|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Green Light for Revenue Ideas (Update)
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 |
Green Light for Revenue Ideas (Update)
|
|
| Tom Klem 2005-03-28, 5:56 pm |
| There have been several revenue ideas presented in our "Revenue anyone"
thread.
So, following the process, why don't we agree to a two week continuation of
the search for new revenue ideas.
Everyone put on your thinking cap, muzzle your negativity, and produce new
ideas.
Tom Klem
| |
| arodobop 2005-03-28, 9:53 pm |
| With all due respect to Mr. Klem, this is usenet. Everyone gets to
write and express in the manner they choose.
When I think of the USCF and what it actually does for chess in the
USA, I tend to have many negative thoughts.
Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its members.
Rod
| |
| George John 2005-03-28, 9:53 pm |
| Rod,
There are those of us think the USCF is in the process of being
transformed for the better. If you think the USCF is beyond hope, the
simple solution is to not post in Tom's tread and avoid reading it.
Or, you could view this as a hypothetical discussion about how your
ideal national not-for-profit might go about increasing its revenue.
While Tom can't prohibit people from bashing other people's ideas,
he is very correct to say that in a brainstorming session all ideas are
allowed if they are reasonably on topic, and he has every right to
encourage people to follow that model, which in my opinion is the
correct one to use here.
Best regards,
George John
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-03-28, 9:53 pm |
| You are entitled to your opinion of course.
The purpose of this thread, in my opinion, is to achieve a goal.
Thank you,
Tom Klem
"arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112053379.318787.267310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> With all due respect to Mr. Klem, this is usenet. Everyone gets to
> write and express in the manner they choose.
>
> When I think of the USCF and what it actually does for chess in the
> USA, I tend to have many negative thoughts.
>
> Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
> USCF doesn't serve its members.
>
> Rod
>
| |
| Angelo De Pa1ma 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| You're free to post negative messages to another thread.
Nobody will rain on this parade.
Not even me (any more).
I want to hear those $$$$ jingling like it's Las Vegas on a Friday night.
"arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112053379.318787.267310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> With all due respect to Mr. Klem, this is usenet. Everyone gets to
> write and express in the manner they choose.
>
> When I think of the USCF and what it actually does for chess in the
> USA, I tend to have many negative thoughts.
>
> Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
> USCF doesn't serve its members.
>
> Rod
>
| |
| jamesrynd@aol.com 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| Wait a minute, guys!
I hate to sound Pollyannish here but sometimes your worst complainers
are your best sources of information!
When Rod said:
quote:
>Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its >members
Most responded that that was negative. But how easily is that turned
into:
"To increase revenue, the USCF should maximize its value as a member
services organization."
And how many of us have said this! We know that if the USCF made money,
and many USCF members have money to give, but only if they are being
served. That would increase into more $$ for grandmaster stipends at
major events, and so on.
Sometimes the ones who curse the darkness help us in finding an
innovative method of lighting it. And that, my dear Tom, is a goal
achieved, and my friend Angelo, a parade on a sun shiny day!
'Nuff said.
| |
| arodobop 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
|
Well said, James.
.....and for those lacking reading comprehension skills, I repeat ---
this is usenet. Each of us may reply to any thread we want. If a post
strikes a nerve or gives someone the vapors, that's too bad.
Rod
jamesrynd@aol.com Mar 28, 6:55 pm show options
Wait a minute, guys!
I hate to sound Pollyannish here but sometimes your worst complainers
are your best sources of information!
When Rod said:
quote:
>Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its >members
Most responded that that was negative. But how easily is that turned
into:
"To increase revenue, the USCF should maximize its value as a member
services organization."
And how many of us have said this! We know that if the USCF made money,
and many USCF members have money to give, but only if they are being
served. That would increase into more $$ for grandmaster stipends at
major events, and so on.
Sometimes the ones who curse the darkness help us in finding an
innovative method of lighting it. And that, my dear Tom, is a goal
achieved, and my friend Angelo, a parade on a sun shiny day!
'Nuff said.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| Make no mistake about this, I am not trying to be the moderator here.
I'm simply asking for other human beings to show the same creativity (for a
change) as the group of high school kids in California who in 1997 came up
with a workable way to have saved thirteen hundred lives on the Titanic.
Their idea, found sound by engineers of the day, had never been floated as
far as anyone can tell, and shows what the human imagination can produce
when encouraged to do so.
I am here only to encourage. Not to revile the vile. (As tempting as it may
be).
And, I am simply asking ... did you hear that? asking, for the nabobs of
negativity present on this newsgroup, to give someone, however timid, the
chance to shine and come up with Revenue side ideas to make a better USCF.
Note: I did not say bigger. I said better.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
"arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112074776.900157.253840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Well said, James.
>
> ....and for those lacking reading comprehension skills, I repeat ---
> this is usenet. Each of us may reply to any thread we want. If a post
> strikes a nerve or gives someone the vapors, that's too bad.
>
> Rod
>
>
> jamesrynd@aol.com Mar 28, 6:55 pm show options
>
> Wait a minute, guys!
>
> I hate to sound Pollyannish here but sometimes your worst complainers
> are your best sources of information!
>
> When Rod said:
>
> USCF doesn't serve its >members
>
> Most responded that that was negative. But how easily is that turned
> into:
>
> "To increase revenue, the USCF should maximize its value as a member
> services organization."
>
> And how many of us have said this! We know that if the USCF made money,
> and many USCF members have money to give, but only if they are being
> served. That would increase into more $$ for grandmaster stipends at
> major events, and so on.
>
> Sometimes the ones who curse the darkness help us in finding an
> innovative method of lighting it. And that, my dear Tom, is a goal
> achieved, and my friend Angelo, a parade on a sun shiny day!
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
quote:
> And, I am simply asking ... did you hear that? asking, for the nabobs of
> negativity present on this newsgroup, to give someone, however timid, the
> chance to shine and come up with Revenue side ideas to make a better USCF.
>
> Note: I did not say bigger. I said better.
While there's nothing obviously wrong with having a thread discussing
raising revenue, more revenue only makes the USCF bigger. Better is a
separate subject and probably needs to be in a separate thread, since
some of us think the USCF would be better if it were smaller.
| |
| arodobop 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| And I also asked a few posts ago the following:
Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its members.
It's a valid question.
also cordially,
Rod
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| I think not.
Better could easily be, for example, a Grand Masters and Masters Retirement
Residence, built with and funded by the membership of a "better" USCF.
Endowments for chess talented individuals (not necessarily children).
Master in Residence programs at local Universities, where GM, IM and Masters
can be paid to provide a college level course at various medium to large
size markets.
The possibilities are endless. What it would take first, however, is
revenue.
Good character and large doses of love helps too.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
"See the need ... fill it."
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xhdivro4e.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
quote:
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
USCF.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> While there's nothing obviously wrong with having a thread discussing
> raising revenue, more revenue only makes the USCF bigger. Better is a
> separate subject and probably needs to be in a separate thread, since
> some of us think the USCF would be better if it were smaller.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-29, 3:56 am |
| "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
quote:
> Better could easily be, for example, a Grand Masters and Masters Retirement
> Residence, built with and funded by the membership of a "better" USCF.
>
> Endowments for chess talented individuals (not necessarily children).
>
> Master in Residence programs at local Universities, where GM, IM and Masters
> can be paid to provide a college level course at various medium to large
> size markets.
>
> The possibilities are endless. What it would take first, however, is
> revenue.
The USCF should not be doing any of those things. The ACF, maybe, but
not the USCF.
| |
| 99% Kosher 2005-03-29, 6:20 pm |
| What do you need good ideas for? The USCF isn't going to use any of
them. The USCF doesn't serve its members. They serve each other's
needs.
| |
| arodobop 2005-03-31, 7:02 am |
| And I also asked a few posts ago the following:
Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its members.
It's a valid question.
also cordially,
Rod
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-03-31, 7:02 am |
| "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
quote:
> And, I am simply asking ... did you hear that? asking, for the nabobs of
> negativity present on this newsgroup, to give someone, however timid, the
> chance to shine and come up with Revenue side ideas to make a better USCF.
>
> Note: I did not say bigger. I said better.
While there's nothing obviously wrong with having a thread discussing
raising revenue, more revenue only makes the USCF bigger. Better is a
separate subject and probably needs to be in a separate thread, since
some of us think the USCF would be better if it were smaller.
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| You are entitled to your opinion of course.
The purpose of this thread, in my opinion, is to achieve a goal.
Thank you,
Tom Klem
"arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112053379.318787.267310@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> With all due respect to Mr. Klem, this is usenet. Everyone gets to
> write and express in the manner they choose.
>
> When I think of the USCF and what it actually does for chess in the
> USA, I tend to have many negative thoughts.
>
> Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
> USCF doesn't serve its members.
>
> Rod
>
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| Make no mistake about this, I am not trying to be the moderator here.
I'm simply asking for other human beings to show the same creativity (for a
change) as the group of high school kids in California who in 1997 came up
with a workable way to have saved thirteen hundred lives on the Titanic.
Their idea, found sound by engineers of the day, had never been floated as
far as anyone can tell, and shows what the human imagination can produce
when encouraged to do so.
I am here only to encourage. Not to revile the vile. (As tempting as it may
be).
And, I am simply asking ... did you hear that? asking, for the nabobs of
negativity present on this newsgroup, to give someone, however timid, the
chance to shine and come up with Revenue side ideas to make a better USCF.
Note: I did not say bigger. I said better.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
"arodobop" <arodobop@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112074776.900157.253840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Well said, James.
>
> ....and for those lacking reading comprehension skills, I repeat ---
> this is usenet. Each of us may reply to any thread we want. If a post
> strikes a nerve or gives someone the vapors, that's too bad.
>
> Rod
>
>
> jamesrynd@aol.com Mar 28, 6:55 pm show options
>
> Wait a minute, guys!
>
> I hate to sound Pollyannish here but sometimes your worst complainers
> are your best sources of information!
>
> When Rod said:
>
> USCF doesn't serve its >members
>
> Most responded that that was negative. But how easily is that turned
> into:
>
> "To increase revenue, the USCF should maximize its value as a member
> services organization."
>
> And how many of us have said this! We know that if the USCF made money,
> and many USCF members have money to give, but only if they are being
> served. That would increase into more $$ for grandmaster stipends at
> major events, and so on.
>
> Sometimes the ones who curse the darkness help us in finding an
> innovative method of lighting it. And that, my dear Tom, is a goal
> achieved, and my friend Angelo, a parade on a sun shiny day!
>
> 'Nuff said.
>
| |
| arodobop 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| And I also asked a few posts ago the following:
Why should/would anyone want to give revenue ideas for the USCF? The
USCF doesn't serve its members.
It's a valid question.
also cordially,
Rod
| |
| Tom Klem 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| I think not.
Better could easily be, for example, a Grand Masters and Masters Retirement
Residence, built with and funded by the membership of a "better" USCF.
Endowments for chess talented individuals (not necessarily children).
Master in Residence programs at local Universities, where GM, IM and Masters
can be paid to provide a college level course at various medium to large
size markets.
The possibilities are endless. What it would take first, however, is
revenue.
Good character and large doses of love helps too.
Cordially,
Tom Klem
"See the need ... fill it."
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xhdivro4e.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
quote:
> "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
the[vbcol=seagreen]
USCF.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> While there's nothing obviously wrong with having a thread discussing
> raising revenue, more revenue only makes the USCF bigger. Better is a
> separate subject and probably needs to be in a separate thread, since
> some of us think the USCF would be better if it were smaller.
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-04-07, 6:07 pm |
| "Tom Klem" <thewiz@nowhere.com> writes:
quote:
> Better could easily be, for example, a Grand Masters and Masters Retirement
> Residence, built with and funded by the membership of a "better" USCF.
>
> Endowments for chess talented individuals (not necessarily children).
>
> Master in Residence programs at local Universities, where GM, IM and Masters
> can be paid to provide a college level course at various medium to large
> size markets.
>
> The possibilities are endless. What it would take first, however, is
> revenue.
The USCF should not be doing any of those things. The ACF, maybe, but
not the USCF.
|
| |
|
|