Frank Camaratta has resigned from the USCF Executive Board over the
decision by the board to "outsource" the books and equipment business.

I believe that the decision to outsource the books and equipment
business is a major mistake which may well be the death knell of the
USCF.

Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.
Without that business, it is doubtful that the USCF could have
survived.

Therefore, I announce that I am a candidate for election for the seat
vacated by Frank Camaratta. My number one plank is that the books and
equipment business should be reinstated.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) writes:
Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.

What makes you think it's been profitable, especially in the past few
years? The outsourcing seems to be motivated by some very justified
disbelief in the bull**** numbers coming out of the office claiming
that B&E is profitable. It seems almost impossible to tell for sure
what the real situation is, but some pretty financially savvy folks
who have looked at it closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has
been losing money steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time
to let someone else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are
wrong.

Paul, at least 5 other large chess websites in the US use news, articles and
information services to attract chess readers to their B&E on-line
businesses which is their only source of income.

Because B&E has been difficult to isolate at USCF [no reliable figures for
distributed overhead, etc] its unclear the extent of USCF's P&L from it.

However, perhaps Sam is saying that if these other sites can apparently
thrive with B&E, what's the matter with USCF?

Cordially, Phil Innes

(Personally I'm voting for the fabulous Jane Addams, though she hardly ever
writes to me any more)


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
(Sam Sloan) writes:
Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.

What makes you think it's been profitable, especially in the past few
years? The outsourcing seems to be motivated by some very justified
disbelief in the bull**** numbers coming out of the office claiming
that B&E is profitable. It seems almost impossible to tell for sure
what the real situation is, but some pretty financially savvy folks
who have looked at it closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has
been losing money steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time
to let someone else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are
wrong.

If the USCF is making money from B&E, why would they outsource it? Bad
management
If the USCF is losing money from B&E while others (ChessCafe, Chess House,
etc) are making money, bad management again.
Do we see a trend here?

Geoff


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Frank Camaratta has resigned from the USCF Executive Board over the
decision by the board to "outsource" the books and equipment business.

I believe that the decision to outsource the books and equipment
business is a major mistake which may well be the death knell of the
USCF.

Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.
Without that business, it is doubtful that the USCF could have
survived.

Therefore, I announce that I am a candidate for election for the seat
vacated by Frank Camaratta. My number one plank is that the books and
equipment business should be reinstated.

Sam Sloan

"Geoff" wrote in message
. net...
If the USCF is making money from B&E, why would they outsource it? Bad
management

Wow. You really haven't been paying attention.

If the USCF is losing money from B&E while others (ChessCafe, Chess House,
etc) are making money, bad management again.

One for two ain't bad.

Do we see a trend here?

Geoff

Yes, but not due to your "revelations."

Regards,

Matt

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
(Sam Sloan) writes:
Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.

What makes you think it's been profitable, especially in the past few
years? The outsourcing seems to be motivated by some very justified
disbelief in the bull**** numbers coming out of the office claiming
that B&E is profitable. It seems almost impossible to tell for sure
what the real situation is, but some pretty financially savvy folks
who have looked at it closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has
been losing money steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time
to let someone else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are
wrong.

Paul,
You are right in that you are guessing, but your guess is wrong. The
only way for the B&E of the USCF not to make money is to mismanage it, which
is the true problem. Fix the management and the accounting and the B&E is
profitable.
Since the USCF can not fix those two areas than they are stuck outsourcing
it for pennies on the dollar scraps they will get.
Leopold

"King Leopold" writes:
... some pretty financially savvy folks who have looked at it
closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has been losing money
steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time to let someone
else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are wrong.

You are right in that you are guessing, but your guess is wrong.

That's what Sam says too, but neither of you have given anyone the
slightest reason to believe that you know better than the financial
experts who have looked into the issue. Your repeating a falsehood
doesn't make it true.

The only way for the B&E of the USCF not to make money is to
mismanage it, which is the true problem.

That is correct.

Fix the management and the accounting and the B&E is profitable.

Probably true, but apparently beyond the USCF's competence.

Since the USCF can not fix those two areas than they are stuck
outsourcing it for pennies on the dollar scraps they will get.

Yes, correct, having a net inflow is better than losing money, even if
the inflow is pennies on the dollar. Hence the outsourcing. Given
the USCF's limitations, doing anything else is just about certain to
result in yet more losses.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"King Leopold" writes:
... some pretty financially savvy folks who have looked at it
closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has been losing money
steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time to let someone
else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are wrong.

You are right in that you are guessing, but your guess is wrong.

That's what Sam says too, but neither of you have given anyone the
slightest reason to believe that you know better than the financial
experts who have looked into the issue. Your repeating a falsehood
doesn't make it true.

The only way for the B&E of the USCF not to make money is to
mismanage it, which is the true problem.

That is correct.

Fix the management and the accounting and the B&E is profitable.

Probably true, but apparently beyond the USCF's competence.

Since the USCF can not fix those two areas than they are stuck
outsourcing it for pennies on the dollar scraps they will get.

Yes, correct, having a net inflow is better than losing money, even if
the inflow is pennies on the dollar. Hence the outsourcing. Given
the USCF's limitations, doing anything else is just about certain to
result in yet more losses.

Paul,
Please don't take me as being hostile, because I'm not.
If you do some research, you will see that the USCF has a very nice unique
rich history and has made money in the past with its B&E. But do to the bad
management problems of the past several years its not leaking, but bleeding
to a quick death.
I truly hope someone (Bill G.) can turn it around and stop the hemorrhage
before its to late. I would love to see the US Chess Fed. continue to be the
main body that governs chess, but my own hopes are not high.
I think that soon, someone will develop an alternative to the USCF and that
will be the death blow that will finally kill it. But until then, It remains
floundering and many a people are bailing it out with paper cups. Its sad.
My personal feeling is to keep the B&E in house, develop a professional
operation to run it. Show the book publishers the plan and beg them for
credit and time and give it one last shot.
If they can use it to turn a profit, the profit could be used to shore up
the USCF until they can turn IT around.
What else can I say.
I really hope the USCF survives the next year or so. Otherwise....well you
know.
Leopold

Almost all the books and equipment can be purchased for a cheaper price
elsewhere the USCF, if USCF can be more competitive they might have a better
chance of getting more business.
"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
(Sam Sloan) writes:
Over the last 65 years that the USCF has been in business, the only
consistently profitable area has been the sale of books and equipment.

What makes you think it's been profitable, especially in the past few
years? The outsourcing seems to be motivated by some very justified
disbelief in the bull**** numbers coming out of the office claiming
that B&E is profitable. It seems almost impossible to tell for sure
what the real situation is, but some pretty financially savvy folks
who have looked at it closely have come to the conclusion that B&E has
been losing money steadily under recent USCF management, so it's time
to let someone else run it. My guess is, they are right and you are
wrong.

"greg and kari" writes:
Almost all the books and equipment can be purchased for a cheaper
price elsewhere the USCF, if USCF can be more competitive they might
have a better chance of getting more business.

USCF B&E already gets plenty of business at its present prices, more
than 2 million dollars worth a year in fact. The problem is that USCF
B&E is so badly run that it loses money even with all that business
and even at those high prices. It's not a matter of too little business.