe
will have over $100,000 of its $250,000+ debt to
the USCF forgiven.
One of the signs of a sweetheart contract is
when the side failing to fulfill the terms has the
contract altered to its advantage without reoffering
the contract for PUBLIC TENDER. Another sign of such
a contract is when it is extended for several years,
thereby locking the debtor into a position offering
still more leverage. Finally, the Cafe will NOT be
required to repay the USCF from profits it has made on
the sales franchise deal or from future profits.
IT DOES NOT GET ANY SWEETER THAN THAT, FOLKS
-- if my source is correct. You get your debt forgiven now,
and you never have to make it good in the future from profits.
If true, it is sugar sweeeeet!
Under the new terms of the contract, if my
source is accurate, the Cafe will be required to
provide an annual subvention of $150,000, less than
half the previous figure of $350,000. That may mean
the Cafe's percentage contribution will be about 40%
of its successful bid in 2003. This deal has been made
without reopening the sales franchise for PUBLIC TENDER.
I am told that Grant Perks conducted an audit
of the Cafe, but we do not yet know the results. It
appears that portions of the Cafe's sales program that
bring in profits were outside the deal with the USCF.
My sources states that profits from these sales need
not be used by the Cafe to repay its debt to the USCF.
About 22 months ago, book and equipment sales
were put at about $2.7 million. The new Cafe
requirement is to subvent only $150,000 annually. The
profits made by the Cafe from this sweetheart deal
need not be paid by the Cafe to retire its debt.
I am told that the EB feared that Hanon
Russell, who has been described as a reputable lawyer,
might declare bankruptcy, stiffing right up the nether
region those to whom he owes money.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The Cafe, if the report I
received is accurate, has a lock on Federation B and E
for the next seven years. By that time, there will no
longer be any wherewithal in the Federation to
resuscitate a once successful sales program, and there
will likely no longer even exist the capability of
putting the B&E franchise up for competitive bidding.
Near total silence now emits from the USCF
Executive Board. I know that many Delegates read both
this site and the fidechess group where I will also
post this report. One hopes that questions will be
asked and attacks eventuate that will sting, if the
report I received is accurate.
My source, if correct, paints a picture in
which the ChessCafe, a debtor delinquent, has received
a reward -- not a punishment -- for threats to declare
bankruptcy and for failure to fulfill a contract.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-13, 2:31 am |
| Please forgive me for appearing to defend the Chess Cafe and Hanon Russell.
That is not the intent of this posting.
You mention, Larry, that sales of the old B&E were at 2.7M and now we will
only get a guarantee of $150,000.00. You never mentioned expenses accrued
from the B&E albatross.
I'm sorry to inform you of this, but Gross Profits from a particular
department are NOT contributions to bottom line, which if memory serves was
in the red near to half a million dollars. In other words, the B&E was
hemorragning cash out of our USCF at an alarming rate. And, while it is
obvious that there are plenty of better businessmen in the B&E business, who
actually keep their word and pay off when they promise (unlike, apparently,
Chess Cafe), the others were frozen out of the bidding process by none other
than the illustrious reigning tyrant, Bill Goichberg.
How did he do that? Exactly as Larry suggests, by constructing a deal which
whether CC or Goichberg knew the truth or not, amounts to exactly what Larry
says here. A sweetheart deal. It is my considered opinion that these fellows
missrepresented, or went ahead with estimates having no foundation in fact,
to schmooze the board into acceptance, without considering all factors.
That is truly stupid, I admit, however, we are not on the losing end
financially ... yet.
Adding to the bottom line at USCF means, for the accountancy challenged, a
department's gross profit minus expense is in the black, and unless we have
another round of this backsliding next year, should Chess Cafe appear hat in
hand once more (or, bankruptcy scythe at his side), we will not be failing
from a lack of financial perspective, or cash flow.
On general principles, I agree with Larry that blackmail (oh what an ugly
word), should never be allowed to enter into a business arragnement.
However, from a practical viewpoint, at least in today's world, it always
seems as if the one dealing from the weaker position, kneels before his
betters.
And one other thing that I would like to point out here. Maybe Hanon Russell
is not even running the Chess Cafe himself, but through managers and
surrogates who mislead him and the board. We must entertain the possibility
(no matter how remote), that eager subordinates caused this disaster and
smudge on Chess Cafe's reputation. (sic)
Since wherever the latest USCF board goes, an information blackout is
enforced, it is difficult to say. That is why our organization has a ballot
box.
Perception and reality may be the same thing, but lacking substantial proof,
I would be loathe to make such charges in public. The ballot box, on the
other hand, has nothing at all to do with reality. As we have seen in the
past at USCF and elsewhere.
--
Tom Klem
Keep your eyes on the prize! Solvency!
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129166678.685662.258130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Executive Board Caves to ChessCafe
>
> The USCF Executive Board has caved to the
> ChessCafe. That is the report I received from a source.
>
> By a 5-1 vote the EB has decided WITHOUT
> OFFERING A PUBLIC TENDER to alter favorably for the
> Cafe the terms of its contract and to extend the
> Cafe's sales agreement until 2012. Further, the Cafe
> will have over $100,000 of its $250,000+ debt to
> the USCF forgiven.
>
> One of the signs of a sweetheart contract is
> when the side failing to fulfill the terms has the
> contract altered to its advantage without reoffering
> the contract for PUBLIC TENDER. Another sign of such
> a contract is when it is extended for several years,
> thereby locking the debtor into a position offering
> still more leverage. Finally, the Cafe will NOT be
> required to repay the USCF from profits it has made on
> the sales franchise deal or from future profits.
>
> IT DOES NOT GET ANY SWEETER THAN THAT, FOLKS
> -- if my source is correct. You get your debt forgiven now,
> and you never have to make it good in the future from profits.
>
> If true, it is sugar sweeeeet!
>
> Under the new terms of the contract, if my
> source is accurate, the Cafe will be required to
> provide an annual subvention of $150,000, less than
> half the previous figure of $350,000. That may mean
> the Cafe's percentage contribution will be about 40%
> of its successful bid in 2003. This deal has been made
> without reopening the sales franchise for PUBLIC TENDER.
>
> I am told that Grant Perks conducted an audit
> of the Cafe, but we do not yet know the results. It
> appears that portions of the Cafe's sales program that
> bring in profits were outside the deal with the USCF.
> My sources states that profits from these sales need
> not be used by the Cafe to repay its debt to the USCF.
>
> About 22 months ago, book and equipment sales
> were put at about $2.7 million. The new Cafe
> requirement is to subvent only $150,000 annually. The
> profits made by the Cafe from this sweetheart deal
> need not be paid by the Cafe to retire its debt.
>
> I am told that the EB feared that Hanon
> Russell, who has been described as a reputable lawyer,
> might declare bankruptcy, stiffing right up the nether
> region those to whom he owes money.
>
> THE BOTTOM LINE: The Cafe, if the report I
> received is accurate, has a lock on Federation B and E
> for the next seven years. By that time, there will no
> longer be any wherewithal in the Federation to
> resuscitate a once successful sales program, and there
> will likely no longer even exist the capability of
> putting the B&E franchise up for competitive bidding.
>
> Near total silence now emits from the USCF
> Executive Board. I know that many Delegates read both
> this site and the fidechess group where I will also
> post this report. One hopes that questions will be
> asked and attacks eventuate that will sting, if the
> report I received is accurate.
>
> My source, if correct, paints a picture in
> which the ChessCafe, a debtor delinquent, has received
> a reward -- not a punishment -- for threats to declare
> bankruptcy and for failure to fulfill a contract.
>
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-13, 2:31 am |
| HOW SWEET IT IS....
To be an insider.
Imagine, if you will, GM Larry Evans in a similar situation. Is it
imaginable that there would be any such solicitude shown to GM Evans if
he were in heavy debt to the Federation, as is Hanon Russell, because
of his own doing? Is it imaginable that GM Evans would receive not
only debt forgiveness but a REWARD for his failures to deliver?
I think not. The piranha would be tearing at the Sage of Reno's
financial flesh.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-13, 5:31 am |
| Well, I have imagined that. So I ask you, why would GM Larry even want a
piece of that maelstrom?
Point is, in business, you use suppliers and employees you know.
La Goich and company are running things. Let them.
Now, when it comes to the ballot box, perception is your best friend.
Ah, weren't you in favor of the Goich slate?
I just can't remember anymore 
Tom Klem
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129183959.609722.287470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> HOW SWEET IT IS....
>
> To be an insider.
>
> Imagine, if you will, GM Larry Evans in a similar situation. Is it
> imaginable that there would be any such solicitude shown to GM Evans if
> he were in heavy debt to the Federation, as is Hanon Russell, because
> of his own doing? Is it imaginable that GM Evans would receive not
> only debt forgiveness but a REWARD for his failures to deliver?
>
> I think not. The piranha would be tearing at the Sage of Reno's
> financial flesh.
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
|
Tom Klem wrote:
quote:
> It is my considered opinion that these fellows
> missrepresented, or went ahead with estimates having no foundation in fact,
> to schmooze the board into acceptance, without considering all factors.
Tom, allow me to suggest an alternate possibility: that when the
initial bidding and negotiations for the B&E outsourcing were under
way, USCF presented inaccurate, overstated past sales figures, either
by error or intent. With bidders assuming unduly high sales
projections, the final terms would have been unrealistically favorable
to USCF.
In that case, it seems to me it would be incumbent on USCF to
renegotiate the terms. Which, it appears, they have done.
quote:
> On general principles, I agree with Larry that blackmail (oh what an ugly
> word), should never be allowed to enter into a business arragnement.
Tom, by now you should know that in Parr's Distorted Dictionary, a
word's meaning shifts depending on the person to whom it refers. A
responsible critic who validly pans an author Parr likes is a vicious
hatchet-man, while a raving loonie who unfairly pans an author Parr
dislikes is an outspoken chess enthusiast. Similarly, a business deal
Parr approves of must have been reached by fair negotiation, while one
he dislikes must have involved blackmail or other under-handed
skullduggery.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| Yes, I agree with your possibility as well.
We simply do not know the ethos or dynamics involved at either personal or
business level.
The balance sheet will tell the tale, assuming that we see an honest
representation of reality. Often times, Enronian accounting methods flood
the precambrian mind set of the accounting staff, instinct takes over, and
red ink spills from our veins. We are told that red is the "in" color this
year, slapped silly (we are told that rough sex is in this year), and moved
along like a herd of goats.
--
Tom Klem
"What's that humming?"
---Susan, "What Planet are you from?"
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129208672.317375.208180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Tom Klem wrote:
fact,[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tom, allow me to suggest an alternate possibility: that when the
> initial bidding and negotiations for the B&E outsourcing were under
> way, USCF presented inaccurate, overstated past sales figures, either
> by error or intent. With bidders assuming unduly high sales
> projections, the final terms would have been unrealistically favorable
> to USCF.
> In that case, it seems to me it would be incumbent on USCF to
> renegotiate the terms. Which, it appears, they have done.
>
ugly[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Tom, by now you should know that in Parr's Distorted Dictionary, a
> word's meaning shifts depending on the person to whom it refers. A
> responsible critic who validly pans an author Parr likes is a vicious
> hatchet-man, while a raving loonie who unfairly pans an author Parr
> dislikes is an outspoken chess enthusiast. Similarly, a business deal
> Parr approves of must have been reached by fair negotiation, while one
> he dislikes must have involved blackmail or other under-handed
> skullduggery.
>
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| TRANSPARENCY
<Ah, weren't you in favor of the Goich slate?> -- Tom Klem
Dear Tom,
I favored, if you will recollect, a split board
in favor of the Goichberg slate, 4-3, though without
Bill himself. You will recollect that I supported
George John and then favored the election of Joel
Channing, Greg Shahade and Sam Sloan to join Schultz
and Marinello.
..
Basically I wanted a closely divided Board in
the belief, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, it was
the best hope for keeping some transparency and
battling going. Quiet agreement has been the horror
of USCF governance.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| And, you actually thought that Bill would not ride triumphantly on a Sloan
to Crossville when he was elected as President?
1st, they hold the phony election. Everyone who has an axe to grind votes.
Then they say, "no we didn't really mean it", and only the Goichbots vote.
What we have here ... is a failure to communicate.
You honestly believed then that Goichberg would take your advice (for your
support), and not become an officer because of the transparent conflict of
interest?
Tom Klem
"Be careful what you wish for"
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129217723.991530.63340@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> TRANSPARENCY
>
> <Ah, weren't you in favor of the Goich slate?> -- Tom Klem
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I favored, if you will recollect, a split board
> in favor of the Goichberg slate, 4-3, though without
> Bill himself. You will recollect that I supported
> George John and then favored the election of Joel
> Channing, Greg Shahade and Sam Sloan to join Schultz
> and Marinello.
> .
> Basically I wanted a closely divided Board in
> the belief, as I wrote repeatedly at the time, it was
> the best hope for keeping some transparency and
> battling going. Quiet agreement has been the horror
> of USCF governance.
>
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| PARR'S DISTORTED DICTIONARY
<It is my considered opinion that these fellows
missrepresented, or went ahead with estimates
having no foundation in fact, to schmooze the board
into acceptance, without considering all factors.> -- Tom Klem
<Tom, by now you should know that in Parr's Distorted
Dictionary, a word's meaning shifts depending on the person to
quote:
>whom it refers...Similarly, a business deal Parr approves
of must have been reached by fair negotiation, while one he
dislikes must have involved blackmail or other under-handed
skullduggery.> -- Taylor Kingston
NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but
self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Titan, has evidently
returned to rgcp after telling us how much he enjoyed
not being here. Ah well, the gent does talk like that.
NM Kingston's suggestion that the USCF inflated
sales numbers is obscene. There was a public record
that provided sales numbers for years, and any
businessman could have worked out the trends for himself.
The bottom line: ChessCafe will not have to
repay its debt from future profits. That is a sweeeeet
deal indeed for the Cafe, and it's no surprose that one
of Hanon Russell's subordinates approves of it.
| |
| parker.rose@hotmail.com 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
>
>NM Kingston's suggestion that the USCF inflated
> sales numbers is obscene. There was a public record
> that provided sales numbers for years, and any
> businessman could have worked out the trends for himself.
Obscene? Hardly. Apparently your "sources" aren't quite as good as you
think. My source confirmed that Grant Perks found everything in order
with the audit of the ChessCafe sales. Moreover, almost by chance, he
also discovered that the representations that the USCF made to
ChessCafe about the USCF's income in the most recent USCF fiscal year
immediately prior to ChessCafe taking over the B&E were incorrect. The
amount represented (between $2.6 and $2.8 million) contained
$300,000-$400,000 of income from SHIPPING charges collected from
customers, NOT sales of books and equipment.
Think about that. $300,000-$400,000 of shipping revenue declared and
represented as B&E sales in JUST ONE YEAR. The source also confirmed
that the USCF provided ChessCafe at least three years of numbers. That
could mean easily over $1 million in skewered numbers for that time
period.
You can argue that ChessCafe should have known (How? I'm not sure -
these numbers had been audited by someone already) or that it is really
income (except it has been confirmed that the contract specfically
EXCLUDES revenue from shipping costs paid by customer) or perhaps a few
other "creative" suggestions.
A mess? Perhaps. Obscene? Hardly.
Parker Rose
| |
| joel@channingcorporation.com 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
| Jesus H. C*****! This is like a feeding frenzy! Could you guys please
refrain from calling the grand jury into session until we're finished
with this situation? There are reasons that much of this had to be
done in closed session. You may not agree with what we're doing, but
you hired us to handle things and we're doing what we think is the best
for USCF, given the facts that we're dealing with. There will be full
disclosure when we're done. I'm sure that there will be those who
won't like what we've done, and someone will figure out how to impugn
our motives (and maybe our parentage) but that's how democratic
republics work. I haven't yet read anything that was completely
accurate.
And by the way, perverse as it my sound, I am actually enjoying every
minute of this - in a small way it's like a civics laboratory.
Joel Channing
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> Executive Board Caves to ChessCafe
>
> The USCF Executive Board has caved to the
> ChessCafe. That is the report I received from a source.
>
> By a 5-1 vote the EB has decided WITHOUT
> OFFERING A PUBLIC TENDER to alter favorably for the
> Cafe the terms of its contract and to extend the
> Cafe's sales agreement until 2012. Further, the Cafe
> will have over $100,000 of its $250,000+ debt to
> the USCF forgiven.
>
> One of the signs of a sweetheart contract is
> when the side failing to fulfill the terms has the
> contract altered to its advantage without reoffering
> the contract for PUBLIC TENDER. Another sign of such
> a contract is when it is extended for several years,
> thereby locking the debtor into a position offering
> still more leverage. Finally, the Cafe will NOT be
> required to repay the USCF from profits it has made on
> the sales franchise deal or from future profits.
>
> IT DOES NOT GET ANY SWEETER THAN THAT, FOLKS
> -- if my source is correct. You get your debt forgiven now,
> and you never have to make it good in the future from profits.
>
> If true, it is sugar sweeeeet!
>
> Under the new terms of the contract, if my
> source is accurate, the Cafe will be required to
> provide an annual subvention of $150,000, less than
> half the previous figure of $350,000. That may mean
> the Cafe's percentage contribution will be about 40%
> of its successful bid in 2003. This deal has been made
> without reopening the sales franchise for PUBLIC TENDER.
>
> I am told that Grant Perks conducted an audit
> of the Cafe, but we do not yet know the results. It
> appears that portions of the Cafe's sales program that
> bring in profits were outside the deal with the USCF.
> My sources states that profits from these sales need
> not be used by the Cafe to repay its debt to the USCF.
>
> About 22 months ago, book and equipment sales
> were put at about $2.7 million. The new Cafe
> requirement is to subvent only $150,000 annually. The
> profits made by the Cafe from this sweetheart deal
> need not be paid by the Cafe to retire its debt.
>
> I am told that the EB feared that Hanon
> Russell, who has been described as a reputable lawyer,
> might declare bankruptcy, stiffing right up the nether
> region those to whom he owes money.
>
> THE BOTTOM LINE: The Cafe, if the report I
> received is accurate, has a lock on Federation B and E
> for the next seven years. By that time, there will no
> longer be any wherewithal in the Federation to
> resuscitate a once successful sales program, and there
> will likely no longer even exist the capability of
> putting the B&E franchise up for competitive bidding.
>
> Near total silence now emits from the USCF
> Executive Board. I know that many Delegates read both
> this site and the fidechess group where I will also
> post this report. One hopes that questions will be
> asked and attacks eventuate that will sting, if the
> report I received is accurate.
>
> My source, if correct, paints a picture in
> which the ChessCafe, a debtor delinquent, has received
> a reward -- not a punishment -- for threats to declare
> bankruptcy and for failure to fulfill a contract.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1129208672.317375.208180@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Tom Klem wrote:
>
> Tom, allow me to suggest an alternate possibility: that when the
> initial bidding and negotiations for the B&E outsourcing were under
> way, USCF presented inaccurate, overstated past sales figures, either
> by error or intent.
This is a rather extraordinary idea - curently USCF are required to submit
receipts for tax purposes. Are these at variance with their representations
to Chesscafe? did Chesscafe not review USCF's tax returns?
Taylor Kingston, who has an intimate connection with this issues, proposes
that the purported $2.7 million per year is a figure on which taxes were
claimed, but which he suggests are inflated.
Is it reasonable in an extablished retail venture to expect 10% net from
sales - when the margin is 40 to 50%, and when the level of gross return is
$2.7 million, a 10% net would be $270,000, a higher number than the minimum
guaranteed by Chesscafe.
quote:
> With bidders assuming unduly high sales
> projections, the final terms would have been unrealistically favorable
> to USCF.
> In that case, it seems to me it would be incumbent on USCF to
> renegotiate the terms. Which, it appears, they have done.
I believe in the issue of moving to Crossville, and /fairly/ assessing
alternate sites, that USCF has done it again - asw reported by Larry Parr,
WITHOUT other bids, USCF forgave the shortfall in income, and made some new
deal.
Isn't it actually necessary for a public non-profit to act in the public
benefit in respect of its charter? We not only have a situation where
popular authors are banned, but a non-bidding renewal of a failed contract.
quote:
>
> Tom, by now you should know that in Parr's Distorted Dictionary, a
> word's meaning shifts depending on the person to whom it refers. A
> responsible critic who validly pans an author Parr likes is a vicious
> hatchet-man, while a raving loonie who unfairly pans an author Parr
> dislikes is an outspoken chess enthusiast.
You reduce people to your own level of interaction Taylor. I have often been
at odds with Larry Parr, but do not need his approval of things to engage
him in a conversation about it. If he has opinions whcih contradict mine,
should I not know about them if I were to proceed on something important?
quote:
> Similarly, a business deal
> Parr approves of must have been reached by fair negotiation, while one
> he dislikes must have involved blackmail or other under-handed
> skullduggery.
As a matter of objective fact, are there any major USCF business deals in
the past 5 years which are even okay? Have any of their decisions been made
after public debate? What level of confidence does anyone have in any future
un-aired project?
Natrol got buried without anyone owning to it. There are no other sponsors.
None.
Wakey wakey!
Phil Innes
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-13, 7:31 pm |
|
<joel@channingcorporation.com> wrote in message
news:1129232236.474319.190200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Jesus H. C*****! This is like a feeding frenzy! Could you guys please
> refrain from calling the grand jury into session until we're finished
> with this situation? There are reasons that much of this had to be
> done in closed session. You may not agree with what we're doing, but
> you hired us to handle things and we're doing what we think is the best
> for USCF, given the facts that we're dealing with.
Dear Joel,
I sense that the resentment of what is done in closed session is based on
the history of such things, and does not accord with basic membership
interests. You should understand this as an objective measure of dissent
from closed meetings.
On the other side of the election slate there was much representation here,
much of it fallacious, and none to any point. Speaking for this newsgroup as
a whole, I would say that opinion varied from indiference to hostility. If
you do not sufficently understand the cause of this situation, permit it, at
least as a possible cause of general dissatisfaction with chess politicians.
Now - having said that, having instructed you! Let me also welcome you
[having said the same to Don S] to this forum of often dissonant opinions -
but which represents the real attitudes of American chess players,
organisers and those who volunteer their time as m,uch as the board itself
to hash out all sorts of stuff.
We do not do it particularly well, but we do it - and we include
international views, and can gain comnparisons with other countries.
quote:
> There will be full
> disclosure when we're done. I'm sure that there will be those who
> won't like what we've done, and someone will figure out how to impugn
> our motives (and maybe our parentage) but that's how democratic
> republics work. I haven't yet read anything that was completely
> accurate.
>
> And by the way, perverse as it my sound, I am actually enjoying every
> minute of this - in a small way it's like a civics laboratory.
Ay! that is what it is. We occupy a small percentage of any public interest,
and USCF is established as a non-profit for no other reason [!] than to
amplify the effect of chess in the general culture.
If I seemed to contradict your point, it was in this respect, but what I
would rather say as a superior point, is welcome to the somewhate wild-word
of chess.politics.
I am persoanlly glad that Don, now you, attend these issues. It is my very
strong sense that information gleaned here is of great value as a context to
board decisions, and in as much as is possible, that the contrary is true -
that good-will extends to USCf inasmuch as it shares it plans and
aspirations.
Cordially, Phil Innes
quote:
> Joel Channing
>
>
>
>
> parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
>
>
| |
| WPraeder 2005-10-13, 11:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> Executive Board Caves to ChessCafe
>
> The USCF Executive Board has caved to the
> ChessCafe. That is the report I received from a source.
>
> By a 5-1 vote the EB has decided WITHOUT
> OFFERING A PUBLIC TENDER to alter favorably for the
> Cafe the terms of its contract and to extend the
> Cafe's sales agreement until 2012. Further, the Cafe
> will have over $100,000 of its $250,000+ debt to
> the USCF forgiven.
>
> One of the signs of a sweetheart contract is
> when the side failing to fulfill the terms has the
> contract altered to its advantage without reoffering
> the contract for PUBLIC TENDER. Another sign of such
> a contract is when it is extended for several years,
> thereby locking the debtor into a position offering
> still more leverage. Finally, the Cafe will NOT be
> required to repay the USCF from profits it has made on
> the sales franchise deal or from future profits.
>
> IT DOES NOT GET ANY SWEETER THAN THAT, FOLKS
> -- if my source is correct. You get your debt forgiven now,
> and you never have to make it good in the future from profits.
>
> If true, it is sugar sweeeeet!
>
> Under the new terms of the contract, if my
> source is accurate, the Cafe will be required to
> provide an annual subvention of $150,000, less than
> half the previous figure of $350,000. That may mean
> the Cafe's percentage contribution will be about 40%
> of its successful bid in 2003. This deal has been made
> without reopening the sales franchise for PUBLIC TENDER.
>
> I am told that Grant Perks conducted an audit
> of the Cafe, but we do not yet know the results. It
> appears that portions of the Cafe's sales program that
> bring in profits were outside the deal with the USCF.
> My sources states that profits from these sales need
> not be used by the Cafe to repay its debt to the USCF.
>
> About 22 months ago, book and equipment sales
> were put at about $2.7 million. The new Cafe
> requirement is to subvent only $150,000 annually. The
> profits made by the Cafe from this sweetheart deal
> need not be paid by the Cafe to retire its debt.
>
> I am told that the EB feared that Hanon
> Russell, who has been described as a reputable lawyer,
> might declare bankruptcy, stiffing right up the nether
> region those to whom he owes money.
>
> THE BOTTOM LINE: The Cafe, if the report I
> received is accurate, has a lock on Federation B and E
> for the next seven years. By that time, there will no
> longer be any wherewithal in the Federation to
> resuscitate a once successful sales program, and there
> will likely no longer even exist the capability of
> putting the B&E franchise up for competitive bidding.
>
> Near total silence now emits from the USCF
> Executive Board. I know that many Delegates read both
> this site and the fidechess group where I will also
> post this report. One hopes that questions will be
> asked and attacks eventuate that will sting, if the
> report I received is accurate.
>
> My source, if correct, paints a picture in
> which the ChessCafe, a debtor delinquent, has received
> a reward -- not a punishment -- for threats to declare
> bankruptcy and for failure to fulfill a contract.
Larry,
Public stewards listen to the membership, follow an accepted plan, use
open process, and conduct fair competitive procurements. Hopefully the
facts and contracts in question will soon be made available to the
membership so they can make up their own mind.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/account.htm
The Importance of Accountability
"Everyone knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids
public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means
impropriety" - Woodrow Wilson
All nonprofit directors are legally responsible and accountable to
defined classes of persons or entities. Accountability in the
not-for-profit world is defined as being answerable for the effective
discharge of the mission of the organization. This is characterized as
the degree to which leaders are independent, open, responsive and
responsible, and the degree to which the corporate direction reflects
the preferences of those to whom the director is accountable in the
discharge of the mission. The public insists that those who represent
them function openly and explain their decisions. It is thought that
those in positions of authority should publicly account for their
actions, decisions as well as the use of public corporate resources has
long been a tenet of not for profit management. The information
revealed by systems of accountability, it is argued, will permit the
electorate to judge the quality of policies and the integrity of
implementation so that the most able and honest can be selected to
govern. Public accountability, it is postulated, leads to the selection
of policies that will promote development and ensures that membership
resources are used to yield their greatest return on investment at
advancing the mission.
Volunteers, board members, employees and donors voluntarily become
involved with a nonprofit corporation because of its public benefit
mission. Therefore, a nonprofit must be transparent and makes
information about its mission, program activities, and finances
available to its constituencies. A nonprofit must be accessible and
responsive to public inquiry and must reach out to interested parties.
Those who are in positions of responsibility and act on behalf of the
nonprofit must be able to answer for their conduct and obligations.
However, accountability is more than just reporting results information
or disclosure; it is a means to improve performance. An accountability
framework identifies intended results, ensures the measurement of
actual performance and assigns responsibility for using this
information as the basis for making changes to achieve the intended
results. Reporting includes rationale for decisions, current results
compared to planned objectives, plans for improvement and performance
trends over time. Increasingly, the membership is asking for better
information on what they and society are getting for their membership
dollars. Moreover credible information on performance is needed even
more to ensure that membership dollars are being spent well.
Accountability is enlightened by independent third party oversight and
review of corporate actions.
In a nutshell accountability is qualitative information about how the
leadership is advancing the MISSION of the corporation. Being
accountable is about accepting total responsibility for the
corporations results as well as the lack thereof. In one word
accountability is about RESULTS. Accountability to whom one might ask?
Under not-for-profit corporate systems with a membership structure it
is viewed that the membership are like owners of the corporation. Thus
accountability is enforced by the membership by the process of being
able to elect or reject the leaders and their policies that oversee the
direction of the corporation.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-14, 2:31 am |
| THEY DON'T GET IT
<And by the way, perverse as it my sound, I am actually enjoying every
minute of this - in a small way it's like a civics laboratory.> -- Joel
Channing
<"Everyone knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids
public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means
impropriety" - Woodrow Wilson quoted by Wayne Praeder
Based on Joel Channing's remarks here, I don't
think that the Board gets it.
The issue becomes whether we are justified in
assuming that secrecy means impropriety or outright
crookedness in the ChessCafe deal. The assumption is
likely to be true, alas.
The belief that the USCF membership elected the
Board members to do what they think is best for the
USCF is question begging. It enforces secrecy and
cronyism. True public stewards. as Wayne Praeder
has noted, listen to the membership, follow an
accepted plan, use open processes, and conduct fair
competitive procurements.
What has happened is this:
1. The ChessCafe offered a bid to the USCF
that froze out other competitors and that it could not
come close to fulfilling.
2. The Cafe said to change the deal -- or
else. The Cafe said it wanted a LONGER deal.
3. The Cafe has been granted the franchise
until the year 2012, thereby permanently freezing out
its competitors of two years back.
The Cafe managed to pull off the above trick
NOT by fulfilling its contract successfully and
getting a reward but by defaulting, not paying its
debt and thereby getting a reward.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-14, 2:31 am |
| SWEEEET
Parker.r states that Grant Perks found the
ChessCafe's accounts in order -- as if I thought
otherwise. Why wouldn't they be in order? My source
never addressed whether the accounts were in order.
It is a strawman argument.
The issue here is NOT whether the Cafe's
accounts are accurately represented in its books; the
issue is whether a delinquent on a contract, who may
be using blackmail tactics (the supporters of the deal
argue about bankruptcy taking place!), should be
rewarded. Which is what has taken place.
The issue is why the Cafe cannot be expected to
pay up what it owes from future profits. The issue is
why there is a major extension in the deal. The issue
is why no public tenders for a new vendor. The bottom
line: if you are a friend, you can break a contract,
you can possibly make threats, and you can get
rewarded rather than punished.
Parker.r writes that the USCF represented its
income to be between $2.6 million and $2.8 million in
sales. My source gave the number of $2.7 million. He
argues that sales receipts also included between
$300,000 and $400,000 in shipping charges paid by
customers. He states that the contract specifically
excludes such charges.
So what? That means the Cafe does not have to
pay a percentage on that money. If there is a profit
on shipping, then the Cafe gets it. The idea that the
Cafe did not notice the line for shipping charges is
absurd beyond belief. IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
ANY MAIL ORDER BUSINESS LOOKS AT.
So, then, we have a deal. The Cafe breaks its
contract. Debt is NOT deferred; it is cancelled. The
Cafe need not make up what it owes. The Cafe gets its
franchise extended until 2012; the Cafe gets to pay a
smaller subvention to the Federation; the Cafe need
not worry about competitive bidding with a new tender.
Break a contract, possibly make threats, get
rewarded.
SWEEEEEET HEART DEAL.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-14, 5:36 am |
| I OPPOSED GOICHBERG ON THE BOARD
quote:
>You honestly believed then that Goichberg would take
your advice (for your support), and not become an officer
because of the transparent conflict of interest?> -- Tom Klem
Dear Tom,
I say it again: I opposed Bill Goichberg sitting on the
Executive Board. I called for two others on his
ticket and Sam Sloan to win. You keep writing about
my believing this or that about Bill, and the one
thing I believed was that he did NOT, in fact, belong
on the EB.
Not only did I believe it, Tom. I wrote it
repeatedly, probably ad nauseum. (As you know, our NM
Kingston essentially claims to suffer from
Kierkegaardian existential nausea in my e-presence.)
Another point: Tom, you mentioned blackmail
being used by the ChessCafe -- not I. You will notice
that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but
self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Strawberries and Cream
Muchacho, claims I used that word when describing how
Hanon Russell and the Cafe do business.
I did not. You did. I don't expect NM Kingston
to correct his vicious little fib. I am not saying
you are wrong, but you ought to stand up and take
credit rather than I for what NM Kingston reprehends.
NM Kingston's crawling excuse that the Cafe
relied on inflated sales numbers is an obscene
rendering of what occurred. The sales records and the
trends were there for everyone to see over a number of years.
The bottom line: The Cafe breaks its contract,
possibly threatens to go bankrupt (the supporters of
this deal have used this excuse!) and the end result
is NOT a punishment but massive reward: debt
forgiveness, an extension of contract for SEVEN years,
a smaller subvention to the Federation, NO PUBLIC
TENDER for others.
SUH, SUH, SUH, SWEEEEEEET!
Please notice Tom: I was NOT talking about gross
receipts when talking about the Cafe being held
responsible for its debts. I was saying that you can
have deferred payments from future profits and expect
the Cafe to pony up from other profits.
Instead, we have massive debt forgiveness,
extension of contract, improving the deal for the Cafe
-- all of this based on the Cafe BREAKING rather than
fulfilling its contract.
I call that a sweetheart deal, Tom. What do you call it?
As for Malcolm Pein and others who might wish to
make a bid, FOHGEDDABOUDIT BUSTER! No public tenders,
no public tenders, no public tenders.
Tom: can you imagine GM Larry Evans getting this
kind of treatment if he were delinquent in fulfilling a contract?
Honestly, can you?
Can you imagine that whole group inviting GM
Evans to sit down and, say, write his own contract?
"Larry, we hear you can't pay up what you
promised us. Is this true?"
Larry answers, "Yep, and I'll stuff a stiff bankruptcy
right up your nether regions if ya push it busters."
"Larry, we love ya. We have an idea. What about
our improving the deal??
Responds GM Evans, "You pieces of cow dung! What
about debt forgiveness? Don't I get dat? Come on,
pony up you creeps!"
"Larry, we love ya. OF COURSE, you get debt
forgiveness, we were just getting to ..."
"Shaddup and pony up, got dat, busters!"
"Larry, we love ya. Whaddabout extending your
contract and cutting your percentage to 40 percent of
what it was?"
"Barely acceptable! I DEMAND no public tenders
to others, got that?"
"Larry, we love ya. You are one of our insider
friends. OF COURSE, there will be no tenders."
"Youse guys make me sick. Not one of you have
offered to pay for my dinner.
"Larry, we love ya. The dinner AND dessert are
on the USCF!"
"Barely acceptable."
The above appears to be largely what has happened
in the negotiations between Hanon Russell and his friends.
| |
| Bruce Leverett 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
joel@channingcorporation.com wrote:
quote:
> Jesus H. C*****! This is like a feeding frenzy! Could you guys please
> refrain from calling the grand jury into session until we're finished
> with this situation?
Thanks for posting this, one could easily have gotten the impression
from what has been posted here that the deal was done. Guess ya can't
believe everything ya read, can ya?
quote:
> And by the way, perverse as it my sound, I am actually enjoying every
> minute of this - in a small way it's like a civics laboratory.
Good to hear this. Tim Hanke used to complain on this forum about the
onerous burden of service on the EB. I didn't take him entirely
seriously, but maybe I should have, since he seems to have decided that
service in Iraq would be preferable.
Bruce Leverett
| |
| Duncan Oxley 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
<joel@channingcorporation.com> wrote
quote:
> Jesus H. C*****! This is like a feeding frenzy!
You're new here aren't you son? LOL
| |
| joel@channingcorporation.com 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Yes, Father, pray for me, for I am of pure heart but seem to have lost
my way . . . isn't this the Kiwanis Club? Joel
| |
| joel@channingcorporation.com 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Larry, I get it. What I'd like to understand is whether "death before
dishonor" is your only criteria for dealing with this situation. In
spite of what you may have been told, we're dealing with some serious
practical issues, which I'm not going to mention here because we're not
finished. This board has just started to work together and this is a
XXXXX of a first problem to deal with. Board members have expressed
some strongly held opposing views on how to settle this and the
intra-board email on this alone has been voluminous. As much as I
enjoy your rapier wit, I'll enjoy it more (even if I'm the lancee) if
you conserve your energy until all the facts are known. And when they
are, I'll answer your questions. Joel
| |
| Vince Hart 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| RUN JOEL!!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! DON'T LOOK BACK! RUN AWAY! RUN
LIKE THE WIND! RUN!!!!!
| |
| Niemand 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
> Another point: Tom, you mentioned blackmail
> being used by the ChessCafe -- not I. You will notice
> that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but
> self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Strawberries and Cream
> Muchacho, claims I used that word when describing how
> Hanon Russell and the Cafe do business.
> I did not. You did. I don't expect NM Kingston
> to correct his vicious little fib.
Larry Parr, 14 October, 2:41 AM
"IS THE USCF BEING BLACKMAILED BY HANON RUSSELL?" -- Larry Parr, on
25 September 2005, at the top of a thread he titled "ChessCafe
Blackmailing USCF?". It would appear Mr. Parr's memory cannot stretch
back 19 days.
"The issue here is NOT whether the Cafe's accounts are accurately
represented in its books; the issue is whether a delinquent on a
contract, who may be using blackmail tactics ..." -- Larry Parr, 14
October 2005, 2:23 AM. Correction: it appears his memory cannot stretch
back 18 minutes.
So, who has made the "vicious little fib"?
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-14, 7:32 pm |
| Dear Larry,
I do not intend to get into a he said she said argument with you, nor will I
parse your phraseology (or is it parrrs . As any simpleton can adduce from
reading my own words (not the ones you have supplied for me), I do not think
nor do I believe that Chess Cafe is blackmailing the USCF, nor have I made
any such claim at either seerage, or any special knowledge that would allow
such a judgement to emanate from me.
Sitting (as I do), in my hobbit-ual office, as far from the center of the
chess patronnage galactic core as one could be, basking in the cold of time
and distance from any financial remuneration derived from stating this or
that about Chess, it would be highly unlikely that I would ever know for a
fact (as some here have the practice of stating) anything at all about the
Chess Cafe, or the true affairs of the Federation as they exist now.
As far as what GM Larry would or would not be treated to were he to get
involved financially with the USCF, it is pure speculation on your part and
nothing more. We simply have no evidence to say that this or that would or
would not happen. Pure speculation, based perhaps, upon past prejudicial
activities from the way back machine comes to mind here in the application
of simple logic to your post.
I have also clearly stated in my scant posts on this subject, that "I do not
wish to appear to be defending ... Chess Cafe, or Hanon Russell". So, how
could I be calling them blackmailers in the same breath? I think you
missunderstand my pathetique prose and may be viewing my comments and
intentions though the prism of vested self interest.
Let me state clearly (let us pray) and for all times. I do not believe, nor
is there any evidence that can be discerned on this here newsgroup, that
Chess Cafe is blackmailing the USCF!!
Now, on the subject of is it a good practice to work with your vendors who
for whatever reason, you happen to depend upon for financial considerations
(The USCF has as a vendor and business partner, Chess Cafe---an established
fact, however difficult it may be to accept by some).
It is simply sound business practice, in my opinion, to work with a vendor
who for whatever reason is failing in whatever aspect of the relationship
that exists. Things are not like the producers of "Dallas" (or any other
soap opera from the seventies and eighties you can name) would have the
television viewing audience and the members of this newsgroup believe. The
hard facts in business are, that it is a cold cruel world. If someone claims
that enhancing the bottom line of the USCF by $350,000.00 a year plus
serendipitous gain though sales, is not only possible, but doable, and
willing to put pen to paper to achieve that end where the annual losses in
the the department involved were nearly double that amount in the opposite
direction (red ink) anyway, who are we (lacking totally any facts, or
business documentation to the contrary) to critize, condemn or complain
about it??
Alright! Let's say this hard soul who signed on the dotted line for 350K can
only come up with 125K??
Would you leave 125K lying around on the street?
If you say "let 'im go bankrupt, too bad" then you are in the "street"
category. If on the other hand, as I have suggested more than once from
these electronic pages, you are willing to let that vendor live, and provide
actual money to the bottom line of the USCF, where there were only huge
losses in the past (putting all the politics and personalities aside---if
you can), then you have achieved (no matter what the critics say) what is
usually referred to in business as a "win/win" situation.
As I am beginning to see double, and my bladder is complaining most
urgently, I prefer to end my contribution to your charm offensive here.
--
Tom Klem
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the
dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short
again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and
spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails
while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
--- Teddy Roosevelt (Paris Sorbonne, 1910)
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129272091.381982.212160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I OPPOSED GOICHBERG ON THE BOARD
>
> your advice (for your support), and not become an officer
> because of the transparent conflict of interest?> -- Tom Klem
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> I say it again: I opposed Bill Goichberg sitting on the
> Executive Board. I called for two others on his
> ticket and Sam Sloan to win. You keep writing about
> my believing this or that about Bill, and the one
> thing I believed was that he did NOT, in fact, belong
> on the EB.
>
> Not only did I believe it, Tom. I wrote it
> repeatedly, probably ad nauseum. (As you know, our NM
> Kingston essentially claims to suffer from
> Kierkegaardian existential nausea in my e-presence.)
>
> Another point: Tom, you mentioned blackmail
> being used by the ChessCafe -- not I. You will notice
> that NM Taylor Kingston, the 1800-rated but
> self-proclaimed 2300+ ELO Strawberries and Cream
> Muchacho, claims I used that word when describing how
> Hanon Russell and the Cafe do business.
>
> I did not. You did. I don't expect NM Kingston
> to correct his vicious little fib. I am not saying
> you are wrong, but you ought to stand up and take
> credit rather than I for what NM Kingston reprehends.
>
> NM Kingston's crawling excuse that the Cafe
> relied on inflated sales numbers is an obscene
> rendering of what occurred. The sales records and the
> trends were there for everyone to see over a number of years.
>
> The bottom line: The Cafe breaks its contract,
> possibly threatens to go bankrupt (the supporters of
> this deal have used this excuse!) and the end result
> is NOT a punishment but massive reward: debt
> forgiveness, an extension of contract for SEVEN years,
> a smaller subvention to the Federation, NO PUBLIC
> TENDER for others.
>
> SUH, SUH, SUH, SWEEEEEEET!
>
> Please notice Tom: I was NOT talking about gross
> receipts when talking about the Cafe being held
> responsible for its debts. I was saying that you can
> have deferred payments from future profits and expect
> the Cafe to pony up from other profits.
>
> Instead, we have massive debt forgiveness,
> extension of contract, improving the deal for the Cafe
> -- all of this based on the Cafe BREAKING rather than
> fulfilling its contract.
>
> I call that a sweetheart deal, Tom. What do you call it?
>
> As for Malcolm Pein and others who might wish to
> make a bid, FOHGEDDABOUDIT BUSTER! No public tenders,
> no public tenders, no public tenders.
>
> Tom: can you imagine GM Larry Evans getting this
> kind of treatment if he were delinquent in fulfilling a contract?
>
> Honestly, can you?
>
> Can you imagine that whole group inviting GM
> Evans to sit down and, say, write his own contract?
>
> "Larry, we hear you can't pay up what you
> promised us. Is this true?"
>
> Larry answers, "Yep, and I'll stuff a stiff bankruptcy
> right up your nether regions if ya push it busters."
>
> "Larry, we love ya. We have an idea. What about
> our improving the deal??
>
> Responds GM Evans, "You pieces of cow dung! What
> about debt forgiveness? Don't I get dat? Come on,
> pony up you creeps!"
>
> "Larry, we love ya. OF COURSE, you get debt
> forgiveness, we were just getting to ..."
>
> "Shaddup and pony up, got dat, busters!"
>
> "Larry, we love ya. Whaddabout extending your
> contract and cutting your percentage to 40 percent of
> what it was?"
>
> "Barely acceptable! I DEMAND no public tenders
> to others, got that?"
>
> "Larry, we love ya. You are one of our insider
> friends. OF COURSE, there will be no tenders."
>
> "Youse guys make me sick. Not one of you have
> offered to pay for my dinner.
>
> "Larry, we love ya. The dinner AND dessert are
> on the USCF!"
>
> "Barely acceptable."
>
> The above appears to be largely what has happened
> in the negotiations between Hanon Russell and his friends.
>
| |
| beatchess@aol.com 2005-10-14, 11:30 pm |
| Joel:
I am looking forward to the full disclosure as you promised.
Beatriz Marinello
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| FULL DISCLOSURE?
<Joel: I am looking forward to the full disclosure as you promised.> --
Beatriz Marinello, who apparently voted against the deal.
Dear Tom,
When did I write that the Federation should not
take whatever the ChessCafe is willing to pay? I have
also repeatedly written that the Cafe deal may be
redeemable.
My point has been, as I have noted several
times, that you can defer payments until a future date
when the Cafe can pay its debt out of future profits.
Further, why does the Cafe get a reward in having its
contract extended apparently to 2012?
I can understand taking money and not driving a
vendor into bankruptcy. I cannot understand forgiving
debt that may one day be collectible; I cannot
understand extending a vendor for seven years who is
not performing.
Here is the bottom line:
1. A supposedly honest lawyer named Hanon
Russell, the proprietor of the ChessCafe, submitted a
bid and signed a contract to pay $350,000 annually to
the USCF, thereby utterly wiping out other bidders for
the franchise.
2. The USCF accepted the bid, which by the way,
I supported. Tim Hanke said that the bid was
unworkable and opposed it, however he ultimately approved.
3. The Cafe brightly announces that it will not
meet its contract, though it may be making profits in
areas not covered by the contract.
4. The USCF Executive Board, if my source is
correct, EXTENDS the Cafe contract to 2012, without
calling for new public tenders!
The bottom line: the Cafe creates a bid that
wipes out other bidders; gets the contract; does not
fulfill the contract; gets a lengthy extension,
thereby making sure other bidders are permanently
disposed of.
Neat. Nice.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| Water under the bridge.
Remember the ballot box?
Tom
<parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1129351286.044204.232710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> FULL DISCLOSURE?
>
> <Joel: I am looking forward to the full disclosure as you promised.> --
> Beatriz Marinello, who apparently voted against the deal.
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> When did I write that the Federation should not
> take whatever the ChessCafe is willing to pay? I have
> also repeatedly written that the Cafe deal may be
> redeemable.
>
> My point has been, as I have noted several
> times, that you can defer payments until a future date
> when the Cafe can pay its debt out of future profits.
> Further, why does the Cafe get a reward in having its
> contract extended apparently to 2012?
>
> I can understand taking money and not driving a
> vendor into bankruptcy. I cannot understand forgiving
> debt that may one day be collectible; I cannot
> understand extending a vendor for seven years who is
> not performing.
>
> Here is the bottom line:
>
> 1. A supposedly honest lawyer named Hanon
> Russell, the proprietor of the ChessCafe, submitted a
> bid and signed a contract to pay $350,000 annually to
> the USCF, thereby utterly wiping out other bidders for
> the franchise.
>
> 2. The USCF accepted the bid, which by the way,
> I supported. Tim Hanke said that the bid was
> unworkable and opposed it, however he ultimately approved.
>
> 3. The Cafe brightly announces that it will not
> meet its contract, though it may be making profits in
> areas not covered by the contract.
>
> 4. The USCF Executive Board, if my source is
> correct, EXTENDS the Cafe contract to 2012, without
> calling for new public tenders!
>
> The bottom line: the Cafe creates a bid that
> wipes out other bidders; gets the contract; does not
> fulfill the contract; gets a lengthy extension,
> thereby making sure other bidders are permanently
> disposed of.
>
> Neat. Nice.
>
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-15, 2:31 am |
| XXXXX OF A PROBLEM
<What I'd like to understand is whether "death before dishonor" is your
only criteria for dealing with this situation. This board has just
started to work together and this is a XXXXX of a first problem to deal
with. Board members have expressed some strongly held opposing views on
how to settle this and the intra-board email on this alone has been
voluminous.> -- Joel Channina
Dear Joel,
When people contact me with information, I feel
obligated to print it if the statements contain
specifics. If I know that a statement is untrue or
unlikely, I might retail it and then explain why I demur.
The situation within the Board sounds like a
typical hothouse situation. You guys are now
wrestling with one another. Letting the rest of us
know what is going on would likely facilitate your
decision-making rather than the reverse. What is
acceptable and unacceptable can sometimes become a lot
more clear when the policymakers are not so isolated.
Death before dishonor? Nope! World War I
taught us -- or it ought to have -- that you don't
kill millions of people for the sake of "honor," in
that instance, "national honor." But are the
alternatives as stark as you would have them?
Isn't the purpose of negotiations to avoid both
death and, if possible, dishonor?
Here are some benchmarks that strike me as reasonable:
1. ChessCafe gets debt deferral (without
interest) not forgiveness.
2. If there are other areas of the Cafe
showing a profit (I am told that some Board members
are angry that profit-areas of the Cafe would not be
tapped for debt repayment) then why would the USCF
forgive any debt?
3. The Cafe submits a bid that drives off
other bidders; cannot fulfill the bid; then gets a
long-term contract based on a lowered bid without the
earlier bidders getting a chance -- well, the
appearance is ugly, if my source(s) has/have provided
correct information.
Finally, Joel, why has the Cafe failed?
Months ago, I saw the print advertising of the
Cafe. It STUNK TO HIGH HEAVEN. Some of us noted that
it was dead on the page, and Hanon Russell was far too
stubborn to improve the marketing. He also excludes
books by popular authors whom he personally dislikes.
Mr. Russell made his own bed here. I object
that there should be no thorns in that bed. I am not
saying to crucify the man and his business; I am
saying there should be NO sweeetheart deals.
| |
| joel@channingcorporation.com 2005-10-15, 5:32 am |
| Though I agree with much of what you say, your "facts" are still not
all correct. Joel
| |
| RSHaas@aol.com 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| I have a feeling this flapperoo with ChessCafe will set back adoption
of the Mensa Model for chess by more than three weeks.
Old Haasie
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| WHEN WILL WE GET THE FACTS?
<Though I agree with much of what you say, your "facts" are still not
all correct.> -- Joel Channing
A USCF member sent me the following message:
Inquiring Minds Want to Know:
Was anyone other than the bid committee involved in soliciting bids?
Was Hanon Russell a known friend or associate of anyone involved in
the bidding process?
Was there any attempt to influence decisions on the acceptance of the
bids?
Was there any acceptance of a late bid?
Was there any change in a bid after other bidders prices were known?
Was any bidder's price or T&C's rrevealed to another bidder?
Was Chess Cafe's payment offer the reason they were given the business
over competitors?
Did Chess Cafe not deliver to the terms of their agreed payment?
Why is the board rather than the ED handling this contract issue?
Will there be modifications to the contract because of Chess Cafes
inability to perform?
Will there be any renewal/extension to the contract with a lack of
competitive bidding?
When/how can the voting members see a copy of the contract?
FROM BILL GOICHBERG'S CHECKMATE SITE
Book and Equipment Sales Outsourcing
The major issue anticipated for the upcoming January 2004 Board
meeting was the outsourcing of USCF's book and equipment business.
This had long been one of the Federation's two major sources of net
income (adult dues being the other), but had been mismanaged in recent
years and was actually losing money. In October, before I became Office
Manager, the Board had received an offer of 5% of sales to outsource
this business and seemed about to accept. I was appalled that this
valuable asset might be let go for such an inadequate amount and called
the President and VP of Finance to object and express my opinion that
far better bids could be obtained, but they sounded anxious to move
immediately and grab the first offer. Fortunately, shortly before the
Board meeting at which I feared the 5% proposal would be accepted,
another bid came in offering a minimum of 12%, and the Board decided to
delay their outsourcing decision.
VP of Finance Tim Hanke, on behalf of a Board Outsourcing
Subcommittee, was in charge of negotiating with outsourcing bidders.
The Board declared the 12% offer to be best, but authorized Hanke to
negotiate with other bidders as well. As the January meeting
approached, I wondered why the Board had not received any report on the
bidding. With less than a week to go, I called Hanke and found that he
had negotiated only with the one bidder who had made the best
preliminary offer. And the negotiations had not improved that offer
from USCF's standpoint, but actually made it slightly less favorable.
Two years before, a different Board had considered outsourcing
book &equipment sales, and the best bid at that time was made by
ChessCafe. So I asked Hanke if ChessCafe had been contacted this time
around; he replied negatively. (About a year later, Grant Perks told me
that while in charge of the office about October 2003, he had contacted
Hanon Russell of ChessCafe to inquire about USCF outsourcing; Russell
felt he had not been treated fairly two years before and was no longer
interested.) I asked Hanke if he would mind if I called Hanon Russell
to see if he was interested. Hanke said he had no objection to this,
but it sounded like he was anxious to quickly sign a contract with the
other bidder.
I called Russell, and he was very interested, but it was only a
few days before the Board meeting and he said he couldn't submit a
bid in time. He asked me to tell the Board that given one week, he
would submit a proposal, and that he was confident that it would be the
most favorable one for USCF, just as it had been two years before.
I reported what Russell said at the Board meeting, expecting
that since a lot of money was involved (possibly over a million
dollars) and USCF was still heavily in debt, the Board would surely
want to make the most of this opportunity and maximize our revenues.
But amazingly, most Board members placed a higher priority on
completing a deal immediately than on finding the best deal!
They were considering a proposal with no minimum guarantee to
USCF. Instead, there was a clause giving USCF the right to cancel the
contract after a year if annual sales were less than $1.8 million.
Hanke seemed to think this was just as good, but the right to cancel
wouldn't have produced any revenue, only allowed us to start the
bidding over again under less favorable conditions (poor sales do not
promote good bids) after a year of inadequate revenue. I argued that we
should insist on a substantial minimum guarantee and that we could
obtain one.
I suggested that I be put in charge of the negotiations and
allowed to contact any potential bidder, telling the Board I was sure I
could do much better than the bid they were considering. There was
strong resistence, but finally they agreed.
The day after the meeting, I called our current high bidder and
said that his bid was unacceptable, and that we wanted a minimum
guarantee, cost price rather than free advertising, and an outsourcing
partner who would not run other book and equipment sales businesses
competing with us. His response was that he would submit an improved
bid within a few weeks. I felt pleased that my negotiating had gotten
off to a good start and informed the Board.
But the next day, I received an email from President Marinello
informing me that I was removed as negotiator and the Hanke committee
was back in charge! This was bewildering, especially since Hanke had
stated at the meeting that he would be uncomfortable asking for
improvements to our current best bid.
I called Beatriz, and it turned out she was worried that I was
going to try to kill B &E outsourcing completely! I assured her that
even though I had previously supported USCF staying in the business and
running it better, that was no longer my position and in any event, I
recognized that the Board was going to outsource and that my job was
only to obtain the best deal. She accepted this and restored me as the
negotiator.
Incidentally, on previous Boards, the President could not have
removed or restored the ED as the negotiator; only the full Board could
have done that unless it had specifically authorized her to make the
decision. Later, I found that Beatriz would make many more decisions
without consulting or even informing the Board. She was able to do this
because the majority of the Board tolerated it. I don't think this is
the proper way to run the organization, and if I am elected to the
Board, will object if our President acts like this.
To return to the B &E negotiations, I contacted many vendors
and obtained three bids that were far superior to the one considered at
the January meeting. That bidder did improve his bid, but it was only
third best behind ChessCafe and another bidder. Compared to the bid the
Board almost accepted, the ChessCafe bid provided a $350,000 minimum
annual payment vs. no minimum, a percentage commission higher by 1.5%
to 2%, cost price for Chess Life advertising rather than 72 pages free
annually, and an outsourcing partner who merged his existing business
with that of USCF and doesn't compete with us.
A negative of the ChessCafe deal is that the outsourcer has the
right to sell at national tournaments (paying their usual percentage)
unless a local vendor has bid to hold the event. If their annual sales
including these events don't generate payments of over $350,000, then
in effect USCF obtains nothing extra for these tournaments and would be
better off selling these tournament sales rights to others and still
collecting the $350,000. These rights could probably be sold for at
most $50,000 to $60,000, though, so the worst case scenario is for USCF
to net in effect $290,000 per year, still vastly better than having no
minimum payment and the other disadvantages mentioned above. In
ChessCafe's first outsourcing year, they were too busy getting set up
and chose to sell at few Nationals, but this is changing in their
second year beginning 4/1/05.
Also, USCF must pay for the mailing (but not printing) of
catalogs in Chess Life, roughly a $40,000 annual expense. However, no
bidder offered to cover this cost.
And in a separate subsequent deal, ChessCafe agreed to sponsor
the 2004 USCF Grand Prix, providing $10,000 in prize money plus $5000
in merchandise prizes (the first corporate sponsorship of the Grand
Prix since 1998). This sponsorship was later renewed for 2005.
http://www.raa.gov.bt/contents/manuals/pfi.php
| |
| Duncan Oxley 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| Hey, pretty good LOL!
Duncan
<RSHaas@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129381942.968485.94130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> I have a feeling this flapperoo with ChessCafe will set back adoption
> of the Mensa Model for chess by more than three weeks.
>
> Old Haasie
>
| |
| chessdon 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| Larry Parr said:
?The situation within the Board sounds like a typical hothouse
situation. You guys are now wrestling with one another. Letting the
rest of us know what is going on would likely facilitate your
decision-making rather than the reverse. What is acceptable and
unacceptable can sometimes become a lot more clear when the
policymakers are not so isolated.?
Wrestling with one another ? yes but also wrestling with ourselves.
Being more open? I have no doubt that those critical of this Board?s
openness will be very pleased with how open we will be.
However, the B and E Board discussions and intermediate votes on a
revised contract had to be done in confidence as they involved
strategizing how far we could/should go in what must have seemed like a
game of chicken between USCF and Chess Caf=E9=AE=A0Don't forget, a great de=
al
of money was at stake including the upcoming sales for the 2005
Christmas holiday season.
As soon as the contract is signed those intermediate votes will be
released.
Wrestling with ourselves ? yes because to some board members it was not
just a question of uscf income versus honor, to them it was honor
versus honor as well.
In the revised contract, Hanon did relinquish his B and E rights for
concessions at national tournaments. This is a significant concession
on his part since that is a substantial money maker for the USCF.
If the mail order business continues to fall, USCF is protected by a
minimum
guaranteed income each year. If, on the other hand, it flourishes USCF
does well - 15% of gross for all revenue above $2M.
The revised contract passed by a vote of five to one but that doesn?t
tell the full story. There were several motions before that which
failed and clearly demonstrated the difficulty the Board had regarding
this decision.
Very soon, sunlight will be shed on the entire deliberations. Though
what Parr has presented is mostly very accurate I believe the full
disclosure will at least lessen the intensity of the criticism. I think
I know who Parr's source was because I acted as an intermediary for
that person in some discussions and conveyed much of the information
Parr reported on to him. As for his releasing it to Larry Parr, he was
under no obligation not to and what he apparently released was fairly
general. From what I?ve seen, the release of it to Parr didn?t impact
any Board decisions or compromise USCF in any way ? it may have even
been helpful.
So there we are. When you have an open board such as will soon become
evident regarding the current Board, there will always be criticism of
what is being done but unnecessary secrecy won?t be a criticism, IMO.
Also In the interest of openness and disclosure, I will recommend to
the Board that EB members individually, in small groups or all
together, hold on a monthly basis, Internet chats where they will
answer questions from attending USCF members.
It may sound like I am defending the USCF Board vote on revising the
contract with Hanon. That is not the case. I am against it, but see
rationale for my fellow fellow members seeing it different than I.
Don Schultz
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
|
chessdon wrote:
quote:
> In the revised contract, Hanon did relinquish his B and E rights for
> concessions at national tournaments. This is a significant concession
> on his part since that is a substantial money maker for the USCF.
Don, I have some trouble understanding this. On the one hand, USCF
wants the B&E biz to make money, on the other hand it wants to take
away from the B&E biz several major sales opportunities. Seems a tad
inconsistent. What is USCF's logic here?
| |
| chessdon 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
| Taylor Kingston said:
"Don, I have some trouble understanding this. On the one hand, USCF
wants the B&E biz to make money, on the other hand it wants to take
away from the B&E biz several major sales opportunities. Seems a tad
inconsistent. What is USCF's logic here?"
The USCF will now be able to bid out the rights for concessions to
other B and E vendors. We already have been approached by one vendor
who has made an attractive offer.
This, IMO, is good for the USCF. In general, I am opposed to
exclusivity of any kind thus opening the door to more partners. as is
now the case here for concessions.
The old contract with Hanon gave him, for example, the right to sell
space at national events to other vendors which complicated the book
keeping and confused the percent of gross sales calcullations in
determining Chess Cafe's commissions to the USCF. The relinquishing of
concession rights also partly explains USCF's acceptance of a lower
minimum guarantee from Hanon.
Don
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-15, 7:31 pm |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129390962.470974.242460@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Larry Parr said:
?The situation within the Board sounds like a typical hothouse
situation. You guys are now wrestling with one another. Letting the
rest of us know what is going on would likely facilitate your
decision-making rather than the reverse. What is acceptable and
unacceptable can sometimes become a lot more clear when the
policymakers are not so isolated.?
Wrestling with one another ? yes but also wrestling with ourselves.
Being more open? I have no doubt that those critical of this Board?s
openness will be very pleased with how open we will be.
However, the B and E Board discussions and intermediate votes on a
revised contract had to be done in confidence as they involved
strategizing how far we could/should go in what must have seemed like a
game of chicken between USCF and Chess Caf?Don't forget, a great deal
of money was at stake including the upcoming sales for the 2005
Christmas holiday season.
As soon as the contract is signed those intermediate votes will be
released.
Wrestling with ourselves ? yes because to some board members it was not
just a question of uscf income versus honor, to them it was honor
versus honor as well.
In the revised contract, Hanon did relinquish his B and E rights for
concessions at national tournaments. This is a significant concession
on his part since that is a substantial money maker for the USCF.
If the mail order business continues to fall, USCF is protected by a
minimum
guaranteed income each year. If, on the other hand, it flourishes USCF
does well - 15% of gross for all revenue above $2M.
**Don. How is this guarantee secured? Phil
The revised contract passed by a vote of five to one but that doesn?t
tell the full story. There were several motions before that which
failed and clearly demonstrated the difficulty the Board had regarding
this decision.
Very soon, sunlight will be shed on the entire deliberations. Though
what Parr has presented is mostly very accurate I believe the full
disclosure will at least lessen the intensity of the criticism. I think
I know who Parr's source was because I acted as an intermediary for
that person in some discussions and conveyed much of the information
Parr reported on to him. As for his releasing it to Larry Parr, he was
under no obligation not to and what he apparently released was fairly
general. From what I?ve seen, the release of it to Parr didn?t impact
any Board decisions or compromise USCF in any way ? it may have even
been helpful.
So there we are. When you have an open board such as will soon become
evident regarding the current Board, there will always be criticism of
what is being done but unnecessary secrecy won?t be a criticism, IMO.
Also In the interest of openness and disclosure, I will recommend to
the Board that EB members individually, in small groups or all
together, hold on a monthly basis, Internet chats where they will
answer questions from attending USCF members.
It may sound like I am defending the USCF Board vote on revising the
contract with Hanon. That is not the case. I am against it, but see
rationale for my fellow fellow members seeing it different than I.
Don Schultz
| |
| chessdon 2005-10-15, 11:31 pm |
| Phil Innis asked:
**Don. How is this guarantee secured? Phil
You hit on the one item that needs to be completed before the agreement
with Chess Cafe is finalized My understanding isf that verification of
assets and the guarantee are in process. Therefore I prefer not to
comment on the specifics of that just yet. But i will say that the
guarantee goes well beyond the assets of Chess Cafe which would is
insufficient.
Don.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-16, 2:31 am |
| BITTER STUPIDITY
<[Larry Parr is] a non-member who doesn't support and has no
vested interest in the organization...> -- Matt Nemmers
Oh, yes, our Matt Nemmers. The Board is now
beginning to talk, and the gent cannot stand my
drawing out the facts from behind the curtain. He has
become our forum state-of-the-art work of art. An
amalgam of bitter stupidity.
Don Schultz states that my reports have been
"mostly very accuracte," which as you know, goes
beyond any claim I made. I merely presented
information that came to me from this source or that
source, and I noted my cavils.
So, then, you appear to have part of the story.
There are elements now emerging that are
disquieting. I have received further information on
the role played by Hanon Russell in this affair -- the
kinds of demands he has made -- that I am trying to
confirm because, well, we really do enter the realm of
possible libel action.
I won't do it, but someone really ought to pass
on these exchanges to Malcolm Pein, a rival bookseller.
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-16, 7:31 pm |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129423402.001326.19080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Phil Innis asked:
>
> **Don. How is this guarantee secured? Phil
>
> You hit on the one item that needs to be completed before the agreement
> with Chess Cafe is finalized My understanding isf that verification of
> assets and the guarantee are in process. Therefore I prefer not to
> comment on the specifics of that just yet. But i will say that the
> guarantee goes well beyond the assets of Chess Cafe which would is
> insufficient.
>
> Don.
Don, thank you for your acknowledgement that the question is key. I would
recommend that if Chesscafe is to have a 'lock' on USCF B&E sales without
other bidders taking part, that a good key is essential!
Should I raise any other issue at all of the //same level// of importance,
it is the somewhat bizarre correspondence going on here which has brought to
light the fact that a variety of authors are black-listed.
I would suggest that there are not only ethical and commercial, but more
importantly legal, ramifications for USCF [though not for Chesscafe] as
result of this practice, which might make USCF appear to act as a political
party rather than a governance organisation for chess.
I would welcome the board's attention to this issue, and unlike the
commercial secrecy claimed for the Cafe deal, which I don't understand as a
commercial procedure at all, but suppose is a matter of style,
author-banning is a matter of open public interest and concern for a public
non-profit organisation evolved to develop chess to mainstream culture.
Phil Innes
| |
| Catalan 2005-10-21, 11:31 pm |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129423402.001326.19080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> You hit on the one item that needs to be completed before the agreement
> with Chess Cafe is finalized My understanding isf that verification of
> assets and the guarantee are in process. Therefore I prefer not to
> comment on the specifics of that just yet. But i will say that the
> guarantee goes well beyond the assets of Chess Cafe which would is
> insufficient.
Maybe you could ask Hanon to sign individually.
| |
| Catalan 2005-10-21, 11:31 pm |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129394012.867192.176630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> The old contract with Hanon gave him, for example, the right to sell
> space at national events to other vendors which complicated the book
> keeping and confused the percent of gross sales calcullations in
> determining Chess Cafe's commissions to the USCF. The relinquishing of
> concession rights also partly explains USCF's acceptance of a lower
> minimum guarantee from Hanon.
It could also mean that profits are elusive at such events.
| |
| Catalan 2005-10-21, 11:31 pm |
|
"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129390962.470974.242460@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In the revised contract, Hanon did relinquish his B and E rights for
concessions at national tournaments. This is a significant concession
on his part since that is a substantial money maker for the USCF.
Maybe if you don't factor in the cost of sending staff there to run it and
omit carrying costs of inventory and books that never sell. Just maybe.
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-10-21, 11:31 pm |
| "Catalan" <xxx@nowhere.com> writes:
quote:
>"chessdon" <chessdon@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1129394012.867192.176630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>It could also mean that profits are elusive at such events.
I'm fairly sure that at least one year that the USCF did the concession
at the National Open they lost money because of the exhorbitant drayage
charge for handling the inbound and outbound shipments. (I've know of
cases at other non-chess conventions when the union-rule charges for
storage and delivery of the material for a 20X10 booth were much higher
than the cost of renting the booth.)
However, there have also been years when the gross book & equipment sales
at a national event has been in excess of $100,000. I think that's happened
at least twice, once at SuperNationals II and once at a National Elementary.
I don't know whether that happened at SuperNationals III, though the way the
exhibit hall was handled (subleasing space to other vendors) probably means
Hanon did fairly well.
IMHO, part of Hanon's problem at the national scholastics is that his
normal inventory is NOT tailored towards a scholastic audience and I
don't think he changes what he stocks enough. (Several coaches have told
me that, too.) I doubt the USCF had to twist his arm TOO much to get
those rights back. Hopefully they took that into consideration during
the negotiations.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2005-10-21, 11:31 pm |
| WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
<IMHO, part of Hanon's problem at the national scholastics is that his
normal inventory is NOT tailored towards a scholastic audience and I
don't think he changes what he stocks enough. (Several coaches have
told
me that, too.) I doubt the USCF had to twist his arm TOO much to get
those rights back. Hopefully they took that into consideration during
the negotiations.> -- Mike Nolan
:
Stan Booz has written something that requires
answering. Don Schultz wrote that books and equipment
are a "substantial money maker" at national
tournaments for the USCF. Mr. Booz responded, "Maybe
if you don't factor in the cost of sending staff there
to run it and omit carrying costs of inventory and
books that never sell. Just maybe."
Surely, this is an exchange that can really be
resolved. Every now and then, I write how pleasant it
would be if, for once, a point finally got resolved here.
We must know the cost of the books, the number
sold, the amount taken in, and the cost of sending
staff and books to a given area. Surely this is an
issue that can be resolved, one way or the other.
There is one complicating factor: in the past,
the USCF has sent employees on thinly disguised
vacations to national tournaments. Let us not take as
an example an event in which you had an employee army
running the books and equipment concession. Let us
take an example in which costs were held down. What
does such an example actually show?
If B &E at national events does not really make
the USCF much, then the conclusion has to be:
ChessCafe got a long-term extension of its contract
and improvement in the conditions without any
competitive bidding in return for 1. Failing to
fulfill the initial bid; and 2. Surrendering books and
equipment, which was not particularly lucrative.
So what are the facts?
| |
| David Ames 2005-10-22, 7:31 pm |
|
parrthenon@cs.com wrote:
quote:
>
> There is one complicating factor: in the past,
> the USCF has sent employees on thinly disguised
> vacations to national tournaments. Let us not take as
> an example an event in which you had an employee army
> running the books and equipment concession. Let us
> take an example in which costs were held down. What
> does such an example actually show?
>
You imply, I believe, that there was insufficient work for the
employees' regularly-scheduled hours?
David Ames
| |
| Catalan 2005-10-22, 11:31 pm |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:djc7e4$fl7$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> However, there have also been years when the gross book & equipment sales
> at a national event has been in excess of $100,000.
And how much inventory do we need to carry to support such sales? How much
will be left over and end up on the discount rack? A 40,000 gross margin
once or twice a year won't justify keeping an inventory current . Not to
mention the selling costs.
| |
| WPraeder 2005-10-29, 7:33 pm |
|
Don,
We are all aware of your longstanding commitment to openness in the
USCF. We very much appreciate this more transparent chess federation
with its open discussion of issues, posted BINFO including exchanged
emails, regular and meaningful reports on the US Chess Web site, board
member presence on the US Chess Bulletin Board, the proactive public
disclosure of what is planned and the rationale behind what has been
done. Your innovative action plan to reverse the decline of regular
members and increase associated membership revenue to advance the USCF
mission is a welcomed sight. We understand the federation relies to a
large extent on volunteers and applaud the board's efforts to solicit
as well as sponsor new blood, new ideas, and diversity into its
committees and activities. I know it has only been a couple of months,
but could you help us by answering a few related questions? Such as...
When will the 2005/2006 first quarter financials be posted?
When will the 2005/2006 committee assignments be posted?
A timely Form 990 is returned to the IRS by the 15th day of the 5th
month after the end of the fiscal year. When will the USCF 2004/2005
Form 990 be posted?
When will the agenda for the November 5th & 6th Executive Board Meeting
in Crossville be posted?
When will we see the full disclosure on the ChessCafe contract?
When will the monthly Internet chats where Executive Board members will
answer questions from USCF members begin?
I understand the second quarter is just wrapping up, but when do you
anticipate the 2005/2006 second quarter financials might be posted?
Thank you very much for addressing these questions and I'm sure we
are all very pleased with the board's intentions of openness and
efforts on the membership's behalf.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/sunshine.htm
| |
| WPraeder 2005-10-29, 7:33 pm |
|
Don,
We are all aware of your longstanding commitment to openness in the
USCF. We very much appreciate this more transparent chess federation
with its open discussion of issues, posted BINFO including exchanged
emails, regular and meaningful reports on the US Chess Web site, board
member presence on the US Chess Bulletin Board, the proactive public
disclosure of what is planned and the rationale behind what has been
done. Your innovative action plan to reverse the decline of regular
members and increase associated membership revenue to advance the USCF
mission is a welcomed sight. We understand the federation relies to a
large extent on volunteers and applaud the board's efforts to solicit
as well as sponsor new blood, new ideas, and diversity into its
committees and activities. I know it has only been a couple of months,
but could you help us by answering a few related questions? Such as...
When will the 2005/2006 first quarter financials be posted?
When will the 2005/2006 committee assignments be posted?
A timely Form 990 is returned to the IRS by the 15th day of the 5th
month after the end of the fiscal year. When will the USCF 2004/2005
Form 990 be posted?
When will the agenda for the November 5th & 6th Executive Board Meeting
in Crossville be posted?
When will we see the full disclosure on the ChessCafe contract?
When will the monthly Internet chats where Executive Board members will
answer questions from USCF members begin?
I understand the second quarter is not wrapping up until next month,
but when do you anticipate the 2005/2006 second quarter financials
might be posted?
Thank you very much for addressing these questions and I'm sure we
are all very pleased with the board's intentions of openness and
efforts on the membership's behalf.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/sunshine.htm
| |
| Chess One 2005-10-29, 7:33 pm |
|
"WPraeder" <wpraeder@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1130601124.018495.162300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Don,
quote:
> When will the agenda for the November 5th & 6th Executive Board Meeting
> in Crossville be posted?
>
> When will we see the full disclosure on the ChessCafe contract?
Has a decision in fact been made if a specific B&E supplier has been chosen?
(Bill Goichberg's response to my letter to Bill Hall did not determine this
as a fact.)
quote:
> When will the monthly Internet chats where Executive Board members will
> answer questions from USCF members begin?
Is it true that only 15% of current USCF members are active in the rating
system? (If the membership is 70,000 this means that USCF have less than
11,000 currently active players.)
quote:
> I understand the second quarter is not wrapping up until next month,
> but when do you anticipate the 2005/2006 second quarter financials
> might be posted?
How will the financials reflect the debt owed USCF by Chesscafe - as a
write-off? Isn't there some legal difficulty in doing so, while still
maintaining the same vendor?
quote:
> Thank you very much for addressing these questions and I'm sure we
> are all very pleased with the board's intentions of openness and
> efforts on the membership's behalf.
Yes - I am sure if George John was here he would be celebrating governance
transparency no less than Randy Bauer will do in reply to this message.
Phil Innes
quote:
> Regards,
> Wayne Praeder
> http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/sunshine.htm
>
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-10-29, 7:33 pm |
| "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> writes:
quote:
>Is it true that only 15% of current USCF members are active in the rating
>system? (If the membership is 70,000 this means that USCF have less than
>11,000 currently active players.)
No, that is not true. Over 55,000 players have participated in USCF rated
games since November 1, 2004.
However, it is true that only around half of the roughly 21,000 regular
adult members have played a rated game in the last 12 months.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
|
| |