[quote="SteveTN"]3) *M-not Sloan is taking cheap shots at the way a
successful GM and her promoter(s) have handled her publicity and the
numerous benefits American chess has received from that publicity.[/
quote]

I agree, and I am sure that everyone else will agree, that Susan
Polgar and her promoters have done a fantastic job of promoting Susan
and thereby at promoting chess.

However, she has not done anything to promote the USCF. For example,
the scholastic tournament she held in Corpus Christi, Texas on
February 17-18, 2007 was not USCF rated.

There is an agreement she made with Joel Channing to exchange links
with the USCF website. It appears that she has not kept her end of the
bargain because I cannot find any links on her website to the USCF
website.

She campaigns for election to the USCF Executive Board on the campaign
promise to "Clean Up the USCF" but it is clear that what Susan really
wants to do it to get control of our organization and to gain control
over our $3 million per year revenues and budget.

Sam Sloan

Nuts

On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, "samsloan" wrote:
[quote="SteveTN"]3) *M-not Sloan is taking cheap shots at the way a
successful GM and her promoter(s) have handled her publicity and the
numerous benefits American chess has received from that publicity.[/
quote]

I agree, and I am sure that everyone else will agree, that Susan
Polgar and her promoters have done a fantastic job of promoting Susan
and thereby at promoting chess.

However, she has not done anything to promote the USCF. For example,
the scholastic tournament she held in Corpus Christi, Texas on
February 17-18, 2007 was not USCF rated.

There is an agreement she made with Joel Channing to exchange links
with the USCF website. It appears that she has not kept her end of the
bargain because I cannot find any links on her website to the USCF
website.

She campaigns for election to the USCF Executive Board on the campaign
promise to "Clean Up the USCF" but it is clear that what Susan really
wants to do it to get control of our organization and to gain control
over our $3 million per year revenues and budget.

Sam Sloan

According to the most recent Form 990 on File, the Susan Polgar
Foundation received a grand total of $47,269 for the year 2005 and
gave out $5,500 in grants.

Meanwhile, the USCF had $3 million in revenues for the same year.

Thus, the claim that Susan Polgar can raise money better than the
current management of the USCF can is a lot of nonsense.

Sam Sloan

The point is that the Susan Polgar Foundation is a 501c3 corporation
which can give tax deductions. Susan Polgar spends all her time trying
to get donations and gets few if any. Much and perhaps most of the
$47,269 she reported as having received in 2005 came from the USCF.

On the other hand, the USCF is a 501c4 which cannot give tax
deductions. If Susan cannot get anybody to donate to the Susan Polgar
Foundation, how can we believe her claim that she will be able to
bring in donations and sponsorship to the USCF, if she is elected?

Sam Sloan

On Mar 4, 9:53 pm, "samsloan" wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfeditor Quote: Originally Posted by samsloan According to the most recent Form 990 on File, the Susan Polgar Foundation received a grand total of $47,269 for the year 2005 and gave out $5,500 in grants. Meanwhile, the USCF had $3 million in revenues for the same year. Thus, the claim that Susan Polgar can raise money better than the current management of the USCF can is a lot of nonsense. Sam Sloan That's exceptionally moronic, even for you, Sam. How much of that $3 million was dues/advertising/TLA/rating fee income? How much of it was paid out for expenses? (By your account, more than $3 million.) I have no idea how much Susan Polgar has raised in grants or donations (nor do I much care, though others may), but I am getting very tired of having my intelligence insulted by your drivel. Why don't you go back to rgcp, where your rantings would actually be above the median level of discourse?

The point is that the Susan Polgar Foundation is a 501c3 corporation
which can give tax deductions. Susan Polgar spends all her time trying
to get donations and gets few if any. Much and perhaps most of the
$47,269 she reported as having received in 2005 came from the USCF.

On the other hand, the USCF is a 501c4 which cannot give tax
deductions. If Susan cannot get anybody to donate to the Susan Polgar
Foundation, how can we believe her claim that she will be able to
bring in donations and sponsorship to the USCF, if she is elected?

Sam Sloan

By positive name recognition Sam.

Something that you do *not* have.

The USCF does NOT need 'your kind' of name recognition, you know, the
unfortunate, negative, politicising, confrontational, anti-sponsorship
kind.

You should Google yourself more often.

It tells a tale....

Steve Immitt has just made a very good point, that I had not thought
of.

The Manhattan Chess Club at one time had people just like that on the
board. For example, Jacque Coe, President of Cowan & Co., Maurice
Wertheim, Chairman of Wertheim & Co., Mickey Pauley, Chairman of
Troster, Singer & Co., and brother of Chess Master Albert Pincus, were
all on the board. A meeting of the Board of the Manhattan Chess Club
was a meeting of the Wall Street Titans of Corporate Finance.

The Manhattan Chess Club is now out of business. Its membership base
failed to be able to keep the club going after all these big shots
passed away.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 6, 6:21 am, "samsloan" wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve_Immitt Quote: Originally Posted by George Lets say the EB of USCF was composed of President of General Motors Chief Executive Officer of Exxon VP of Finance for Salomon Brothers President of Chase Mahattan Bank Former President of US Jimmy Carter etc. don't you think that USCF would run much more smoothy. Possibly, but not necessarily. The Manhattan Chess Club had some wealthy executives on its Board of Directors, and they could have chosen to make decisions in the best interests of the membership, such as insuring that the club's future would be safeguarded, if they had wanted to.

Steve Immitt has just made a very good point, that I had not thought
of.

The Manhattan Chess Club at one time had people just like that on the
board. For example, Jacque Coe, President of Cowan & Co., Maurice
Wertheim, Chairman of Wertheim & Co., Mickey Pauley, Chairman of
Troster, Singer & Co., and brother of Chess Master Albert Pincus, were
all on the board. A meeting of the Board of the Manhattan Chess Club
was a meeting of the Wall Street Titans of Corporate Finance.

The Manhattan Chess Club is now out of business. Its membership base
failed to be able to keep the club going after all these big shots
passed away.

Sam Sloan

And Sam, explain to us how it could possibly run WORSE than it has
then?

How, please tell us, is that even possible? It currently is the most
dysfunctional group of political hacks assembled this side of World
War 1, and you are NO SMALL PART of the problem.

She wants to meet a rich NFL player so she can get lots of hot sex from a
large black man who is also very wealthy and can support her drive to become
a Chess Champion and President of FIDE.