I respectfully submit that if he didn't think he ****ed it away, he'd
still
be doing it.

Marketing types like to run events -- because they don't have to worry
about infrastructure. Fortunately, other parts of a business tend to
restrain marketing spending.

"Sponsors" want value for money spent. Is that particular foundation a
"sponsor" - if so, they would expect value. I assume it 1) thought that
running the event would generate even more donations to the foundation, 2)
allow it to fulfill its necessary spending pledges -- as foundations must
spend x amount each year on their purpose.

One can only assume that # 1 is the rub -- the additional torrent of money
did not flow in after givng a few dozen folks a paycheck.

This lesson is repeated every 5-10 years with a new crowd.


This is a bit like Republicans saying government doesn't work, because
their's doesn't.

What you have to do with any Sponsor is ask them straight what they expect?
Say if you can or cannot do it, tell em straight. But USCF gave up on their
own responsibility in allowing a false expectation to survive. That is
amateur business practice.

It should not be a guide for serious praxis.

Mr. Innes is correct, however, that USCF folks tend not to raise enough
money from the membership. He is incorrect that somehow by spending money
on tourneys and prizes that anyone -- USCF included -- would be building
infrastructure.

Since those are not my sentiments, I am not correct! I said that because
USCF had failed to achieve expanding their own infrastructure over some 35
years, this is no indication that the task can't be done, albeit not by
committees of well-meaning folk, but by ordinary business practices.

Infrastructure is built by running sustainable programs and events -- NOT
million-dollar one-shots (GM Ashley's event comes to mind -- boy, that
really built up chess in the US, right?).

Yes, there are endless reasons why it is not possible for most people to
succeed in much - though we have to think here what is being attempted -
what is the 'it' in my sentence?

By previous argument 'it' is not the self-sustaining chess club, which works
like a pizza joint.

I have suggested both mainstream education and mainstream media as other
'its'.

And I really don't mind if other people don't want to do that, but why they
should so continuously feel threatened by 'it' is entirely obscure.

Phil Innes

ECJ