|
Home > Archive > Chess forum > February 2006 > Flim-Flam financial accounting from the USCF
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 |
Flim-Flam financial accounting from the USCF
|
|
| Sam Sloan 2006-02-26, 7:46 pm |
| Flim-Flam financial accounting from the USCF
The November, 2005 balance sheet of the USCF is online at
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/f...lsheetNov05.pdf
I must say that this is an improvement from the Redman Days when he
presented a document he said was a balance sheet but was not a balance
sheet at all. He did not even know what one was.
However, this balance sheet contains a lot of questionable items.
Accounts Receivable from Chess Cafe $257,637.17
Less Allowance for doubtful accounts ($27,501.35)
Chess Cafe has already informed us that they aint paying us. We are
not getting that money. We have entered into a new agreement with them
under which we have forgiven their indebtedness to us. Therefore, this
is not an account receivable. This is not an asset at all and should
have been deleted.
The excuse has been provided that we did not agree to forgive the
indebtedness of ChessCafe until after December 1, so on November 30 it
was still a good asset. However, this balance sheet was not released
until February, by which time we had long known that the asset was no
good. I believe that under GAAP the asset should not have been left on
the balance sheet.
In addition, at the USCF delegates meeting on August 13-14, 2005 it
was announced that ChessCafe owed us $180,000 and it appeared that
they had no intention of paying. At that point the asset should
already have been written off and not included in our profit and loss
statement.
More film-flam: Another asset in the balance sheet is Fixed
Assets:Land $279,300.
This is the Crossville land. However, this land was given to us free
of charge, so it is not carried at cost.
Also, the deal was that if we want to sell it, we must sell it back to
the City of Crossville for one dollar.
Since we cannot sell the land, it cannot be carried as an asset.
As I understand it, once we have finished building the building we
will be free to sell the land and the completed building on it for
anything we can get for it.
Is that the deal? This was never made clear. Anyway, the $279,300 is
the appraised value for tax purposes, which is more than a liability
than an asset.
Finally, there is the Item FIXED ASSETS: New BUILDING $188,717.79 .
This is the building under construction in Crossville. According to
the pictures in the http://www.uschess.org website, this building is
about one third built. I suppose that $188,717.79 is the money we have
spent on it thus far. Fair enough, but if we wanted to sell the
building right now, we would not have been able to get anything for
it. Our only chance it to finish the building and hope that we can get
most of our money back by selling it. Again, it is more of a liability
that an asset.
Adding these three items up, the accounts receivable from ChessCafe,
the land and the building, we get a total of 725,654.94. However, the
real value of this 725,654.94 is just about zero and if we cannot get
this money we are in deep do-do.
Sam Sloan
PS. Although I have long been one of the biggest supporters of Bill
Goichberg, I now believe that he is not the right man to be president.
The way he gave away the books and equipment business is scandalous. I
believe that Bill Goichberg does not have the balls to be president.
We need someone with a big pair of balls, like Beatriz Marinello.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Grant Perks 2006-02-26, 7:46 pm |
| Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> Flim-Flam financial accounting from the USCF
>
> The November, 2005 balance sheet of the USCF is online at
>
> http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/f...lsheetNov05.pdf
>
> I must say that this is an improvement from the Redman Days when he
> presented a document he said was a balance sheet but was not a balance
> sheet at all. He did not even know what one was.
>
> However, this balance sheet contains a lot of questionable items.
>
> Accounts Receivable from Chess Cafe $257,637.17
> Less Allowance for doubtful accounts ($27,501.35)
>
> Chess Cafe has already informed us that they aint paying us. We are
> not getting that money. We have entered into a new agreement with them
> under which we have forgiven their indebtedness to us. Therefore, this
> is not an account receivable. This is not an asset at all and should
> have been deleted.
>
> The excuse has been provided that we did not agree to forgive the
> indebtedness of ChessCafe until after December 1, so on November 30 it
> was still a good asset. However, this balance sheet was not released
> until February, by which time we had long known that the asset was no
> good. I believe that under GAAP the asset should not have been left on
> the balance sheet.
>
> In addition, at the USCF delegates meeting on August 13-14, 2005 it
> was announced that ChessCafe owed us $180,000 and it appeared that
> they had no intention of paying. At that point the asset should
> already have been written off and not included in our profit and loss
> statement.
>
> More film-flam: Another asset in the balance sheet is Fixed
> Assets:Land $279,300.
>
> This is the Crossville land. However, this land was given to us free
> of charge, so it is not carried at cost.
>
> Also, the deal was that if we want to sell it, we must sell it back to
> the City of Crossville for one dollar.
>
> Since we cannot sell the land, it cannot be carried as an asset.
>
> As I understand it, once we have finished building the building we
> will be free to sell the land and the completed building on it for
> anything we can get for it.
>
> Is that the deal? This was never made clear. Anyway, the $279,300 is
> the appraised value for tax purposes, which is more than a liability
> than an asset.
>
> Finally, there is the Item FIXED ASSETS: New BUILDING $188,717.79 .
>
> This is the building under construction in Crossville. According to
> the pictures in the http://www.uschess.org website, this building is
> about one third built. I suppose that $188,717.79 is the money we have
> spent on it thus far. Fair enough, but if we wanted to sell the
> building right now, we would not have been able to get anything for
> it. Our only chance it to finish the building and hope that we can get
> most of our money back by selling it. Again, it is more of a liability
> that an asset.
>
> Adding these three items up, the accounts receivable from ChessCafe,
> the land and the building, we get a total of 725,654.94. However, the
> real value of this 725,654.94 is just about zero and if we cannot get
> this money we are in deep do-do.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> PS. Although I have long been one of the biggest supporters of Bill
> Goichberg, I now believe that he is not the right man to be president.
> The way he gave away the books and equipment business is scandalous. I
> believe that Bill Goichberg does not have the balls to be president.
> We need someone with a big pair of balls, like Beatriz Marinello.
>
> Sam Sloan
Point 1. A/R Chess Cafe. While I don't know the exact details, I
believe the write off was $87,500. In return, the USCF gets revenue
from the tournament concessions. Since the agreement was reached after
the end of the 2nd quarter, it is appropriate to include it in the 3rd
quarter results.
Point 2. Land. The land is carried at its value as of date of donation.
The $1 clause was only relavant if we didn't put the building up. Since
the building will be occupied in the next month or two, this provision
is now mute.
Point 3. New building. I assume the bank only pays on approved draw
request. The building looks more than 50% done to me. I understand that
the picture on the website is a bit dated, as the brick is now up.
Point 4. You state: "Our only chance it to finish the building and hope
that we can get most of our money back by selling it. Again, it is more
of a liability that an asset."
If it isn't worth anything as you contend, and we need a building to
house operations, why would we sell it now? This makes no sense. Its a
brand new building, with room for growth, even if it was only worth a
$1 it doesn't matter, it suits our long-term needs.
Grant Perks
| |
| Pao Wing 2006-02-26, 7:46 pm |
| "Grant Perks" < Its a brand new building, with room for growth, even if it
was only worth a $1 it doesn't matter, it suits our long-term needs.
quote:
>
>
Good or bad, that building will have to be the Headquarters for at least the
next twenty years. Maybe Crosstown will become some kind of Chess utopia and
the perfect wonderful little town for major chess tournaments? Maybe it will
just be the headquarters. Either way, the money has been spent, and there
probably isn't going to be any bidding for that building if it were put up
for sale.
Whatever happened to the swampland question? Supposedly it is on the edge of
a swamp?
|
| |
|
|