On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:

Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

That is an awful lot of money in exchange for being
able to play in USCF-rated events. Why so much?


In the fiscal year ending May 30, 2008, three weeks from today, the
USCF will have lost $300,000.

Bill Goichberg seems to think that this change will stop the horrific
losses the USCF has suffered every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I
WAS ON THE BOARD.

However, Goichberg is ignoring the fact that during the one year that
I was on the board membership increased and the year ended with a
small surplus.

According to Mr. Sloan's own accounts, he was
unable to do much of anything while on the board
because it was more-or-less controlled by BG and
his cronies. So then, we see that the credit for
(allegedly) not losing money in the year that SS
was on the board belongs to none other than BG
& Co., Inc. (although blind luck may have been a
factor).


Bill Goichberg is claiming that it is because of the "Internet" that
the USCF lost money this year.

Other accounts (by Mr. Sloan, as I recall) maintained
that the dregs in charge refused to admit to any loss;
obfuscation and blustering was the rule, to which the
above admission account must be a rare exception (if
not a mere fabrication).


We had the Internet last year too.

Here, Mr. Sloan is 100% correct. /How odd... ./


Bill Goichberg is losing money this year because of mismanagement.
That is the reason, pure and simple.

Indeed, the same is true for our federal government;
they lose money nearly every year, and then print
more to cover their losses.


Of course, my posting about this over on the USCF Issues Forum will
probably be pulled as a violation of the AUG, but at least it can not
be said that I did not try to tell the members.

It's possible that an informational statement could
be phrased such that no individuals are attacked;
then the dregs who work for BG & Co., Inc. would
not have to pull the post.


Bill Goichberg needs to resign. However, Goichberg is playing the
Truong card well. By now, everybody knows that Goichberg is not the
right man for the job, but we also know that Truong is an outright
crook and a thief. Nobody wants to try to force Goichberg out knowing
that he might be replaced by Truong.

A false dichotomy... poisoning the well, red snapper
or herring, etc. There is no way to know who, exactly,
might replace BG if he were to resign.

This tidbit about losing $300K needs to be broken
down a bit; where, exactly, did this loss occur?
And why last year, in particular?


-- help bot