Hi Louis, I think Larry and I have been saying that we were writing with Tim
until he turned. Of course, if it ain't google-able, it never happened,
right. Cripes! Phil

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
ups.com...
Larry Parr wrote (26 Sep 2005 17:48:47 -0700):

... For the record, Hanke fought hard against the Cafe
deal and ... lost.

_
"I was hands-off on the ChessCafe" - Timothy Hanke
(Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:27:25 -0500)
_
"Tim Hanke went along with [the current deal] in that
he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in favor of it." - Tom
Martinak (26 Sep 2005 08:25:47 -0700)

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BOOKS

It is not necessarily the case that the Cafe has
lost any money whatsoever on this deal. We have no
access to the Cafe's books.

We are sure that if GM Larry Evans or someone
detested by the politicians were a quarter million
in default to the USCF that he would already have his
assets confiscated. Or have Pinkerton Detectives,
hired by the Federation, tailing him in order to confiscate
his cars and make off with his curtain rods when away from home.

That much is cosmically certain.

To my mind, Hanon Russell is a good businessman who has made the
Cafe successful in various ways over the years. If he ultimately
closes shop, he will have had a fine run and made money.

His big error in the first year was
not to hire the right people to do his print
advertising, which was very poorly done in my
estimation. It was dead on the page, and the sales
went dead with it.

If the market is now changing as Mike Murray
says, then it means that Mr. Russell (America's
Caissic Stalin) will either adapt or get out of
business. It does not mean he did a stupid thing
in signing the contract or that he failed to make money.

On 27 Sep 2005 18:06:52 -0700, "
wrote:

WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE BOOKS

It is not necessarily the case that the Cafe has
lost any money whatsoever on this deal. We have no
access to the Cafe's books.

Do you mean that the USCF lacks the right to audit the books, or just
that the books aren't public ?

If the market is now changing as Mike Murray
says, then it means that Mr. Russell (America's
Caissic Stalin) will either adapt or get out of
business. It does not mean he did a stupid thing
in signing the contract or that he failed to make money.

Point taken. The clever entrepreneur will usually find a way to make
money, and knowing when to bail is as important as knowing when to
jump in.

My main argument was that the USCF's loss of in-house B&E expertise
may be less significant in the long run.

Mike Murray writes:

Do you mean that the USCF lacks the right to audit the books, or just
that the books aren't public ?

They do have the right to audit the books. It's not clear what an audit
will discover, other than confirming that sales have been far less than
both parties expected.

My main argument was that the USCF's loss of in-house B&E expertise
may be less significant in the long run.

The USCF had had little 'in-house expertise' in B&E since Al Lawrence left.
--
Mike Nolan

Larry Parr wrote (26 Sep 2005 17:48:47 -0700):
... For the record, Hanke fought hard against the Cafe
deal and ... lost.

_
"I was in an awkward spot, because I did not want to look
as if I had a selfish attachment to the bid I had personally
negotiated. Clearly the other Board members were being
swayed by Goichberg, and I did not want to insist that we
accept a bid Goichberg loudly and repeatedly insisted was
'terrible.'
_
So I withdrew myself from the process and we ended up
where we are today. I think it's safe to say the rest of the
EB is happy with the final choice we made. So who am
I to say they are all wrong and we should have done
something different? I am not that self-assured." - Tim
Hanke (Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:56:24 GMT)
_
_
"Tim Hanke went along with [the current deal] in that
he was one of the 5-0 EB vote in favor of it." - Tom
Martinak (26 Sep 2005 08:25:47 -0700)

AWKWARD SPOT


"I was in an awkward spot, because I did not want to look as if I had a selfish attachment to the bid I had personally negotiated. Clearly the other Board members were being swayed by Goichberg, and I did not want to insist that we accept a bid Goichberg loudly and repeatedly insisted was 'terrible.'" -- Tim Hanke


From what Louie Blair presents, it seems to me that Tim Hanke
opposed the ChessCafe deal but decided not to go to the mat, as they
say, in his opposition.

I am surprised that there is not more in the public record where
Tim lambasts the Cafe deal. I had though he posted here many times on
the subject. Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he
said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.

Tim was right on both scores, it would appear, though that does
not necessarily mean the deal cannot be redeemed.

Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he
said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.

Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most
plausible explanation.

DEBT TO BE RATCHETED DOWN

I have been told that the Executive Board will employ a device to
ratchet down the ChessCafe debt of about $250,000 so as to give an
impression of a smaller amount being forgiven than is actually the
case.

The 13.5% off the top that the Cafe was to pay will be lowered by
the USCF RETROACTIVELY. This form of forgiveness will impart the
misimpression that the Cafe owes less than it actually does.

I am told that Bill Goichberg and Don Schultz have disagreed over
the nature of a new deal which contradicts what I reported two days
ago. I mention it because a second source supported this claim. If
true, Schultz would appear to be the vote that prevented the Hanon
Russell-Goichberg version of a deal from being adopted
by the Board.

There is talk in the office and insiders that a long-term deal
between the USCF and Russell Enterprises will give Mr. Russell
effective control over Federation policies within a few years' time.

Slowly, the cohesion of silence is beginning to peel away just a
bit.

OPPOSITE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY

Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he [Tim Hanke] said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on. -- Larry Parr

Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most plausible explanation. -- Rynd-Dowd

We have another example of Dowd-mind creaking when it tries to
work.

"Selective memory" is a phrase that means a propensity to recall
what one wishes to remember while forgetting what one wishes to forget.

The example adduced by Mr. Dowd-Rynd is nearly the opposite of
selective memory: it is an example of our likely remembering a private
exchange as a public one. Nothing was selected out; and yes, possibly
something was added.

We think the Dowd-Rind complex does not think -- at least not
very clearly.

We think the Dowd-Rind complex does not think -- at least not
very clearly

Another royal "we'? Clarity of thought? - hey pot, this is the kettle.

Perhaps I remember only

Selective memory" is a phrase that means a propensity to recall
what one wishes to remember while forgetting what one wishes to forget.

I don't see the dichotomy here, but then again, in Parr-land,
everything revolves around Larry's interpretation of the events, not
the events as they actually occurred.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps I remember only our private exchanges in which he
said the deal was unrealistic and would lead to problems later on.

Selective memory being your forte, I would agree that this is the most
plausible explanation.

I am also guilty of 'selective memory' which in my case means successfully
selecting a memory of what happened privately rather than publically: I
mentioned this private correspondence with Tim and 'another rgc*
participant', never identifiying Larry Parr, who volunteered that he was
t'other.

On the /public/ record Tim certainly reversed himself on several issues, the
most prominent was to entirely junk Chess Life as a print magazine and go
with an e-zine.

I think, James, you should conclude that we are both nuts, liars and even,
therefore, members of skull & crossbones. You could also conclude that we
are both over forte, and possibly will soon forget the names of the objects.


Cryptically, Pauvre Lélian *


*literary quiz: (1) who, and (2) what does it indicate?