![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: 225, 344, goodall, lost, lux, schultz, sloan, uscf, vote |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
The USCF lost $344,225 in 2006. This is far less than the $2,000,000
other boards have lost. This is why you must re-elect Don Schultz and me and elect Mike Goodall and Joe Lux. The USCF is better off in our hands. This is my response to the report on the web from the committee who went to Crossville. I've received reports from the meeting in CA and it seems that these issues will be addressed "maybe in the next fiscal year". aka after elections. Mr. Channing seems to think that I should be communicating directly to him and should have sent this report to both him and Bill Hall in advance. They didn't request the report. Also, I was not included in the committee going to Crossville nor to those Mr. Channing wanted to keep "in the loop" upon their return. Mr. Channing thinks that I have not communicated directly to him while I have done so with others. That is correct. He sent an email directing all communication to the Finance Chair. That is what I did. This report did not go to Randy Bauer, Grant Perks, or Mike Nolan. They did not request it. It did go to Bill Goichberg, Beatriz Marinello, Steve Jones, and two other non-EB members/non-candidates. I did not do this report as a member of the Finance Committee. This was a report that I did on my own as a concerned USCF member. Therefore, it did not go to the Finance Committee members, the LMA, or the Audit Committee. This report took me 11 hours to analyze and then several hours of discussions and emails took place afterwards. The response to many of the details is that Bill Hall would call me to discuss it. Well, I talked to Bill Hall on January 24 about many of these points and they were not corrected in the financials. We have been waiting for better financial records since November when Joe Nanna was hired. I do not have high hopes of huge improvements in the near future. My prediction is that we will end the year in the red as usual, there will be a lot of finger pointing, Mr. Hall will be given a contract extention now until after the elections are over, and at the delegates meeting, the delegates will say how outraged they are that this has happened again. I've played by all the rules set up until now. This organization belongs to the USCF members and we deserve better than the management we are getting. My report now follows as originally written and the references are to the report that is on the web. The page numbers are referencing that report: Reply to the Phase I Financial Review: 1) Page 3 of 18 - Cash Flow Report by the tenth business day of the month. Are all the reports on the Appendices generated by Peachtree? Or are these actually reports that are exported from Peachtree and then manually edited in Excel? Would it be possible to see the reports that Peachtree generates straight from Peachtree without modifications? Email from Bill Hall after these reports were sent: Appendix A contains an error in the revenue reporting. Please disregard this and we will distribute a corrected schedule early next week. What is the nature of the error? Does it affect the total revenue received? And if Appendix A has an error in revenue reporting unless it is just misposting to different line items, then won't that affect the bottom line of profit or loss on the report and the balance sheet? 2) Page 3 of 18 - Quarterly basis - Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Statement. It is important for the general membership to see these reports monthly. There are many delegates and USCF members who are interested in these numbers and every USCF member has a right to know what management is spending their dues dollars on. It would not be prudent to post cash flow statements since that might affect contract negotiations and also affect the willingness of individuals to make commitments based on the cash flow at any particular moment in time. 3) Page 3 of 18 - The correcting entries from the auditors were not included until after the December financial statements were issued. The correcting entries will be made on the January financial statements. Why were they not included here? The December report is an interim report. Is it not possible to make adjusting entries should an error be discovered in it in order to correct inaccuracies? Why is the deferred revenue from prior years the same in each month on the P & L summary? In other words, if a new member paid for a two year membership in November 2006, wouldn't that mean that their second year income would be recognized in November, 2007? If so, then wouldn't the deferred revenue from prior years be recognized in a fluctuating manner? 4) Page 4 of 18 - Cash Budget (See Appendix B) Appendix B is flawed. Tournament Revenue - 7 Month Budget is actually the figures for 6 months only. Correspondence Chess is: 8271 not 7142 Reg. Tournaments is: 249667 not 239490 FIDE Registration Fees is: 1400 not 1200 Sponsorships is: 15700 not 14200 Total is: 275038 not 262032 - Difference of $13,006. This means that the variances are all off on these line items as well. We were projected through December for a cash deficit of $193,871 through December not the $207,000 listed by Mr. Nanna. In previous financial reports, there was $7,950 reported as income in tournament concession on an actual basis from August, 2006. Appendix B no longer shows that income. I believe that was the concession income from the US Open this year. Where did it go? In fact, there is no tournament concession income listed. Have we not collected any income in this line item this year? In revenues, Loan for Furniture is listed as other Revenue for $24,334. At the very least, this is cash dr./loan cr. Listing it as other revenue instead of listing it separately as other cash received is misleading. This is offset by Office Equipment Expense in September for $24,334. Where are the loan payments for this loan? Under expense, it shows zero payments for Furniture from June through December. The projections are showing $1,030 monthly payments from January through May. Have we not made payments since September when we took the loan out? In fact, one of the reasons why a cash budget report is a problem is that accounts payable would not be listed since items are only shown when paid. Our accounts payable shows $58,983 at the end of December. Does that include the above furniture payments? In previous financial reports, there was interest on line of credit expense: August through November total of $1,647. It doesn't appear to be on Appendix B. Revised statement from Joe Nanna would then be roughly $30,000 ahead of budget thru December. Cash deficit projected $193,871. Actual: $163,849. 5) Page 4 of 18 - "That's IF actual results parallel the budget that was submitted." First, let's review the last column in the actual vs. budget column of Appendix B - the Variance. Management has not been anywhere near projections for the first 7 months on virtually any line item. Secondly, the future projections are in essence are a cut and paste of the original budget for future months with the exception of Professional Fees. So far this year, we have spent $131,858 in Professional fees, yet starting in February; we will only spend $175 per month. This is the only line item that I see has been adjusted in the budget going forward. What have we been paying Professional Fees for all year and now why will we no longer need them? We were budgeted for $200,000 for the year and are now projecting to save $46,000 on this one line item. Is that truly realistic? Third, Fringe Benefits for February is incorrect...typo which reflects in the bottom line: Should be $11,708 making personnel total $71,927 not $60,219. Fourth, a budget is intended to be a living document. If during the course of the year, management realizes that they will be over budget in one line item or under budget in another line item, it is hoped that the future projections will reflect these changes and indicate where cost savings will be anticipated or growth revenue will be recognized. Instead the cash projections here cannot be expected to be any more accurate than they have been for the first 7 months of this fiscal year since they come from the same source. My personal opinion is that the projections are seriously flawed and need to be thoroughly re-evaluated especially in light of what has occurred thus far this year. 6) Page 4 of 18 - Tournament Revenue and Expense - Tournament revenue and expense as reported on the P & L statement appears to be somewhat distorted. I believe that this issue was first raised as a concern in December if not sooner. On January 7, Joel Channing sent an email to the finance committee members which stated referring to Mr. Nanna: "He believes he'll finish analyzing the tournaments within a couple more weeks..." It is now February 2. Mr. Nanna states: "I am in the process of analyzing the accounts to determine what, if any, adjustments have to be made to correct the reporting." Surely by now, there is some indication as to whether the tournaments are accurately reported or not. I will agree with somewhat distorted: Appendix B Tournament Expense - Correspondence $20,860 listed on this report for November. Why? The cash flow report sent to us for December showed $730. In fact, the cash flow report shows the same total Tournament Income and Expenses as what is listed here and this is what was provided as a breakdown for income and expense. Perhaps the board can help to analyze these numbers: TOURNAMENT Income Expenses Profit or Loss 06 NATIONAL YOUTH ACTION 25,437 29854 (4,417) 06 K-12 103,058 44226 58,832 06 US AMATEUR TEAM 0 0 06 WORLD YOUTH 43,158 81464 (38,305) 06 US OPEN 76,474 53910 22,564 07 US OPEN 0 0 07 ELEMENTARY 11,968 7895 4,073 07 JUNIOR HIGH 183 7628 (7,445) 07 HIGH SCHOOL 4,124 2949 1,175 06 US CHAMPIONSHIP 0 0 06 NATIONAL OPEN 23,575 42808 (19,233) 06 SR OPEN 5,925 4736 1,189 06 COLLEGE FINAL 4 0 686 (686) 06 UMBC - PAN AM 400 400 06 OLYMPIAD 1,728 1,728 07 JR INVITATIONAL 7519 (7,519) 07 JR CADET 250 (250) 06 OLYMPIAD 19709 (19,709) PAN AMERICAN YOUTH 18807 (18,807) WORLD JUNIOR 3000 (3,000) Correspondence Chess 10,892 730 10,162 FIDE Registration Fees 6,086 6,086 Sponsorships 17,338 17,338 Total 330,346 326,169 4,176 There was BINFO #200700375 and BINFO #200700376 discussing the World Youth. So is it true that the USCF lost $38,000 on this item or is the US Chess Trust reimbursing USCF for any of this item? The Pan Am is showing a loss of $18,807 - again, is that a total loss or will money be coming from the US Chess Trust and if so, how much? Did we really make a profit $22,000 off the US Open? Also the delegates meeting was $23,000 under expected expenses for this event? (See Appendix B for Governance.) This must be a record for profitability for the USCF on the US Open. A loss of $20,000 for the National Open? And then the Olympiad for a $20,000. loss? If all of the above looks okay, then a $4,177 profit on tournaments is great. 7) Page 4 of 18 - Chart of Accounts - Within the next several weeks, I will design a new chart of accounts... Given the current state of our financial records, it would seem that other items need priority. Pages 5 through 15. Lots of interesting data. How exactly is the USCF planning to calculate what our deferred memberships should be and what the process will be for allocating them going forward? Page 14 of 18 - "New memberships were down in all three time periods for the current fiscal year compared to a year ago." That would be a strong indicator to me that the dues sale did not inspire new memberships. "The large number of returning members in September 2006 is due to a mailing to former members." How much did the mailing cost us to do in comparison to how many former members sent in memberships? "The biggest impact of the dues sale has been on memberships that were renewed 2 or months in advance." This indicates that members took advantage of a bargain when they saw one and I would expect this to be the increase in multi-year memberships as well which would indicate that next year we would not have those same people in the membership pool to get renewals from. Following that thought would mean that people who renewed multi-years in advance will not be paying $49 memberships next year so we can expect a decline in membership renewals plus since our new memberships were down in all three time periods, we can expect less revenue next year if the trend continues. "...revenue has gone down nearly $10,000 during the due sale...revenue which needs to be deferred to future years has increased by nearly $27,000." We generated a net cash flow of $17,000 for this year, earned $10k less this year and now have a $27k liability in the future. 9) Page 16 of 18 - Budgeted Cash Profit for the Remaining 5 months of FY 06-07 of $300k. That is one big IF. 10) Page 16 of 18 - "These are accounted for on an accrual basis and each year an appropriate portion of the multiyear memberships are deferred, i.e. they are saved for later on paper, but not actually physically (or fiscally) saved for later." This in essence is going to be what creates the downfall of the USCF. This is the LMA fund revisited. We have taken the multi-year membership income and borrowed from the future. To keep it simple: We have $27,000 that should be deferred from the dues sale above (item . Instead we save it "only on paper". So, next year, when we mail those members their magazines, we will have to pay that expense out of pocket because we already spent that money this year. And we've been doing this for years. So in essence, we have to keep selling multi- year memberships because the day we don't is the day that there is no revenue stream to cover the money that was already spent. We are taking future income and spending it now, but keeping a note to ourselves on paper. "Both cash and accrual tell part of the story and both are essential for fully understanding the financial status of our organization." Cash flow reports are just that...reports to determine if you have enough cash coming in to pay the bills. Accrual reports let one know if we are making a profit. We're not and sooner or later we will have the bills and not have the cash to pay them. 11) Page 16 of 18 - Cash Reserves - "The potential impact of a future cash crunch is serious because the Federation has insufficient cash reserves." The questions regarding why we do not have cash reserves and how we are managing our resources follow in items below. 12) Page 17 of 18 - Continuing the dues sale. All this will do is decrease our current earning power, continue to provide a cash flow to cover the money we spent this year instead of saving, and continue to put money into future year deferrals which we will have "on paper". 13) Page 17 of 18 - This will be for vetting purposes..., etc. It would seem to be reasonable to have a one week time frame for committee members to review statements, decide if they appear to have all the details and are accurate, and then there would be no rationale not to provide reports to the general membership. There is no reason for Finance Committee members to know more than the average USCF member who has a desire to know where his/her membership money is being spent. 14) Questions pertaining to the financials themselves: a) Chess Life Tournament Ads - Under budget by $11,225. Will this trend be likely to continue? In other words, we have only received $12k for the first 7 months of the year, yet we are projecting $16k for the last 5 months. b) Chess Life Advertising under budget by $32,422. Have we made entries for the ads provided to Ms. Polgar in exchange for services? Advertising revenue for January is listed as double the following months on the projections. Is this realistic? c) Royalties - Under budget by $14k. We have only received $5k year to date, yet anticipate another $14k by the end of the year. Is that realistic? d) Unreconciled Web Income. What is this exactly? My understanding is that we cannot match our receipts to the items paid for by the web. Is that an accurate explanation? How is that possible? e) Catalog Mailing - It is my understanding that a catalog was mailed in the summer and the fall. Why are there no entries for these items? We had budgeted $10k for June and $20k for September. Are these entries actually combined in the regular Chess Life mailing which means that then our Chess Life mailing line item needs to be adjusted? Or is this a bill that will show up at a later date? f) Salaries over budget by $27k and Professional Fees over budget by $10k. Will this trend continue for the rest of the year? g) Building improvements $13k over budget on a new building? Or is the $11,850 spent in July for something in New Windsor? What did we spend $3,125 for in November? h) Miscellaneous Expenses are $26k over budget. Exactly what are these expenses? 15) Other questions from Balance Sheet for December, 2006 a) Accounts Receivable for December are $30,615 compared to almost double that for each of the previous months. Was there something in particular which created this sudden increase in cash receipts? Why were we able to decrease our accounts receivable by $41k but our accounts payable only decreased by $300? b) Does the Chess Trust owe us money and if so, is that amount included in the Accounts Receivable or is that income not booked anywhere as of yet? The above items are my questions and it took me 11 hours to compile questions from various individuals, analyze the data here, and create this response. I hope that it was worth my time and that these issues will be seriously addressed. Balance Sheet bottom line as of December 31, 2006 Net Loss: $344,225. Total Capital: ($474,640) Sending you the trial balance by email. Maybe now we can talk about something that's a lot more important than what Mr. Sloan has on his website. And before anyone says I cannot do this, I trust that they handed out the latest financials at the EB meeting. Besides which this confidential stuff of ducking the inquiries from the membership has to stop. Donna Alarie Massachusetts Delegate _________________ Donna Alarie Chesspals, Inc. |
| Ads |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Feb 3, 9:06 pm, "samsloan" wrote:
The USCF lost $344,225 in 2006. This is far less than the $2,000,000 other boards have lost. This is why you must re-elect Don Schultz and me and elect Mike Goodall and Joe Lux. The USCF is better off in our hands. How so? Do you, Don Shultz, Mike Goodall and Joe Lux have a track record of losing less than the amount mentioned above when it comes to running the USCF? If so, what is your average loss per year? And how many more years of these losses can the USCF endure before drowning in a sea of debt? I've played by all the rules set up until now. This organization belongs to the USCF members and we deserve better than the management we are getting. Um, Mr. Sloan, are you not *already* a member of this management "team" to which you refer? d) Unreconciled Web Income. What is this exactly? My understanding is that we cannot match our receipts to the items paid for by the web. Is that an accurate explanation? How is that possible? Mr. Sloan, you are a lot smarter than I had imagined; you have just uncovered the secret slush fund account, code named: UWI. h) Miscellaneous Expenses are $26k over budget. Exactly what are these expenses? Once again, bravo; you have uncovered one of the many accounts used to funnel monies into or out of the secret slush fund account. How ever are you doing this? Balance Sheet bottom line as of December 31, 2006 Net Loss: $344,225. Total Capital: ($474,640) Sending you the trial balance by email. Maybe now we can talk about something that's a lot more important than what Mr. Sloan has on his website. Nonsense; money cannot be more important than sex. The only thing that tops sex is playing chess with a beautiful woman as you both lie naked on a sun-drenched beach, listening to the dolphins sing: "Tralala la la la la, there's peace and good will, I think, I'm gonna mate you on Mockingbird Hill." Well, it topped sex in one of my dreams, anyway.... -- finance bot |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
With outrageous dues that provide nothing other than a low-grade
monthly magazine and a ho-hum website, how can the USCF lose money? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Feb 4, 9:01 am, " wrote:
With outrageous dues that provide nothing other than a low-grade monthly magazine and a ho-hum website, how can the USCF lose money? Poor management, that's how. I have seen plenty of businesses which follow the above described model, and most of them are fairly lucrative. -- help bot |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|