PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
joelchanning wrote:
I'm disturbed by what I've been reading here. We voted 4 to 1 that
this seemed on its face like a good thing to pursue and then turned it
over to the ED to consult with the appropriate committees and
negotiate in detail before he brought it back to us. Supporting people
who are trying to promote chess is our mandate. Susan Polgar is
unquestionably one of our superstars. The deal is to be cost free to
us. Why does it matter if something simple comes to us on short
notice? How smart do we have to be to vote for the ED to consult with
the appropriate committees and then negotiate details for us to
consider?
And I'm sick of all this Polgar bashing. Who the #### is going to want
to be associated with us if we are so paranoid and inhospitable? I ran
for office to help improve this organization. I don't know nearly as
much about chess as some of you, but I recognize dysfunctional
behaviour when I see it. Those of you who really care about chess need
to distinguish clearly between what you want to say and how you say
it. I expected better of a group of intelligent people. If we can't
attract a higher minded sense of expression, then maybe I was wrong
about trying to enable so few rules here. This doesn't look good for
us, and it won't help us attract any important sponsors.
When Bill Hall brings it back to us I will vote to the best of my
ability based on the facts, on precedence, on good business principles
and on what's best for chess.
Joel Channing
Joel,
Have you looked at the top of this thread?
This thread was started by Susan Polgar. She started off by attacking
the board. You and we did not attack her. She attacked us.
Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
joelchanning
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
I'm sorry Sam, but I think you're wrong. It started right at the
meeting and was continued here.
In fact, I think Susan is very gacious about the crap that's been
heaped upon her. Imagine this sort of treatment to other stars. I'm
sure Kasparov would have been gone after the first salvo and Karpov
shortly thereafter. In a way, we're lucky that there's still so little
money in chess and maybe we shouldn't be working so hard to promote it
to the broader public. When the stars are all multi-millionaires, then
we'll learn to walk on eggshells.
Joel
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:14 pm
The problem here, Joel, is that you do not know the history.
Ever since Paul Truong started coming to the board with his various
plans and proposals three years ago, it has happened time and again
that Paul had told the board that his latest scheme will not cost the
USCF a cent,
and then not long thereafter Paul starts writing threats about how he
is going to sue the USCF is he is not paid.
I do not know hoiw much Paul has been paid in total up until now, but
I know that it is more than $25,000. I also know that Paul was
demanding $50,000 for one of his free deals, but as I understand it
the board refused to pay.
So, now again, Paul is telling us this this latest scheme will not
cost a cent. We know better. We know from experience that if Paul
Truong is invovled, it is only a question of time before the USCF is
going to be asked to pay.
Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
GrantPerks
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Columbus, Oh
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:40 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
samsloan wrote:
joelchanning wrote:
I'm sorry Sam, but I think you're wrong. It started right at the
meeting and was continued here.
In fact, I think Susan is very gacious about the crap that's been
heaped upon her. Imagine this sort of treatment to other stars. I'm
sure Kasparov would have been gone after the first salvo and Karpov
shortly thereafter. In a way, we're lucky that there's still so little
money in chess and maybe we shouldn't be working so hard to promote it
to the broader public. When the stars are all multi-millionaires, then
we'll learn to walk on eggshells.
Joel
The problem here, Joel, is that you do not know the history.
Ever since Paul Truong started coming to the board with his various
plans and proposals three years ago, it has happened time and again
that Paul had told the board that his latest scheme will not cost the
USCF a cent,
and then not long thereafter Paul starts writing threats about how he
is going to sue the USCF is he is not paid.
I do not know hoiw much Paul has been paid in total up until now, but
I know that it is more than $25,000. I also know that Paul was
demanding $50,000 for one of his free deals, but as I understand it
the board refused to pay.
So, now again, Paul is telling us this this latest scheme will not
cost a cent. We know better. We know from experience that if Paul
Truong is invovled, it is only a question of time before the USCF is
going to be asked to pay.
Sam Sloan
You aren't the real Sam Sloan are you?
_________________
Grant Perks
Columbus, Ohio
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address
joelchanning
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Sam,
Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?
If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.
Joel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CHESSDON
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Posts: 24
Location: Highland Beach, Florida
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: Reply with
quote
Eric: Don, do you truly not see why this looks less than ideal to lots
of people? This is especially true given the history of
miscommunication between Ms. Polgar and the EB. (As noted I do not
know the details of that issue well enough to form an opinion, but the
history is there.)
Don: I honestly don't. All we did is endorse the concept of a Susan
project. This is not unusual so long as it doen't infringe on anything
or anybody. For example. we recently endorsed the Kaspaov School of
chess. very similar - no cost to the USCF, no objections there.
Eris: Any deal that will involve "intense " negotiations between
parties.
DS: No intense negotiations. Details of any support were something
additional that however worked out would not impact the uSCF
endorsement of Susan's initiative. The Board didn't vote nor endorse
details. It is work to be done.
Eric: ....and it compounds the error to not only allow, but require
that the subsequent negotiations be kept secret.
DS: I voted against the do-it-in secret motion so I'm probably the
wrong person to defend that decision but again. it really has nothing
to do with endorsing Susan's initiative.
EM: I am truly trying to understand why you are surprised by the mixed
reaction to this. By your logic, perhaps we should just say:
"Susan Polgar is a great player and coach with a public profile in the
mass media who genuinely cares about promoting chess and encouraging
young players, especially girls, to improve."
DS: Right, that's it.
EM: (Very few folks would disagree with this so far.)
EM: "Therefore, let's just ask her what she wants to do to help us
DS: We didn't have to , she told us.
EM: Take her at her word it won't cost us anything,
DS: Why should a motion to endorse a concept cost us anything. Of
course she can request some support that might cost us and we may or
may not commit to expend resources. Based on all she is doing for USA
chess, I would say we should try to help if we can.
EM: Forget about past history.
DS: There is no consensus on past history, either we assume one side
is right and the other is wrong or we really do forget about the
disputes. What we cannot forget is her great success and help in
making the USA Women's 2004 Olympiad Chess Performance a historic
success!. That's the only uncontested chess history that I am aware.
EM: . . .and the possibility that she is not the only one involved in
forming the proposal,
DS: I don't understand your point here - please clarify.
EM: . . . and endorse on the spot any idea she suggests."
DS: We are only addressing one idea, the one she proposed.
EM: That's the part where you run into trouble....[/quote]
DS: I agree that if the impression is that we simply rubber stamp her
ideas, that would not be good. But you were at the meeting, did it
look like rubber stamping to you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website
billbrock
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 157
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:44 am Post subject: Reply with
quote
Quote:
DS: There is no consensus on past history, either we assume one side
is right and the other is wrong or we really do forget about the
disputes. What we cannot forget is her great success and help in
making the USA Women's 2004 Olympiad Chess Performance a historic
success!. That's the only uncontested chess history that I am aware.
We may consider the matter of past disputes amicably settled, but
remember that the past disputes occurred & take steps to minimize the
likelihood of future disputes.
I like Susan's proposal, too, and I too think it's a no-brainer. But
even no-brainers deserve to be reviewed, as there's an unfortunate
prehistory of misunderstandings. Eric's points are well taken.
Better process:
written proposal = informal private discussions = written motion =
Board vote = publicizing of Board action
It's a little slower, but it builds bureaucratic comity.
At this point, all parties should agree that the process was less than
ideal, and resolve to achieve satisfactory public closure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
samsloan
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
joelchanning wrote:
Sam,
Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?
If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.
Joel
Since Joel is new here, I will just give a few examples of the kinds
of problems the USCF has had in dealing with Paul Truong in the past.
In every case, I do not know what the dispute was about. I only know
that again and again Paul has complained that he was cheated in some
way by the USCF and eventually in each case Paul was finally paid.
Here is one quote from Paul Truong:
Quote:
From:
Date: Thu Jun 2, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: [fide-chess] One Board Member's Views on the USCF
-SusanPolgar ... chessmarketing
Enforcing the contract is the LEAST of the USCF's concern. He has no
comprehension of the magnitude of the damage that he and his people
have caused. If they can try to #### some of the biggest names in US
Chess (with a legal binding contract in place which the federation
created and made the players sign), who can trust the USCF in the
future? The worst part is the tone from them (from the President down
to her advisors). They attack the people who they should have
apologized to. AF4C, KSOC, and others all have had bad taste in their
mouths. They all have experienced the same garbage. This is a total
disaster for the federation from every aspect. l
OK. So Paul finally got his money on that deal. Now I will go back and
find a few similar previous disputes.
Sam Sloan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
samsloan wrote:
joelchanning wrote:
Sam,
Without agreeing or arguing, but for the sake of comity, let's assume
that you're correct about the past. This is now, and she's a superstar
and we benefit having her acknowledge us as her home base. Maybe you'd
rather she formed a strategic alliance with AF4C?
If contracts were drafted less than perfectly in the past, I'll do
everything I can to guard against ambiguity in the future. As I
intimated before, be careful what you wish for. If all the great chess
players had the type of fame and money we want for them, we'd be
wistfully recalling the issues we had with Paul. Imagine Dennis Rodman
with a 2750 rating.
Joel
Since Joel is new here, I will just give a few examples of the kinds
of problems the USCF has had in dealing with Paul Truong in the past.
In every case, I do not know what the dispute was about. I only know
that again and again Paul has complained that he was cheated in some
way by the USCF and eventually in each case Paul was finally paid.
Here is one quote from Paul Truong:
Quote:
From:
Date: Thu Jun 2, 2005 11:40 pm
Subject: [fide-chess] One Board Member's Views on the USCF
-SusanPolgar ... chessmarketing
Enforcing the contract is the LEAST of the USCF's concern. He has no
comprehension of the magnitude of the damage that he and his people
have caused. If they can try to #### some of the biggest names in US
Chess (with a legal binding contract in place which the federation
created and made the players sign), who can trust the USCF in the
future? The worst part is the tone from them (from the President down
to her advisors). They attack the people who they should have
apologized to. AF4C, KSOC, and others all have had bad taste in their
mouths. They all have experienced the same garbage. This is a total
disaster for the federation from every aspect. l
OK. So Paul finally got his money on that deal. Now I will go back and
find a few similar previous disputes.
Sam Sloan
Here is another similar letter from Paul Truong. Apparently, the
dispute here was that the players who Paul Truong represents had been
paid by the Kasparov Chess Foundation. Now, Paul was claiming that the
USCF was supposed to pay the players too, so that the players got paid
twice for the same work. Again, as I understand it, the USCF finally
caved in and paid Paul. and so the players got double money.
Quote:
From:
Date: Wed Jun 1, 2005 1:43 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Marinello comes right out with it
chessmarketing
When will your boss publish the contracts so the members can see who
is lying and who is wrong? Again, you guys throw out propaganda with
not an ounce of evidence to back anything up. Your USCF forced the
players to sign the contracts and return the contracts by a specific
date or else they cannot represent their country. No one asked the
USCF to create this contract. They USCF did it on their own.
After a number of us informed the USCF that there were mistakes in the
contract, the USCF promised to send a final revised corrected contract
which they did. This contract was created when your buddies are in
charge. The contracts came unsolicited. The players signed the
contracts and they fulfilled every obligations set forth by the USCF.
Your buddies then refused to pay claiming that the players did receive
their bonuses from the KCF which has nothing to do with the USCF. The
contract clearly stated that "In addition, the USCF will pay the
following..." Even a 7 year old child can read this.
Instead of coming to the players nicely and ask them to work things
out and apologize for the misunderstanding, your President decided to
attack the players. She infuriated them. They were extremely insulted
and they ALL responded to her directly. Her actions and words prompted
the players to ask me to go forward with the claim for the bonuses
they are entitled to. I did not make this decision. Two of the players
were leading the charge to fight for their rights and it was not
Susan. All four voted to fight to enforce the contracts.
The time for screwing the players has ended. If the USCF management
decides to treat the players this way, do you expect them to sit back
and say please go ahead and take advantage of us at will? We can
settle this matter in any forum your buddies choose. It will not
remain quiet. The members and the public must know this kind of
behavior and actions.
Your President admitted numerous times in writing that the USCF did
create the contracts. She admitted several times in writing that the
players did sign it. She also admitted that it was the error of the
USCF and not the players. It is also the President of the USCF who
advocated the idea of not paying the players when they did nothing
wrong. The facts are quite clear. Why waste time debating? Why not
show the contract to the members? This will settle things once in for
all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post
Here is another letter from Paul Truong:
Quote:
From:
Date: Mon May 30, 2005 6:46 am
Subject: [fide-chess] Marinello comes right out with it
chessmarketing
This is the breakdown for the Olympiad Team:
Hotel: $100 / night x 5 rooms = $500 x 16 nights = Approx. $8,000
Airline tickets: $500-$700 each x 5 = Approx. $2,500 - $3,500
Fees: $3,000-$5,000 each x 4 = Approx. $12,000 - $20,000
Misc. Expenses: Approx. $10,000 - $15,000 (Training fees, training
tournaments, meals, ground transportation, misc. expenses)
Plus bonuses if the team wins medals.
This is what any sponsor has to expect to pay. When was the last time
the USCF was able to raise this kind of money?
This is not counting the men's team. This is serious money we are
talking about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's
website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
samsloan
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 27
Location: Brooklyn, New York
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: Reply with
quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post
Here is another example. Apparently, Truong sent the USCF a bill for
$50,000 in "matching funds". The USCF disputed the bill. I do not know
if Truong was eventually paid or not.
Later, Troung sent the USCF a bill for $15,000 for the work Susan
Polgar had done such as appearing at the Delegate's meeting at the
2003 US Open in Los Angeles and in giving simultaneous exhibitions.
The USCF countered that this was supposed to be volunteer work and for
this Susan had been awarded the title of "Volunteer of the Year".
Again, I do not know the truth or falsity of the claims made. However,
it is clear that there is a history of repeated disputes between
Truong and the USCF over money. These disputes are over a period of
years and have involved several different boards. Here are a few
quotes from rec.games.chess.politics :
Quote:
From: Bill Brock - view profile
Date: Tues, Dec 9 2003 2:52 pm
Email: (Bill Brock)
Groups: rec.games.chess.politics
"StanB" wrote in message
...
"Spam Scone" wrote in message
om...
I don't know about realities in this case, but we have been the
subject of so
many lies regarding "facts" on this forum that one could be forgiven
if she/he
was stubborn in not believing the given facts.
Even with Susan's excellent character as a given, she hurts herself by
surrounding herself with the Bob Bennett's of this world. The
hyperbole of Mr.
Truong was so over the top, people could certainly be confused as to
Susan's
character when Paul is claiming thousands of positive responses per
month for
her column.
While Susan did not make this claim, Truong has claimed a business
relationship
and Susan has not rejected that claim. (Rp)
She refers to him as her business manager.
To the extent that agent may have said something demonstrably untrue
about principal & did not retract, and principal did not subsequently
distance herself, yes, that's an ethical issue. But that's a long way
from financial impropriety.
I thought the issue was Truong and Polgar allegedly expecting payment
for work they had allegedly agreed to do pro bono. Doesn't that count,
Bill? Stan, will you clarify this?
She was paid for several of the very same things that counted toward her
"Volunteer of the Year" award. Don't blame her, blame Niro for that one.
Brock called around and could get no one to dispute the various stories
about their shady dealings. So he appoints himself judge and jury and wants
copies of checks and other nefarious documents to accept the stories
floating around the newsgroups. Right. Like anyone cares whether Bob Brock
believes it or not.
StanB
I'm not appointing myself judge & jury: to the contrary, I'm
challenging you to prove that the woman you (as self-appointed judge &
jury) have characterized as a "bloodsucke[r]" is indeed one. Or,
absent proof, or absent the belief that producing said proof in public
is productive, I'm gently suggesting that characterizing individuals
as "bloodsuckers" may not be productive.
Re my phone calls--one can't disprove certain negatives. I couldn't
get anyone to go on record confirming the gist of your financial
story.... No one else I've spoken to had anything disparaging to say
about Susan Polgar's character; in fact, praise was the uniform
response.
Re volunteerism & payment for services. In general, Grandmasters get
paid for playing chess. This is what they do for a living.
Volunteers, by definition, don't get paid, but they often do receive
reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. Some volunteers
get paid an honorarium (which often, though not always, means
compensation way below market). Once upon a time, I received
$250/issue for editing the Illinois Chess Bulletin, which I used to
pay my out-of-pocket expenses (layout work). I did not consider
myself a bloodsucker; I did consider myself a volunteer.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there's a big ethical problem in
saying "I'm volunteering for X," then turning around & saying,
"Where's my payment for X?" I would also note that one can volunteer
for event X & expect to be paid for event Y, etc....
--Bob
***********************************
P.S. Polgar herself furnished me with this "invoice" (which looks more
like a statement, & which I reformatted from Word doc--the math error
is present in the original). I make no representations about the
propriety of any of the line items.
***********************************
Polgar Chess Center
[contact info redacted]
Grandmaster Susan Polgar
4-time Women's World Chess Champion & 3-time Olympic Champion
INVOICE # 102003
KISSIMMEE 2003 (3 days of activities)
Expenses for Susan Polgar, Tom & Leeam Shutzman Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (4 tickets) = $820.00
b) Rental car = $449.86
Total Expenses: $1,269.86
Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participant x 1168 participants = $2,336.00
NATIONAL ELEMENTARY - NASHVILLE 2003 (3 days of activities)
Expenses are already reimbursed.
Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participants x 2396 participants = $4,792.00
US OPEN 2003 (14 days of activities)
Expenses for Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (2 tickets) $494.00
b) Daily allowance for food $50x2x14days = $1400.00
Total Expenses:
$1,494.00
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc.) $1,500.00
ROSEMONT K-12 DEC. 2003 (2-3 days of activities)
Susan's ticket only as agreed $246.50
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc. to be paid later) ($1,500.00)
Chess Life Opening Column - June 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - July 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - August 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - September 03 $500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - October 03 $500.00
_________
$15,638.36
Book & Equipment Balance:
$1,836.21
_________
$17,474.57
To be paid later
($1,500.00)
_________
$15,974.57
Please make check payable to Polgar Chess, Inc. Thank you!
Additional:
TLA amount: ? To be deducted or billed by the USCF
1,300 Women's Olympiad Calendars @ $6 each (payable to the Susan
Polgar Foundation) Only calendars that are sold are to be paid.
Unsold calendars can be returned by March 31, 2004 at no charge.
****
END STATEMENT
****