|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > February 2005 > A question for Bill Goichberg
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
A question for Bill Goichberg
|
|
| Hal Terrie 2005-01-21, 9:45 am |
| Dear Bill:
In the months preceding the 2004 Delegates Meeting and at the
meeting itself, we were told that the bottom line on the deal you
negotiated with Chess Cafe was that USCF would receive a minimum of
$350,000.00 for the year. I am reasonably certain that everyone in the
room, at the Delegates Meeting, believed that meant that, at the end
of the first year of the deal, USCF would be AHEAD by $350,000.00. I
certainly never saw anything that would lead me to believe anything
else.
If it is in fact the case that USCF would receive a minimum of
$350,000 BUT had to pay for the printing of catalogs - a sum which is
reported to be $80,000.00 - $100,000.00, then it would seem that even
under the best possible interpretation, what the Delegates were told
was a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Under the worst
interpretation, the Delegates were outright lied to. Am I wrong?
-- Hal Terrie
| |
|
|
Hal Terrie wrote:
quote:
> Dear Bill:
>
> In the months preceding the 2004 Delegates Meeting and at the
> meeting itself, we were told that the bottom line on the deal you
> negotiated with Chess Cafe was that USCF would receive a minimum of
> $350,000.00 for the year. I am reasonably certain that everyone in
the
quote:
> room, at the Delegates Meeting, believed that meant that, at the end
> of the first year of the deal, USCF would be AHEAD by $350,000.00. I
> certainly never saw anything that would lead me to believe anything
> else.
>
> If it is in fact the case that USCF would receive a minimum of
> $350,000 BUT had to pay for the printing of catalogs - a sum which is
> reported to be $80,000.00 - $100,000.00, then it would seem that even
> under the best possible interpretation, what the Delegates were told
> was a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Under the worst
> interpretation, the Delegates were outright lied to. Am I wrong?
>
> -- Hal Terrie
Good point Hal,
Why not have them cut the USCF a check for 250,000 dollars today and
just get on with it? A bird in the hand! I would never print my own
cataglog then give away inventory for someone else to seel at a profit.
That doesn't make any sense.
Rob
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-21, 9:45 am |
| "Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lup1v0hrb3fnc9so7d8fsfqgic9p3j5p5b@4ax.com...
quote:
> Dear Bill:
>
> In the months preceding the 2004 Delegates Meeting and at the
> meeting itself, we were told that the bottom line on the deal you
> negotiated with Chess Cafe was that USCF would receive a minimum of
> $350,000.00 for the year. I am reasonably certain that everyone in the
> room, at the Delegates Meeting, believed that meant that, at the end
> of the first year of the deal, USCF would be AHEAD by $350,000.00. I
> certainly never saw anything that would lead me to believe anything
> else.
>
> If it is in fact the case that USCF would receive a minimum of
> $350,000 BUT had to pay for the printing of catalogs - a sum which is
> reported to be $80,000.00 - $100,000.00, then it would seem that even
> under the best possible interpretation, what the Delegates were told
> was a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Under the worst
> interpretation, the Delegates were outright lied to. Am I wrong?
>
> -- Hal Terrie
Hal,
It's much worse than that. Bill Goichberg also gave away USCF's right to
earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable and
growing source of income for us.
If I understand Bill's deal correctly, this alleged "guaranteed $350,000" is
really
$350,000
-100,000 (national concessions Bill gave away, contrary to the board's
wishes)
-80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed to pay, contrary to the board's
wishes)
--------------
$170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
The net result of Bill's deal is somewhat LESS than the deal I had
negotiated with another outsourcing partner. And my deal was set up to get
better every year for 5 years. But Bill insisted he could do much better
than that deal, which the board was ready to approve.
Then Bill pulled the wool over everybody's eyes by presenting us with a
different deal, with a different vendor, that seems to have included massive
hidden costs as detailed above.
If I understand these numbers correctly, USCF has apparently screwed up
again in a big way, and this time it happened on my watch. I apologize.
Tim Hanke
USCF Vice President of Finance
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| >If I understand these numbers correctly, USCF has apparently screwed
up again in a big way, and this time it happened on my watch. I
apologize.
Did he show you a graph?
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> writes:
quote:
>It's much worse than that. Bill Goichberg also gave away USCF's right to
>earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable and
>growing source of income for us.
I think you are overstating the profit potential from the concessions
at Supernationals III by about 50%.
quote:
>If I understand Bill's deal correctly, this alleged "guaranteed $350,000" is
>really
quote:
>(catalog mailing fees Bill agreed to pay, contrary to the board's
>wishes)
I've been told that the contract calls for Hanon to pay for the printing
of the catalog and the USCF to pay for the mailing. If that's the contract
that the Board agreed to, how can paying those fees be contrary to the
Board's wishes?
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| ASCACHESS 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| >$350,000
quote:
>-100,000 (national concessions Bill gave away, contrary to the board's
>wishes)
>-80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed to pay, contrary to the board's
>wishes)
>--------------
>$170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
>
>Then Bill pulled the wool over everybody's eyes by presenting us with a
>different deal, with a different vendor, that seems to have included massive
>hidden costs as detailed above.
>
Do I hear the rumblings for another bonus to Bill?
Rp
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| nolan@gw.tssi.com (Mike Nolan) wrote:
quote:
>"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
>I think you are overstating the profit potential from the concessions
>at Supernationals III by about 50%.
>
>
>
>I've been told that the contract calls for Hanon to pay for the printing
>of the catalog and the USCF to pay for the mailing. If that's the contract
>that the Board agreed to, how can paying those fees be contrary to the
>Board's wishes?
>--
>Mike Nolan
You are assuming they read the contract. Why would they do that?
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| >If that's the contract that the Board agreed to, how can paying those
fees be contrary to the Board's wishes?
Maybe the Board can't afford to vote on a contract and then leave it to
the ED to "finalize". Unfortunately, in order for the Board to know to
what was agreed, it may need to vote on the final version of the
contract (having been given ample time before the vote to analyze that
version).
EB 04-37 (Board): The Executive Board accepts the bid by Chess Caf=E9
for outsourcing and merging USCF's book and equipment business,
effective April 1st, and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to
finalize the contract with USCF's attorney's.
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| >>It's much worse than that. Bill Goichberg also gave away USCF's right
to earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable
and growing source of income for us.
quote:
>I think you are overstating the profit potential from the concessions
at Supernationals III by about 50%.
I don't have any good way to make an appropriate estimate. According
to the 2003 Delegates Call, tournament concession sales were at nearly
$300,000. What is a normal profit percentage on sales? For all sales,
I see a Net Margin % of between 21.2% and 32.7%. And if we had bid
that out, what percentage would normally be paid to us?
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| "Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106328946.575502.212810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>If that's the contract that the Board agreed to, how can paying those
fees be contrary to the Board's wishes?
Maybe the Board can't afford to vote on a contract and then leave it to
the ED to "finalize". Unfortunately, in order for the Board to know to
what was agreed, it may need to vote on the final version of the
contract (having been given ample time before the vote to analyze that
version).
EB 04-37 (Board): The Executive Board accepts the bid by Chess Café
for outsourcing and merging USCF's book and equipment business,
effective April 1st, and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to
finalize the contract with USCF's attorney's.
- Tom Martinak
Once again, Tom is exactly right. The board voted to authorize the Executive
Director to finalize the contract, trusting he would implement the
conditions we wanted. He did not. Nor did he show us the contract before
signing it.
How often do we have to get burned by ED's and the contracts they sign,
before the board learns it has to "trust but verify" every detail?
Unfortunately, our ED's get upset and complain about micromanagement when we
keep looking over their shoulders. But when we look away for a moment, USCF
always--and I do mean always--gets screwed.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Mike Nolan 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| "Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> writes:
quote:
>I don't have any good way to make an appropriate estimate. According
>to the 2003 Delegates Call, tournament concession sales were at nearly
>$300,000.
But was that for one event or for the entire year's worth of events?
quote:
> What is a normal profit percentage on sales? For all sales,
>I see a Net Margin % of between 21.2% and 32.7%. And if we had bid
>that out, what percentage would normally be paid to us?
Al Lawrence used to say that if you make 10% after expenses on
concession sales, you're doing very well.
I think over the years they've used a lot of different formulas for
concession rights. A 10% commission is probably not unreasonable.
(Hanon's paying 15%, isn't he?) I've also seen a payment based on
head count in the $5 to $10 per player range.
Even at $10 per player or a 20% commission, $100K from Supernationals
III seems very unlikely.
--
Mike Nolan
| |
| George John 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| Tim,
My memory may be failing me, but I recall a prior board passing a
motion that required all contracts over some amount ($5000 is what I
remember) to be reviewed by the board prior to being signed. Assuming
my memory is correct, when did it change to where the ED could sign a
major (over some significant dollar amount) contract without any final
review?
While unfortunate a prior board found it necessary to pass this motion,
given the less than ideal ;-) contracts that certain ED's had signed up
to that point, it was understandable they did so. Based on what I have
read recently on rgcp, it sounds like your board might have benefited
from a similar policy.
The board's choice of ED is so critical. And, the board must keep a
watchful eye over the ED always. The board's reward for finding the
best ED possible, within the financial constraints, is they don't have
to work so hard or worry so much in their key role as the ED's
supervisor, and they have fewer problems to deal with. But, I probably
don't need to tell you any of this. -smile-
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| Tim Hanke wrote (Wed, Jan 19 2005 12:14 pm):
quote:
> ... about $100,000 ... approximate ...
> ... I believe ... an extra $40,000+
> ... I state this figure from memory ...
> ... about $40,000 per catalog ...
Tim Hanke now writes:
quote:
> If I understand Bill's deal correctly,
> this alleged "guaranteed $350,000" is
> really
>
> $350,000
> -100,000 (national concessions Bill gave
> away, contrary to the board's
> wishes)
> -80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed
> to pay, contrary to the board's
> wishes)
> --------------
> $170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
>
> ... If I understand these numbers correctly,
> ...
_
When will the USCF Vice President of Finance
be able to confirm that the numbers are accurate,
that his "memory" is correct, and that he
understands these numbers "correctly"?
"I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg]"
- Timothy Hanke (2004-10-30 08:54:34 PST)
| |
| vegaseights@yahoo.com 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| DON'T RESIGN MAD, JUST RESIGN.
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> "Tom Martinak" <martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1106328946.575502.212810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
those[vbcol=seagreen]
> fees be contrary to the Board's wishes?
>
> Maybe the Board can't afford to vote on a contract and then leave it
to
quote:
> the ED to "finalize". Unfortunately, in order for the Board to know
to
quote:
> what was agreed, it may need to vote on the final version of the
> contract (having been given ample time before the vote to analyze
that
quote:
> version).
>
> EB 04-37 (Board): The Executive Board accepts the bid by Chess Caf=E9
> for outsourcing and merging USCF's book and equipment business,
> effective April 1st, and hereby authorizes the Executive Director to
> finalize the contract with USCF's attorney's.
>
> - Tom Martinak
>
> Once again, Tom is exactly right. The board voted to authorize the
Executive
quote:
> Director to finalize the contract, trusting he would implement the
> conditions we wanted. He did not. Nor did he show us the contract
before
quote:
> signing it.
>
> How often do we have to get burned by ED's and the contracts they
sign,
quote:
> before the board learns it has to "trust but verify" every detail?
> Unfortunately, our ED's get upset and complain about micromanagement
when we
quote:
> keep looking over their shoulders. But when we look away for a
moment, USCF
quote:
> always--and I do mean always--gets screwed.
>
> Tim Hanke
Sorry, Tim, but your version of events simply doesn't pass the reality
test. It is quite frankly not believable that a contract that deals
with over ONE MILLION DOLLARS in revenue to the USCF in just the first
three years would be approved and executed without every member of the
EB looking at the final version first. And it is equally not believable
that Bill Goichberg would risk getting his butt in a sling by signing
that same contract without showing the board the final version BEFORE
he signed it. He would have everything to lose and nothing to gain by
doing that.
As I see it, if you and your partners in crime gave Goichberg the
go-ahead to sign the contract without the board looking at the final
version FIRST, then you should all RESIGN in disgrace for gross
incompetence and gross negligence. You got exactly what you deserved -
a contract that you agreed to accept without looking at a final version
first. On the other hand, if you did get to see the agreement BEFORE it
was signed - which IMHO is the only credible thing that could have
happened - then you are lying to us now and... should RESIGN!
I note in passing your rantings about tournament bookstore concessions
several months ago. The very fact that you engaged in such ridiculous
rantings at all indicates that even months after the fact, YOU STILL
HAD NOT READ THE CONTRACT (which very clearly gave Chess Cafe the
bookstore rights at the major USCF tournament).
Anyway, your whining about Goichberg's signing a deal which you
ALLEGEDLY did not authorize is no defense at all and borders on the
preposterous. I have not seen the agreement itself, but what you SAY
now is contradicted by what you actually DID - as an elected EB member,
with full knowledge of what you were doing, when you were doing it.
It is difficult to offer a rational explanation for your silly
posturing now. Maybe you have decided you should have acted
differently. Maybe your opinion has changed with hindsight. But please,
spare us this preposterous looking outrage. It simply doesn't cut it.
JV
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| _
"... contrary to the sense of the
board discussion ..." - Timothy
Hanke (Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:14:42
-0500)
Was "the sense of the board discussion"
put in writing?
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| In article <1106338285.902559.275400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Louis Blair
says...
quote:
>
>Tim Hanke wrote (Wed, Jan 19 2005 12:14 pm):
>
>
>Tim Hanke now writes:
>
>
>_
>When will the USCF Vice President of Finance
>be able to confirm that the numbers are accurate,
>that his "memory" is correct, and that he
>understands these numbers "correctly"?
>
>"I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg]"
>- Timothy Hanke (2004-10-30 08:54:34 PST)
I'm glad that I haven't yet acquired somebody to dredge up my every printed word
on this newsgroup -- although Larry Parr sometimes auditions for the role, he
has this funny habit of claiming I've said things I haven't.
Just in the interest of fair play and all, I know that I often post when I have
a spare moment, and that doesn't always align with time where I can dig out a
number that is perfect down to the last dollar or two (add the appropriate
number of zeros after that depending on the topic). I'd rather post with my
recollections than spend a ton of time on exact verification -- otherwise I'd
probably never find the time to post at all.
In my day job, the numbers sometimes blend together. What's Iowa's current
fiscal year general fund budget? I could go look it up, of course, but if it
was brought up in conversation, I'd probably say "roughly $4.7 billion." Now,
after typing that, I looked and it is $4,686.7 million. Was I accurate? Yes.
Was I precise? Probably not.
Randy Bauer
quote:
>
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| "Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote ...
quote:
>
> Even at $10 per player or a 20% commission, $100K from Supernationals
> III seems very unlikely.
Mike,
What's your point? Who said there was $100K profit from Supernationals III?
Not me.
Tim Hanke
| |
| nbreit 2005-01-21, 5:45 pm |
| Just a quick question, didn't the outscourcing deal begin on 4/1/04?
If that is the case than the first year would end on 3/31/05 and the
sales at the Supernationals would not be considered part of the first
year sales.
Nat Breitner
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> "Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote ...
Supernationals[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mike,
>
> What's your point? Who said there was $100K profit from
Supernationals III?
quote:
> Not me.
>
> Tim Hanke
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| Tim Hanke wrote (Wed, Jan 19 2005 12:14 pm):
quote:
> ... about $100,000 ... approximate ...
> ... I believe ... an extra $40,000+
> ... I state this figure from memory ...
> ... about $40,000 per catalog ...
Tim Hanke wrote (Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:01 -0500):
quote:
> If I understand Bill's deal correctly,
> this alleged "guaranteed $350,000" is
> really
>
> $350,000
> -100,000 (national concessions Bill gave
> away, contrary to the board's
> wishes)
> -80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed
> to pay, contrary to the board's
> wishes)
> --------------
> $170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
>
> ... If I understand these numbers correctly,
> ...
I wrote (21 Jan 2005 12:11:25 -0800):
quote:
> When will the USCF Vice President of Finance
> be able to confirm that the numbers are accurate,
> that his "memory" is correct, and that he
> understands these numbers "correctly"?
>
> "I try to be fair to [Bill Goichberg]"
> - Timothy Hanke (2004-10-30 08:54:34 PST)
_
Randy Bauer wrote (21 Jan 2005 12:53:00 -0800):
quote:
> I'd rather post with my recollections than
> spend a ton of time on exact verification --
> otherwise I'd probably never find the time to
> post at all.
_
Would Randy Bauer consider it appropriate to
pulbicly attack someone over a period of days
on the basis of if-I-understand-correctly
style information?
_
Randy Bauer wrote (21 Jan 2005 12:53:00 -0800):
quote:
> In my day job, the numbers sometimes blend
> together. What's Iowa's current fiscal year
> general fund budget? I could go look it up,
> of course, but if it was brought up in
> conversation, I'd probably say "roughly $4.7
> billion." Now, after typing that, I looked
> and it is $4,686.7 million. Was I accurate?
> Yes. Was I precise? Probably not.
_
I did not demand precision or exactness. I
asked when the USCF Vice President of Finance
would feel capable of assuring us that he
is presenting numbers that are accurate and
properly understood. As the public attack
continues, it seems to me that this question
should be answered by the USCF Vice President
of Finance. Does Randy Bauer agree?
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| Mike Nolan wrote:
quote:
> Even at $10 per player or a 20% commission,
> $100K from Supernationals III seems very
> unlikely.
_
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> What's your point? Who said there was $100K
> profit from Supernationals III? Not me.
_
"$100,000 ... (the approximate value of
the national event concessions)"
- Timothy Hanke (Wed, 19 Jan 2005
15:14:42 -0500)
"... USCF's right to earn $100,000 at
national event concessions ..."
- Timothy Hanke (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
09:17:01 -0500)
| |
|
| Randy Bauer wrote:
quote:
> In article <1106338285.902559.275400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Louis Blair says...
>
> I'm glad that I haven't yet acquired somebody to dredge up my
> every printed word on this newsgroup -- although Larry Parr
> sometimes auditions for the role, he has this funny habit of
> claiming I've said things I haven't. ...
Mr Bauer, I hope that you were *not* making a comparison between
Louis Blair and Larry Parr with regard to their general commitment
to accuracy in citing quotations. As far as I know, Louis Blair,
unlike Larry Parr, always seems to have made an honest effort to
be accurate in citing quotations (though I may not necessarily
agree with all of his conclusions).
--Nick
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1106355109.448844.113160@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Randy Bauer wrote:
>
> Mr Bauer, I hope that you were *not* making a comparison between
> Louis Blair and Larry Parr with regard to their general commitment
> to accuracy in citing quotations. As far as I know, Louis Blair,
> unlike Larry Parr, always seems to have made an honest effort to
> be accurate in citing quotations (though I may not necessarily
> agree with all of his conclusions).
>
> --Nick
>
I don't see anything I wrote that suggests that. In fact, the opposite
could be surmised -- Blair does, indeed, dredge up exact quotes, while, as I
note, Parr "has this funny habit of claiming I've said things I haven't."
Randy Bauer
| |
| StanB 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
|
"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
news:csr8vj$9d5$1@gw.tssi.com...
quote:
> I've been told that the contract calls for Hanon to pay for the printing
> of the catalog and the USCF to pay for the mailing. If that's the
> contract
> that the Board agreed to, how can paying those fees be contrary to the
> Board's wishes?
The board didn't agree to it. Bill did. The final contract with Bill's
friend was different then what Bill swore it would be.
| |
| David Ames 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
|
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> "Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lup1v0hrb3fnc9so7d8fsfqgic9p3j5p5b@4ax.com...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
end[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
even[vbcol=seagreen]
told[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Hal,
>
> It's much worse than that. Bill Goichberg also gave away USCF's right
to
quote:
> earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable and
quote:
> growing source of income for us.
>
It's always hard to reach constructive agreement among different people
who don't share the same frame of reference (often because they are
pursuing different goals). And this little question of mine shows that
I am not in the same frame of reference (nor on the same page, nor on
the same wavelength) --
How do we figure USCF could have made $100,000 on concessions *after*
disposing of the B&E inventory?
David Ames
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >How do we figure USCF could have made $100,000 on concessions *after*
disposing of the B&E inventory?
What we need to estimate is the amount for which the USCF could have
sold the concession rights. I think that the 2004 National Elementary
was held in the period between when the USCF did B&E itself and when we
lost the concession rights. If we knew the total amount earned on the
various concessions rights at that event, we could generate a per entry
amount which should provide a reasonable estimate.
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "Rob" robmtchl@msn.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 4:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106308945.828484.38670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
>
>
>Hal Terrie wrote:
>the
Hal, I didn't see your post so am responding to a response to your post.
You are wrong. ChessCafe pays all the cost for printing of catalogs.
Bill Goichberg
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Good point Hal,
>
>Why not have them cut the USCF a check for 250,000 dollars today and
>just get on with it? A bird in the hand! I would never print my own
>cataglog then give away inventory for someone else to seel at a profit.
>That doesn't make any sense.
>Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Parrthenon 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| RESPONSE TO TERRIE AND BAUER
Hal Terrie posted a note stating he was wrong and I was right about the
writedown of the rosy financial picture. He would like to know how I could be
so certain about something that the current Board MAJORITY claims to have known
nothing about.
In short, who were my Deep Throats?
I think Mr. Terrie asks the wrong question. The question ought to be:
Is it possible -- does it make any sense at all to any fairminded person --
that I would know important developments that the Board MAJORITY, for Pete's
sake, would not know?
Stan Booz has come on to say that I got s-and-shinola from the Board
MINORITY. Once again, a question to the fairminded here: does it make any
sense the MINORITY would know of developments that the MAJORITY, including the
president, would not?
A WORD ABOUT THE BUDGET MAVEN
< I'm glad that I haven't yet acquired somebody to dredge up my every printed
word on this newsgroup -- although Larry Parr sometimes auditions for the role,
he
has this funny habit of claiming I've said things I haven't. > -- Randy Bauer
Dear Randy,
We all have those funny habits.
Does a single fairminded reader imagine I knew about a massive income
writedown WEEKS ago and that the Board majority, voting to move to
Cross-to-Bear, did not?
Stan Booz alleges I am getting fed information from Frank Brady and Don
Schultz, the board Minority.
I hope you all understand the Booz logic here: the Board MINORITY had
information that the Board MAJORITY, including the president, did not.
Does that make any sense? I am 12,000 miles away and, even in this age
of the Internet, I am distanced from events in some fundamental ways. There is
nothing about the Federation I should know that the Board MAJORITY does not.
If you wish to understand the kind of sharp, detailed advanced planning
that went into the decison to move to Cross-toBear you need merely follow the
conversations here as Board members tell us all that they did not know and
observe their mad scurrying about.
Randy Bauer, a government employee, told the Board that budgets for the
move can be improvised as one goes along, that detailed advanced planning of
the kind that occurs in private enterprise is unnecessary.
In government it is unnecessary because in the final analysis, the feds
can shoot you if you don't pay up. The habits of wasteful bureaucratic
agencies that don't operate under the discipline of profit are very different
from those of the marketplace.
Unfortunately, we are going to learn all about this differences in the coming
months.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >You are wrong. ChessCafe pays all the cost for printing of catalogs.
What about mailing costs?
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "Tim Hanke" timothyhanke@comcast.net
>Date: 1/21/2005 6:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <u4CdnWn9uc_NkmzcRVn-1g@comcast.com>
>
>"Hal Terrie" <halNOSPAMterrie@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:lup1v0hrb3fnc9so7d8fsfqgic9p3j5p5b@4ax.com...
>
>Hal,
>
>It's much worse than that. Bill Goichberg also gave away USCF's right to
>earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable and
>growing source of income for us.
>
USCF does not pay to print catalogs. ChessCafe pays the whole cost of this, as
you should know this from the contract unanimously approved by the Board.
Also, no one "gave away" USCF's right to sell at national tournaments, we SOLD
these rights to ChessCafe, these rights are one of the reasons they agreed to
pay us $350,000. You should know this from the contract unanimously approved
by the Board. $60,000 is a better estimate of the value of these rights.
quote:
>If I understand Bill's deal correctly, this alleged "guaranteed $350,000" is
>really
>
>$350,000
>-100,000 (national concessions Bill gave away, contrary to the board's
>wishes)
Every Board member had a copy of the contract and it was unanimously approved.
Why do you think Hanon would have paid $350,000 without these tournament
rights?
quote:
>-80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed to pay, contrary to the board's
>wishes)
I'm not sure if you are talking printing or mailing, Hal said printing. The
contract says that ChessCafe pays for the cost of printing catalogs.
It also says that USCF pays for the increased cost of mailing Chess Life due to
its larger size when it contains a catalog. No bidder was willing to cover
this cost.
Nothing "contrary to the Board's wishes" could possibly have been signed,
because the contract was emailed to every member of the Board and approved
unanimously.
quote:
>--------------
>$170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
>
>The net result of Bill's deal is somewhat LESS than the deal I had
>negotiated with another outsourcing partner. And my deal was set up to get
>better every year for 5 years. But Bill insisted he could do much better
>than that deal, which the board was ready to approve.
>
The deal you supported had no minimum payment to USCF, ChessCafe's minimum
payment is $350,000.
The deal you supported paid 1% to 1.5% less commission on sales than the
ChessCafe deal.
The deal you supported required USCF to give away 72 pages of free ads each
year. ChessCafe pays cost price for its ads.
Neither the bidder you favored nor ChessCafe offered to pay for catalog
mailing, and both offered to pay for catalog printing, so a wash here.
The deal you supported would have put USCF sales in the hands of someone who
would have continued to run separate B & E sales businesses in competiton with
USCF, something the Board said in its January Florida meeting was unacceptable.
ChessCafe folded its separate B & E business and merged it into its new USCF
business.
quote:
>Then Bill pulled the wool over everybody's eyes by presenting us with a
>different deal, with a different vendor, that seems to have included massive
>hidden costs as detailed above.
>
You and everyone else were emailed the final contract and voted for it. If
wool was in front of your eyes when you read the contract that is not my fault.
quote:
>If I understand these numbers correctly, USCF has apparently screwed up
>again in a big way, and this time it happened on my watch. I apologize.
But you don't understand these numbers anywhere near correctly, and that is
what you should apologize for. USCF almost screwed up in a big way by
accepting the other bid, but fortunately, we found a far superior offer.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>
>Tim Hanke
>USCF Vice President of Finance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "StanB" stanbooz@comXXXcast.net
>Date: 1/21/2005 5:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <n9GdnRG5QYSrLWzcRVn-ug@comcast.com>
>
>
>"Mike Nolan" <nolan@gw.tssi.com> wrote in message
>news:csr8vj$9d5$1@gw.tssi.com...
>
>
>The board didn't agree to it. Bill did. The final contract with Bill's
>friend was different then what Bill swore it would be.
>
Fantasyland! The Board agreed to it, requesting only that Hanon take out more
insurance than the contract called for. Hanon agreed to this minor change.
There were no other changes.
As for Hanon Russell being "my friend," please explain why even though he has
long been a major B & E vendor and I have long run large tournaments all over
the northeast (including 600-player Foxwoods in his state), I never had him
sell at a CCA event. Funny way to treat your good friend?
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >I hope you all understand the Booz logic here: the Board MINORITY had
information that the Board MAJORITY, including the president, did not.
quote:
>Does that make any sense? I am 12,000 miles away and, even in this age
of the Internet, I am distanced from events in some fundamental ways.
There is nothing about the Federation I should know that the Board
MAJORITY does not.
In general, the board members are going to know the information
provided by the office staff, CFO and ED. Certainly in the past, the
USCF has had instances where not all board members were provided with
the same information. I would have to look for the details, but I
believe that Mr McCrary complained that some board members didn't
receive complete information during DeFeis's period as ED. And a
"volunteer" ED certainly has less vested interest in providing
information to the board majority than a paid ED, whose income would
depend upon their trust.
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "Tom Martinak" martinak_tom_m@hotmail.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 9:51 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106329914.744705.7000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>to earn $100,000 at national event concessions, which was a reliable
>and growing source of income for us.
>
>at Supernationals III by about 50%.
>
>I don't have any good way to make an appropriate estimate. According
>to the 2003 Delegates Call, tournament concession sales were at nearly
>$300,000. What is a normal profit percentage on sales? For all sales,
>I see a Net Margin % of between 21.2% and 32.7%. And if we had bid
>that out, what percentage would normally be paid to us?
>
> - Tom Martinak
>
When we bid them out, the percentage is between 15% and 20%, never more than
20%, so $45,000 to $60,000 of $300,000, not one-third ($100,000).
Bill Goichberg
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "George John" george@neosoft.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 10:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106333862.436727.235490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>Tim,
>
>My memory may be failing me, but I recall a prior board passing a
>motion that required all contracts over some amount ($5000 is what I
>remember) to be reviewed by the board prior to being signed. Assuming
>my memory is correct, when did it change to where the ED could sign a
>major (over some significant dollar amount) contract without any final
>review?
>
George, what makes you think there was no final review? The contract was
emailed to every Board member and the only change they wanted was for Hanon to
be required to have more insurance. He agreed to that and I signed the
contract which otherwise was exactly as sent to the Board.
quote:
>While unfortunate a prior board found it necessary to pass this motion,
>given the less than ideal ;-) contracts that certain ED's had signed up
>to that point, it was understandable they did so. Based on what I have
>read recently on rgcp, it sounds like your board might have benefited
>from a similar policy.
>
Do you believe everything you read here? This Board HAS such a policy, and it
was followed in every case when I was ED.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>The board's choice of ED is so critical. And, the board must keep a
>watchful eye over the ED always. The board's reward for finding the
>best ED possible, within the financial constraints, is they don't have
>to work so hard or worry so much in their key role as the ED's
>supervisor, and they have fewer problems to deal with. But, I probably
>don't need to tell you any of this. -smile-
>
quote:
>Best regards,
>
>George John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: vegaseights@yahoo.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 12:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106340624.777703.116800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>DON'T RESIGN MAD, JUST RESIGN.
>
>Tim Hanke wrote:
>those
>to
>to
>that
>Executive
>before
>sign,
>when we
>moment, USCF
>
>Sorry, Tim, but your version of events simply doesn't pass the reality
>test. It is quite frankly not believable that a contract that deals
>with over ONE MILLION DOLLARS in revenue to the USCF in just the first
>three years would be approved and executed without every member of the
>EB looking at the final version first. And it is equally not believable
>that Bill Goichberg would risk getting his butt in a sling by signing
>that same contract without showing the board the final version BEFORE
>he signed it. He would have everything to lose and nothing to gain by
>doing that.
I was asked only to have Hanon's required insurance raised and that is what I
did. There were no other changes requested and no other changes made.
quote:
>
>As I see it, if you and your partners in crime gave Goichberg the
>go-ahead to sign the contract without the board looking at the final
>version FIRST, then you should all RESIGN in disgrace for gross
>incompetence and gross negligence. You got exactly what you deserved -
>a contract that you agreed to accept without looking at a final version
>first. On the other hand, if you did get to see the agreement BEFORE it
>was signed - which IMHO is the only credible thing that could have
>happened - then you are lying to us now and... should RESIGN!
>
They didn't ask to see the final version, but they were emailed the earlier
version and they now have the very slightly changed final version, so they can
see that nothing was changed but Hanon's insurance requirement. Tim's claims
are preposterous.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>I note in passing your rantings about tournament bookstore concessions
>several months ago. The very fact that you engaged in such ridiculous
>rantings at all indicates that even months after the fact, YOU STILL
>HAD NOT READ THE CONTRACT (which very clearly gave Chess Cafe the
>bookstore rights at the major USCF tournament).
>
>Anyway, your whining about Goichberg's signing a deal which you
>ALLEGEDLY did not authorize is no defense at all and borders on the
>preposterous. I have not seen the agreement itself, but what you SAY
>now is contradicted by what you actually DID - as an elected EB member,
>with full knowledge of what you were doing, when you were doing it.
>
>It is difficult to offer a rational explanation for your silly
>posturing now. Maybe you have decided you should have acted
>differently. Maybe your opinion has changed with hindsight. But please,
>spare us this preposterous looking outrage. It simply doesn't cut it.
>JV
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "nbreit" nbreit1955@yahoo.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 1:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <1106343406.416665.315040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>Just a quick question, didn't the outscourcing deal begin on 4/1/04?
>If that is the case than the first year would end on 3/31/05 and the
>sales at the Supernationals would not be considered part of the first
>year sales.
>
>Nat Breitner
Correct.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>
>Tim Hanke wrote:
>Supernationals
>Supernationals III?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Randy Bauer 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
|
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050121224801.04844.00000158@mb-m25.news.cs.com...
quote:
>
> Randy Bauer, a government employee, told the Board that budgets for
> the
> move can be improvised as one goes along, that detailed advanced planning
> of
> the kind that occurs in private enterprise is unnecessary.
Parr, a Malaysian something or other, knows little about how budgets work in
the real world. In fact, the "detailed advance planning of the kind that
occurs in private enterprise" is not the way private enterprise operates.
In fact, private sector businesses have become much more nimble than
government, and we are seeking to learn from them. Go to any good B-school
website (try Wharton, they seem to do all right, and I've hired their
graduates) and look at articles on budgeting. Advanced planning is done on
a very short timeframe and adjusted constantly.
quote:
>
> In government it is unnecessary because in the final analysis, the
> feds
> can shoot you if you don't pay up. The habits of wasteful bureaucratic
> agencies that don't operate under the discipline of profit are very
> different
> from those of the marketplace.
This is typical libertarian BS and it is Parr's mantra. In Iowa, our price
of government (tax revenues as a share of personal income) are at their
lowest level in 33 years. Why? Because we are innovative, cost-effective,
and willing to accept that cost cutting measures (like moves to lower cost
areas -- Crossville ring a bell?) save taxpayer dollars. Who is the big
spender here?
quote:
>
> Unfortunately, we are going to learn all about this differences in the
> coming
> months.
Yes, but the USCF members, freed of higher fixed costs in New York, will be
the fortunate ones. The Larry Parr elitists who want the USCF in the big
city are the ones asking the members to carry the freight.
Randy Bauer
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-01-22, 12:45 am |
| vegaseights@yahoo.com writes:
quote:
> ... even months after the fact, YOU STILL
> HAD NOT READ THE CONTRACT (which very clearly gave Chess Cafe the
> bookstore rights at the major USCF tournament).
What makes you think that the contract clearly gave Chess Cafe those
rights? Have you seen the contract, or are you just going on rumor?
If you have a copy, can you post it here? If you're going on rumor
(or even just making it up), why should anyone believe you?
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: parrthenon@cs.com (Parrthenon)
>Date: 1/21/2005 7:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20050121224801.04844.00000158@mb-m25.news.cs.com>
>
>RESPONSE TO TERRIE AND BAUER
>
> Hal Terrie posted a note stating he was wrong and I was right about the
>writedown of the rosy financial picture. He would like to know how I could
>be
>so certain about something that the current Board MAJORITY claims to have
>known
>nothing about.
>
>In short, who were my Deep Throats?
>
Larry, the info you are given is often right, but not in this case, as there
was no sudden six figure downward revision in USCF's financial reports.
What happened was that due to the CFO not reconciling the latest bank
statements, he found a large profit for the second quarter that turned out to
be overstated and was only a small profit. BUT THE LARGE PROFIT WAS NEVER
REPORTED TO THE PUBLIC! It was reported to the Board in early January, and
only A FEW DAYS LATER, Grant Perks found that it was really only a small
profit.
In other words, if the CFO had not erred, the second quarter report would have
simply been issued with a small profit, and no one would have been surprised.
USCF usually runs at a loss duing the first half, and did so last year when the
final number was plus $286,000. This seasonal bias will be even stronger this
year because the $350,000 to be paid by ChessCafe will be received roughly
two-thirds in the second half.
There has not been a six-figure downward revision in USCF financial statements.
Rather, the CFO said there was a six-figure upward revision, but he was proven
wrong before any figures were made public.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
> I think Mr. Terrie asks the wrong question. The question ought to
>be:
>Is it possible -- does it make any sense at all to any fairminded person --
>that I would know important developments that the Board MAJORITY, for Pete's
>sake, would not know?
>
> Stan Booz has come on to say that I got s-and-shinola from the
>Board
>MINORITY. Once again, a question to the fairminded here: does it make any
>sense the MINORITY would know of developments that the MAJORITY, including
>the
>president, would not?
>
>A WORD ABOUT THE BUDGET MAVEN
>
>< I'm glad that I haven't yet acquired somebody to dredge up my every
>printed
>word on this newsgroup -- although Larry Parr sometimes auditions for the
>role,
> he
>has this funny habit of claiming I've said things I haven't. > -- Randy Bauer
>
>Dear Randy,
>
> We all have those funny habits.
>
> Does a single fairminded reader imagine I knew about a massive income
>writedown WEEKS ago and that the Board majority, voting to move to
>Cross-to-Bear, did not?
>
> Stan Booz alleges I am getting fed information from Frank Brady and Don
>Schultz, the board Minority.
>
> I hope you all understand the Booz logic here: the Board MINORITY
>had
>information that the Board MAJORITY, including the president, did not.
>
> Does that make any sense? I am 12,000 miles away and, even in this
>age
>of the Internet, I am distanced from events in some fundamental ways. There
>is
>nothing about the Federation I should know that the Board MAJORITY does not.
>
> If you wish to understand the kind of sharp, detailed advanced
>planning
>that went into the decison to move to Cross-toBear you need merely follow the
>conversations here as Board members tell us all that they did not know and
>observe their mad scurrying about.
>
> Randy Bauer, a government employee, told the Board that budgets for the
>
>move can be improvised as one goes along, that detailed advanced planning of
>the kind that occurs in private enterprise is unnecessary.
>
> In government it is unnecessary because in the final analysis, the feds
>can shoot you if you don't pay up. The habits of wasteful bureaucratic
>agencies that don't operate under the discipline of profit are very different
>from those of the marketplace.
>
> Unfortunately, we are going to learn all about this differences in the
>coming
>months.
>
>________________________________________________________________
>"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
>able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| George John 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
|
"Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050121230916.12595.00000137@mb-m24.aol.com...
Bill,
quote:
> George, what makes you think there was no final review?
Tim's comment. I quote:
"Once again, Tom is exactly right. The board voted to authorize the
Executive Director to finalize the contract, trusting he would implement the
conditions we wanted. He did not. Nor did he show us the contract before
signing it."
-snip-
quote:
> Do you believe everything you read here?
Absolutely not, especially given the fact that I have been the target of
complete falsehoods on rgcp, some very recent. That said, I would have
hoped a current board member would be been very careful to report the facts
accurately on a public newsgroup like this one, especially an allegation,
such as the one I quoted above, against a USCF Executive Director.
quote:
> This Board HAS such a policy, and it
> was followed in every case when I was ED.
That's very good to hear. I'm now wondering why Tim said what he said?
-snip-
Best regards,
George
p.s. I recently watched Kurosawa's Rashômon. It should be a prerequisite
for anyone who follows or is involved with USCF politics. -grin-
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
|
quote:
>Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
>From: "George John" george@neosoft.com
>Date: 1/21/2005 10:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <VMmId.49357$Ta2.3134@fe2.texas.rr.com>
>
>
>"Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050121230916.12595.00000137@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
>Bill,
>
>
>Tim's comment. I quote:
>
>"Once again, Tom is exactly right. The board voted to authorize the
>Executive Director to finalize the contract, trusting he would implement the
>conditions we wanted. He did not. Nor did he show us the contract before
>signing it."
>
>-snip-
>
>
>Absolutely not, especially given the fact that I have been the target of
>complete falsehoods on rgcp, some very recent. That said, I would have
>hoped a current board member would be been very careful to report the facts
>accurately on a public newsgroup like this one, especially an allegation,
>such as the one I quoted above, against a USCF Executive Director.
>
You might wait to see if that Executive Director replies first before you jump
to any conclusions.
As I have posted, the contract was emailed to every Board member, the Board
approved unanimously requesting only a minor change (ChessCafe being required
to have more insurance), and only that minor change was made.
The Board didn't ask to see the contract again before signing, but of course
they have the final version now and can compare it with what they voted on.
The idea that major changes were made, such as adding tournament sales rights,
is utterly ludicrous. The Board voted for a contract that already included
those rights and had they not, that $350,000 guarantee would not have been
available.
quote:
>
>That's very good to hear. I'm now wondering why Tim said what he said?
>
Probably he didn't read the contract he was sent carefully, and didn't notice
that ChessCafe would obtain tournament sales rights.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>-snip-
>
>Best regards,
>
>George
>
>p.s. I recently watched Kurosawa's Rashômon. It should be a prerequisite
>for anyone who follows or is involved with USCF politics. -grin-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
| On 21 Jan 2005 12:53:00 -0800, Randy Bauer <Randy_member@newsguy.com>
wrote:
quote:
>In article <1106338285.902559.275400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Louis Blair
>says...
>
>I'm glad that I haven't yet acquired somebody to dredge up my every printed word
>on this newsgroup -- although Larry Parr sometimes auditions for the role, he
>has this funny habit of claiming I've said things I haven't.
>
>Just in the interest of fair play and all, I know that I often post when I have
>a spare moment, and that doesn't always align with time where I can dig out a
>number that is perfect down to the last dollar or two (add the appropriate
>number of zeros after that depending on the topic). I'd rather post with my
>recollections than spend a ton of time on exact verification -- otherwise I'd
>probably never find the time to post at all.
>
>In my day job, the numbers sometimes blend together. What's Iowa's current
>fiscal year general fund budget? I could go look it up, of course, but if it
>was brought up in conversation, I'd probably say "roughly $4.7 billion." Now,
>after typing that, I looked and it is $4,686.7 million. Was I accurate? Yes.
>Was I precise? Probably not.
>
>Randy Bauer
The problem with your analogy is that Tim Hanke never looks at the
numbers at all. This has been a consistent pattern over a period of
many years. Tim Hanke is not a numbers guy. As far as he is
concerned, it is numbers shumbers. Back in 2003 Hanke, wrote, "Let's
get rid of the books and equipment business". Having never bothered to
look at any financial statement of the USCF, he had no idea of what
this would mean for the USCF, nor did he care.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Parrthenon 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
| RESPONSE TO MARTINAK AND BOOZ
< In general, the board members are going to know the information provided by
the office staff, CFO and ED. Certainly in the past, the USCF has had
instances where not all board members were provided with the same information.
I would have to look for the details, but I believe that Mr McCrary complained
that some board members didn't receive complete information during DeFeis's
period as ED. And a "volunteer" ED certainly has less vested interest in
providing information to the board majority than a paid ED, whose income would
depend upon their trust. > Tom Martinak
I think Tom Martinak is missing the point. Yes, Board members have been
denied information in the past, especially when the Board MAJORITY so dictates.
As for the current instance, why should Bill Goichberg tell me anything that
tends -- as some here argue -- to make him look weak in the accounting
department?
The alternative explanation to my being informed 12,000 miles away while
the Board MAJORITY being uninformed is that they were informed before voting
for Crossville but did not wish that YOU also know the situation -- a logical,
straightforward explanation expressed byt Mr. Martinak himself on a related
matter to Tim Hanke.
I understand that there are some who do not wish to draw the logical
conclusion here because it speaks poorly of the honesty of this Board. It means
standing against this establishment.
Mind you, to be absolutely fair, I make no claim that the logical
conclusion is correct. I have stipulated several times that I don't have a
smoking gun proving the Board majority knew about the writedown in advance of
the Crossville vote and the sudden speeding up of the move.
BOOZ'S DOUBLE STANDARD
<Finally, Beatriz Marinello's status at the Federation: we have been told
she is to receive only her "expenses" during the period when the move to
Crossville is made. I have heard -- ah, through the grapevine -- that those
personal expenses will be about $30,000. Sounds like a job to me -- yet another
example of "volunteer" meaning "hired help."> -- Larry Parr
<Expenses are expenses not compensation. Now hear this, she is working very
hard and her only compensation has been a ration of shit from the old guard.>
-- Stan Booz
Note that our resident CPA, with his usual reference to fecal matter, does
not deny USCF president Beatriz Marinello is getting around $30,000 for her
stint as a "volunteer" for up to six months. She is merely getting reimbursed
for "expenses."
Yet in other posts our resident CPA blasted Bill Goichberg for "stealing"
$25,000 for his stint as a "volunteer" for a whole year. My objection, however,
was that the board passed a motion Bill would receive "no pay" in order to
defuse opposition to his serving as EB when they intended to pay him all along.
George John suggests that the movie "Rashoman" might serve as a good primer
to understanding, among other things, how "no pay" really means "pay." A study
of the word "doublethink" in Orwell's "1984" might also prove useful in
understanding the deception of the current USCF Executive Board.
And so it goes.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
| |
| Parrthenon 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
|
THE LARRY PARR ELITISTS
<Yes, but the USCF members, freed of higher fixed costs in New York, will be
the fortunate ones. The Larry Parr elitists who want the USCF in the big city
are the ones asking the members to carry the freight.> -- Randy Bauer
As for being one of the "elitists," that is probably better than being
called a Sam Sloan co-slummer. Even Sam may one day get to become an elitist.
USCF is a small business. Certainly, private enterprise is more nimble
than government and always has been. Monday comes before Tuesday. That's
nothing new.
Certainly, any private company is constantly reordering spending priorities
when required, and the work gets done very quickly indeed. Even conferences
often are over in a couple of breaths.
Having said that, successful businesses are very careful budgeting and
don't stake the future by flying into the night without a charted course.
These dodos decided on the move to Cross-to-Bear without costing it. The answer
tossed at those of us who note what has happened and that estimates are
skyrocketting is that spending will just be allocated as the process moves
along. Randy Bauer makes no attempt to deny this.
Never mind that the kitty might be empty by the time the USCF gets there. I
heard not long ago that there is dissatisfaction with the architect's design as
well as his exorbitant fee for the proposed building in Cross-to-Bear.
Did any of you notice that flare-up about libertarians in the mighty
Bauer invective? He talks about government being innovative as if there were a
meaningful bottom line of profit discipline, which there is not, never was, and
cannot be. For, in the end, if you don't pay what they want, they can shoot
anyone who carries defiance to the bitter end.
The USCF cannot shoot members who don't renew or who fail to order
products. One might wish to shoot them, but I cannot seem to work out a
libertarian argument to justify it. About the only possibility would be to
extend John Locke's natural man construct to cover USCF membership and sales
purchases, an attenuation that is utterly over the top.
Within libertarian theory, then, executions of financially refractory
USCF members are unjustifiable.
Sigh.
________________________________________________________________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
| On 22 Jan 2005 04:09:16 GMT, recmate@aol.com (Recmate) wrote:
quote:
>
>George, what makes you think there was no final review? The contract was
>emailed to every Board member and the only change they wanted was for Hanon to
>be required to have more insurance. He agreed to that and I signed the
>contract which otherwise was exactly as sent to the Board.
It seems from this that Tim Hanke had the contract before it was
signed, but did not bother to read it, and now complains about this.
This is typical Hanke.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-01-22, 6:45 am |
| On 22 Jan 2005 03:52:16 GMT, recmate@aol.com (Recmate) wrote:
quote:
>
>USCF does not pay to print catalogs. ChessCafe pays the whole cost of this, as
>you should know this from the contract unanimously approved by the Board.
>
>Also, no one "gave away" USCF's right to sell at national tournaments, we SOLD
>these rights to ChessCafe, these rights are one of the reasons they agreed to
>pay us $350,000. You should know this from the contract unanimously approved
>by the Board. $60,000 is a better estimate of the value of these rights.
>
>
>Every Board member had a copy of the contract and it was unanimously approved.
>Why do you think Hanon would have paid $350,000 without these tournament
>rights?
>
>
>I'm not sure if you are talking printing or mailing, Hal said printing. The
>contract says that ChessCafe pays for the cost of printing catalogs.
>
>It also says that USCF pays for the increased cost of mailing Chess Life due to
>its larger size when it contains a catalog. No bidder was willing to cover
>this cost.
>
>Nothing "contrary to the Board's wishes" could possibly have been signed,
>because the contract was emailed to every member of the Board and approved
>unanimously.
>
>
>
>The deal you supported had no minimum payment to USCF, ChessCafe's minimum
>payment is $350,000.
>
>The deal you supported paid 1% to 1.5% less commission on sales than the
>ChessCafe deal.
>
>The deal you supported required USCF to give away 72 pages of free ads each
>year. ChessCafe pays cost price for its ads.
>
>Neither the bidder you favored nor ChessCafe offered to pay for catalog
>mailing, and both offered to pay for catalog printing, so a wash here.
>
>The deal you supported would have put USCF sales in the hands of someone who
>would have continued to run separate B & E sales businesses in competiton with
>USCF, something the Board said in its January Florida meeting was unacceptable.
> ChessCafe folded its separate B & E business and merged it into its new USCF
>business.
>
>
>You and everyone else were emailed the final contract and voted for it. If
>wool was in front of your eyes when you read the contract that is not my fault.
>
>
>But you don't understand these numbers anywhere near correctly, and that is
>what you should apologize for. USCF almost screwed up in a big way by
>accepting the other bid, but fortunately, we found a far superior offer.
>
>Bill Goichberg
I am reposting this response from Bill Goichberg, just to point out
the serious problems with the Malcolm Pein bid.
Sam Sloan
| |
|
|
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050122041249.21924.00000165@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
quote:
> PARR'S DOUBLE SPEAK
>
> <Finally, Beatriz Marinello's status at the Federation: we have been
> told
> she is to receive only her "expenses" during the period when the move to
> Crossville is made. I have heard -- ah, through the grapevine -- that
> those
> personal expenses will be about $30,000. Sounds like a job to me -- yet
> another
> example of "volunteer" meaning "hired help."> -- Larry Parr
>
> <Expenses are expenses not compensation. Now hear this, she is working
> very
> hard and her only compensation has been a ration of shit from the old
> guard.>
> -- Stan Booz
>
> Note that our resident CPA, with his usual reference to fecal matter,
> does
> not deny USCF president Beatriz Marinello is getting around $30,000 for
> her
> stint as a "volunteer" for up to six months. She is merely getting
> reimbursed
> for "expenses."
Nor does he confirm it.
quote:
> Yet in other posts our resident CPA blasted Bill Goichberg for
> "stealing"
> $25,000 for his stint as a "volunteer" for a whole year. My objection,
> however,
> was that the board passed a motion Bill would receive "no pay" in order to
> defuse opposition to his serving as EB when they intended to pay him all
> along.
Note that Parr now begins to offer grudging approval of the raid on our
treasury. There is a big difference between being reimbursed for
out-of-pocket expenses and being given 25,000 for volunteer work after
supplying the givers with stateemnts that overstated cash by 200,000.
| |
|
|
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050122042754.21924.00000166@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
quote:
>
> THE LARRY PARR ELITISTS
>
> <Yes, but the USCF members, freed of higher fixed costs in New York, will
> be
> the fortunate ones. The Larry Parr elitists who want the USCF in the big
> city
> are the ones asking the members to carry the freight.> -- Randy Bauer
>
> As for being one of the "elitists," that is probably better than being
> called a Sam Sloan co-slummer. Even Sam may one day get to become an
> elitist.
I'd rather see Sam become a former member. Certainly at the least we need a
provision barring admitted perverts from running for the board. This is a
guy who on his website brags about participating in the sexual exploitation
of preteen girls. For Larry to admit that he co-slums with Sam is
remarkable.
| |
| Wickdeer3 2005-01-22, 9:45 am |
| In a fit of boredom, I reach behind my killfile, and find that Louis Blair has
written:
quote:
>
>Mike Nolan wrote:
>
>_
>Tim Hanke wrote:
>
>_
> "$100,000 ... (the approximate value of
> the national event concessions)"
> - Timothy Hanke (Wed, 19 Jan 2005
> 15:14:42 -0500)
>
> "... USCF's right to earn $100,000 at
> national event concessions ..."
> - Timothy Hanke (Fri, 21 Jan 2005
> 09:17:01 -0500)
>
>
What in the world drove Mr. Blair to assume that the Supernationals are the
only national event?
Wick Deer
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050121230149.12595.00000135@mb-m24.aol.com...
quote:
>
> Fantasyland! The Board agreed to it, requesting only that Hanon take out
> more
> insurance than the contract called for. Hanon agreed to this minor
> change.
> There were no other changes.
Bill,
Isn't it true you never showed the contract to the board before you signed
it?
Isn't it true there was a furor on the board this past summer when we
discovered you had agreed to contract provisions we didn't know about?
Tim Hanke
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote ...
quote:
>
> There has not been a six-figure downward revision in USCF financial
> statements.
> Rather, the CFO said there was a six-figure upward revision, but he was
> proven
> wrong before any figures were made public.
>
> Bill Goichberg
In fairness to Bill, I believe he is stating the case accurately in the
above paragraph.
However, the extremely slipshod accounting during Bill's tenure did mislead
the board into thinking our cash position was significantly better than it
was, and this misinformation contributed to our awarding Bill a $25,000 cash
bonus at our December meeting.
Would we have given Bill the same bonus anyway? Don't know. Did Bill deserve
the same cash bonus anyway? Hard for me to say. I was frequently annoyed at
Bill during the last year, and I am annoyed at him now, so I have to confess
I could not answer this question in an unbiased manner.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
|
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
>
> If I understand Bill's deal correctly, this alleged "guaranteed
$350,000" is
quote:
> really
>
> $350,000
> -100,000 (national concessions Bill gave away, contrary to the
board's
quote:
> wishes)
> -80,000+ (catalog mailing fees Bill agreed to pay, contrary to the
board's
quote:
> wishes)
> --------------
> $170,000 (or less) profit to USCF
May I suggest a revision?
350K
-100K for St. Bill giveaway
-80K for St. Bill blunderaway
+25K for return of graft by St. Bill
------------
195K
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| >The alternative explanation to my being informed 12,000 miles away
while the Board MAJORITY being uninformed is that they were informed
before voting for Crossville but did not wish that YOU also know the
situation
Of course, we will only be able to decide which alternative is most
likely if we knew who informed you. Since you haven't told us, it
seems reasonable to assume that it is someone related to the Board
MINORITY, with whom you agree about the move to Crossville. Of course,
only you can present the evidence to dissuade us from this reasonable
presumption.
- Tom Martinak
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050121225216.12595.00000134@mb-m24.aol.com...
quote:
>
> Also, no one "gave away" USCF's right to sell at national tournaments, we
> SOLD
> these rights to ChessCafe, these rights are one of the reasons they agreed
> to
> pay us $350,000.
The above statement by Bill Goichberg is disingenuous in the extreme. Yes,
USCF apparently sold national tournament concession rights to ChessCafe, and
that is one of the reasons they agreed to pay us $350,000.
However, the board did not know USCF was selling those rights. Those rights
were not packaged into the competing deals with other vendors. This is one
of the underhanded ways Bill Goichberg made "his" ChessCafe deal look better
than competing deals.
I'm not the only board member who was blindsided by Bill's contract, which
he now claims everyone knew about. We were all blindsided. For example, on
Aug. 27, 2004, Don Schultz wrote to the board:
"Wow! This is a new element. Why should we give away the huge book sale
profits from the super nationals etc. I would not have voted for Chess Cafe
had I known we would consider doing this. this wasn't part of our evaluation
favoring Hanon over other bidders and Hanon may have expected that, but he
should have said so."
On Aug. 29, 2004, Beatriz Marinello with dismay asked Bill:
"Bill, Did you include in the contract sales at USCF tournaments?"
On Aug. 30, Beatriz wrote:
"I was shocked to find out about the language in the contract. The
Executive Board clearly spelled out that we did not wish to include in the
contract concessions rights for any tournament.
"I am disappointed. Tim Hanke was right about his business approach in
these negotiations."
She added:
"At conference call Don Schultz and I insisted in not giving out the
concessions rights for the tournaments. The expectation was that you will
make the necessary adjustment prior to signing the contract."
During board discussion, I scoffed at the idea that ChessCafe could possibly
make enough money from the deal Bill was proposing. Little did I know, Bill
would negotiate a deal that included benefits to ChessCafe that had not been
included in potential deals with competing vendors.
No wonder ChessCafe was willing to pay more than any other vendor! Bill gave
them concession rights at all USCF national events, and Bill agreed to mail
their catalogs at USCF's expense.
Even so, ChessCafe does not appear to be making any money on the deal. It
seems I was right all along about the unfeasibility of this deal from our
partner's point of view. If Chess Cafe can't make any money, what's going to
happen to this deal? How can it possibly survive?
This is what I wrote to Bill on Aug. 28, 2004:
"Bill,
"As USCF Vice President of Finance I am taking a close interest in this
matter.
"With all due respect, I am getting more and more irritated.
"In Fort Lauderdale two weeks ago, when you started saying we should give
our national tournament concessions to Hanon Russell without a bidding
process, you were shouted down by everyone, and you appeared to have
embraced reality after that.
"Now you seem to have returned, unashamed, to your position that the
national tournament concessions belong to Hanon Russell, and if he doesn't
want them, THEN we can open them for bids.
"In some of your recent emails, you also seem to have embraced the startling
notion that Hanon Russell can sell at our national tournaments without
paying us ANYTHING, except as part of the already agreed-upon payments. This
would reduce to $0 the value of our national concessions, because we would
expect to make large sums (over and above what Hanon Russell is obligated to
pay us) by giving the concessions to anyone else.
"This is not the understanding of the Board. It is not what was envisioned
by the Board during the discussions about outsourcing. You are trying to
change the rules of the game during the game.
"This Chess Cafe deal is looking more and more screwed up, in my opinion.
All of the warnings I gave during the negotiations are now turning into real
problems.
"You negotiated an extremely ambitious deal with Hanon Russell, in which
USCF was "guaranteed" (your word) $350,000 minimum per year. At that time,
when I expressed serious doubts and concerns that Hanon could make enough
profit to pay USCF $30,000 per month, you said that was his problem, not
ours.
"Now other people besides me are starting to realize that the $350,000 is
not "guaranteed" at all, and we should start worrying about collecting it.
"In this bad situation, your response is to give away our national
tournament concessions to Hanon Russell. This of course would be good for
Hanon Russell, but not necessarily good for USCF.
"I see your maneuvering as a giant fig leaf to try to make your dubious
outsourcing deal look good. You sold the Board on making the deal with Hanon
because of the big revenue numbers you promised us. Now it turns out these
big numbers may be wrong. In my opinion, and not just mine, you are trying
to change the terms of the outsourcing deal in order to save it.
"I would be slightly happier, if you would at least have the decency to
admit what you are doing. Then, at least, we would all have our cards on the
table, and we could honestly discuss our options."
Tim Hanke
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "Tim Hanke" timothyhanke@comcast.net
>Date: 1/22/2005 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9aCdnY2LqN5o5m_cRVn-qA@comcast.com>
>
>"Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050121230149.12595.00000135@mb-m24.aol.com...
>
>Bill,
>
>Isn't it true you never showed the contract to the board before you signed
>it?
>
The Board didn't ask to see a copy before signing with Hanon's insurance
requirements raised. There were no other changes from the contract that the
Board approved while also requesting that insurance change. Of course you have
copies of the final contract, and if you compare it with the one emailed to the
Board, you will see only the insurance change.
quote:
>Isn't it true there was a furor on the board this past summer when we
>discovered you had agreed to contract provisions we didn't know about?
>
It's true that you and Beatriz were upset that Hanon has the tournament rights.
You said that the contract was changed to include this after you voted for it,
and Beatriz said that the Board asked me to negotiate away Hanon's tournament
rights before signing and I failed to do so, but both of you are mistaken.
If you and Beatriz didn't know about the tournament rights, it could only be
because you didn't read the contract carefully.
Bill Goichberg
quote:
>Tim Hanke
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050122033124.08487.00000213@mb-m06.aol.com...
quote:
>
> Probably he didn't read the contract he was sent carefully, and didn't
> notice
> that ChessCafe would obtain tournament sales rights.
>
> Bill Goichberg
As I made clear in another posting two minutes ago, no one on the board
realized Bill Goichberg had given away the store in this fashion, and all of
us believed we had instructed him otherwise. I have quoted emails from three
board members who were dismayed at what he did, and I could quote more.
One of the profound difficulties in dealing with Bill Goichberg is that he
is extremely slippery. This would be great if he was your lawyer, but it is
a disaster when he is your executive director and doesn't feel like
following the directions he has been given. Everybody on the board is a
volunteer. Who has time to follow this kind of guy around and look over his
shoulder constantly to verify he is doing what he is supposed to?
Particularly when he has a reason and an answer for everything, and you have
to wade through reams of double-talk to get to the truth.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> writes:
quote:
> As I made clear in another posting two minutes ago, no one on the board
> realized Bill Goichberg had given away the store in this fashion, and all of
> us believed we had instructed him otherwise. I have quoted emails from three
> board members who were dismayed at what he did, and I could quote more.
I don't understand this. Did the EB get copies of the contract and ask
for no changes except Hanon's insurance, or not?
If the EB got those copies, were there any changes made in the final
contract other than the insurance?
I remember there was some dispute here about whether Hanon was
entitled to that tournament deal, or whether it was a matter of
interpretation. Is the final contract clear about it, or not?
Certainly, the $350k figure was plastered all over rgcp. If you're
saying it had this sneaky tournament clause and the board missed it,
that sounds like an argument to have posted the proposed contract to
rgcp before signing it. Someone surely would have read it more
carefully than the board appears to have done.
| |
| Recmate 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| >Subject: Re: A question for Bill Goichberg
quote:
>From: "StanB" stanbooz@comXXXcast.net
>Date: 1/22/2005 6:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9bmdnQHqirEfwm_cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>
>
>
>"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:20050122041249.21924.00000165@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
>
>
>Nor does he confirm it.
>
>
>Note that Parr now begins to offer grudging approval of the raid on our
>treasury. There is a big difference between being reimbursed for
>out-of-pocket expenses and being given 25,000 for volunteer work after
>supplying the givers with stateemnts that overstated cash by 200,000.
>
>
When I applied for ED in January, I made the following offer that the Board
accepted:
I would work without pay for all of 2004 if necessary. However, the Board
would consider at its August meeting whether USCF finances would allow me to
begin getting paid.
Under this agreement, there was no way that I would receive pay for work prior
to August, so when the Board said I was an unpaid volunteer in January, and
after that but prior to August, this was correct.
At that August meeting, the Board broke its word and failed to consider whether
to begin paying me. I didn't make a fuss (after all, they could have just said
"no pay for you" and I was pledged to complete the year anyway), but now I
realize that at this point it became no longer clear that I was a volunteer.
At its September meeting the Board again failed to consider whether to begin
paying me, even though a Board member requested this discussion.
Only at its December meeting, less than two weeks before the end of the year,
did the Board finally get around to consider what it had promised to consider
in August.
I consider that I worked as an unpaid volunteer ED between Jan 2004 and Aug
2004, an unpaid volunteer Office Manager between Nov 2003 and Jan 2004, and
that the pay I received was for Aug 2004 through Dec 2004.
Larry Parr's point that the Board misled the members about my status is
correct, but only for the period Aug through Dec 2004. Having failed to
consider my pay as promised, they should have at least announced that it was
possible that I would be paid for work done after the August meetings.
I kept expecting a Board announcement of some kind after August but as this
didn't happen, perhaps I should have made my own at some point. It would have
sounded a bit odd, "I don't know if I'm still a volunteer, I might be paid
starting August," but it would have avoided the misleading impression that has
now been created.
Incidentally, during my 13 1/2 months as Office Manager and Executive Director,
I paid all my own expenses for airfare, restaurants, car rental, and parking,
submitting no reimbursement requests for any of my expenses. USCF did pay
directly for my hotel expenses.
Bill Goichberg
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-22, 2:50 pm |
| "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xmzv14bmp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
quote:
> "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> writes:
>
> I don't understand this. Did the EB get copies of the contract and ask
> for no changes except Hanon's insurance, or not?
>
> If the EB got those copies, were there any changes made in the final
> contract other than the insurance?
>
> I remember there was some dispute here about whether Hanon was
> entitled to that tournament deal, or whether it was a matter of
> interpretation. Is the final contract clear about it, or not?
>
> Certainly, the $350k figure was plastered all over rgcp. If you're
> saying it had this sneaky tournament clause and the board missed it,
> that sounds like an argument to have posted the proposed contract to
> rgcp before signing it. Someone surely would have read it more
> carefully than the board appears to have done.
Paul,
These are very fair questions. Perhaps this is one contract that rgcp
readers could have helped us with.
Here's the problem, as I see it: The board had extensive discussions about
what we wanted, but then left it up to Bill Goichberg to finalize it. You
like to think your executive director will do what he's told. In our
discussions, we told Bill not to give away national tournament concessions.
I think I have adequately documented this fact in another post. Even Don
Schultz, a "Friend of Bill," stated he would not have voted for the
ChessCafe bid if he had known it included USCF giving away national
tournament concessions. I have quoted Don's email in my other post.
The oddest thing is this: as late as August 2004, Bill Goichberg was arguing
that we should give ChessCafe some kind of "preference" regarding national
event concessions, but he did not seem to be saying ChessCafe had any legal
right to national event concessions.
For example, I was present at a long and heated discussion at the Annual
Meeting in mid-August 2004, when the Scholastic Council told Bill they felt
another bidder had a better package of goods and services for scholastic
events than ChessCafe did. Bill seemed to accept the argument that ChessCafe
could be excluded from a given event if it was felt that other bidders had
more to offer.
It wasn't till Aug. 30, 2004, when Hanon Russell (the ChessCafe owner and a
lawyer) emailed Bill Goichberg, citing clauses in the contract, that Bill
and the board reached any consensus that ChessCafe indeed had an exclusive
legal right to national event concessions. Until this email from Russell,
not even Bill seemed to be arguing for such an extreme position. Instead,
Bill had been saying such things as, "we should be helping out ChessCafe, we
don't want to offend them," etc., etc.
We can document that until Aug. 30, 2004, not even Bill Goichberg was
arguing that ChessCafe had exclusive legal rights. Today, Jan. 22, 2005, we
see a flood of posts on this newsgroup from Bill, claiming that the board
knew all about ChessCafe's exclusive legal right before the contract was
ever signed, several months before Aug. 2004. And by inference, Bill is now
claiming that he, too, knew about it several months before Aug. 2004, since
he negotiated the contract.
Curiouser and curioser. If I had Larry Parr's paranoia, I am sure I could
fit together all these pieces into some sort of meaningful picture--a dark
one, no doubt. Being a simple and straightforward person, perhaps even a
touch naive, I am merely puzzled. If I had to make my best guess, I'd guess
Bill Goichberg gave away the store in this outsourcing contract, because it
was the only way he could make "his" deal look so much better than the
competing deals. To gain time to negotiate "his" deal, he convinced the
board to re-open the outsourcing bidding process yet again, thereby jilting
all the bidders who had followed the rules and had at least a moral right to
expect the rules wouldn't be changed again. I objected to this in principle,
but Bill argued, "We can break our own rules if it benefits us." This to me
is no way to do business. You may gain a temporary advantage by screwing
people, but longer term it costs you respect and trust.
Tim Hanke
| |
|
| Did Kevin Bachler spin this yarn for you?
"Recmate" <recmate@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050122125237.25360.00000138@mb-m13.aol.com...
quote:
>
> When I applied for ED in January, I made the following offer that the
> Board
> accepted:
>
> I would work without pay for all of 2004 if necessary. However, the Board
> would consider at its August meeting whether USCF finances would allow me
> to
> begin getting paid.
>
> Under this agreement, there was no way that I would receive pay for work
> prior
> to August, so when the Board said I was an unpaid volunteer in January,
> and
> after that but prior to August, this was correct.
>
> At that August meeting, the Board broke its word and failed to consider
> whether
> to begin paying me. I didn't make a fuss (after all, they could have just
> said
> "no pay for you" and I was pledged to complete the year anyway), but now I
> realize that at this point it became no longer clear that I was a
> volunteer.
>
> At its September meeting the Board again failed to consider whether to
> begin
> paying me, even though a Board member requested this discussion.
>
> Only at its December meeting, less than two weeks before the end of the
> year,
> did the Board finally get around to consider what it had promised to
> consider
> in August.
>
> I consider that I worked as an unpaid volunteer ED between Jan 2004 and
> Aug
> 2004, an unpaid volunteer Office Manager between Nov 2003 and Jan 2004,
> and
> that the pay I received was for Aug 2004 through Dec 2004.
>
> Larry Parr's point that the Board misled the members about my status is
> correct, but only for the period Aug through Dec 2004. Having failed to
> consider my pay as promised, they should have at least announced that it
> was
> possible that I would be paid for work done after the August meetings.
>
> I kept expecting a Board announcement of some kind after August but as
> this
> didn't happen, perhaps I should have made my own at some point. It would
> have
> sounded a bit odd, "I don't know if I'm still a volunteer, I might be paid
> starting August," but it would have avoided the misleading impression that
> has
> now been created.
>
> Incidentally, during my 13 1/2 months as Office Manager and Executive
> Director,
> I paid all my own expenses for airfare, restaurants, car rental, and
> parking,
> submitting no reimbursement requests for any of my expenses. USCF did pay
> directly for my hotel expenses.
>
> Bill Goichberg
| |
|
|
"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F_idnTQ92qmbC2_cRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
quote:
> It wasn't till Aug. 30, 2004, when Hanon Russell (the ChessCafe owner and
> a lawyer) emailed Bill Goichberg, citing clauses in the contract, that
> Bill and the board reached any consensus that ChessCafe indeed had an
> exclusive legal right to national event concessions. Until this email from
> Russell, not even Bill seemed to be arguing for such an extreme position.
> Instead, Bill had been saying such things as, "we should be helping out
> ChessCafe, we don't want to offend them," etc., etc.
Did he say the board shouldn't be greedy?
| | |