On 31 Mar 2004 20:09:43 GMT, (Mike Nolan) wrote:

(Sam Sloan) writes:

1. Most of the money that was put into the LMA came from profits in
the books and equipment business.

Yes, but Al Lawrence has stated on numerous occasions that the membership
department was covering ALL the overhead during those years. Had USCF
been treating it as an isolated profit center and allocating administrative
and overhead costs, B&E would not been showing nearly as much profit.

In addition, there are no safeguards or backups. If after one or two
years, Hanon Russell finds himself unable to pay the $350,000 per year
he has promised, what is our backup? What is our Plan B? In short, we
will be finished, with no way out.

Life is kind of like that, Sam. The only guarantee you get is that you
won't get out of it alive.

As I understand it, Hanon will be paying an allocated percentage on a
regular basis (weekly?), with an annual reconciliation against the guarantee.

I see this deal has having far fewer downside risks than running our own
B&E operation did, though also with not as much upside potential. In fact,
I think it would make an interesting writeup for the Harvard Case Study
library. That'd probably annoy Hanon, a Yale grad. :-)

BTW, a contract WAS signed a number of days ago, all the parties went to
the USCF's attorneys offices to do the honors. (Hanon's too good an
attorney to be putting in the kind of up-front investment he's making
in software and other capital costs without a signed deal.)
--
Mike Nolan

Thank you, Mike Nolan, for this important information.

Now, can we get to see the contract?

In past years, certified candidates for election got to see all the
important contracts. This was abolished while Redman was president.
Redman also abolished the BINFOS, about which Ken "No Relation" Sloan,
often complains.

John "Mr. Secrecy" McCrary also kept the delegates and even some of
his fellow board members completely in the dark. It has not gotten
better under the current rule.

Without Mike Nolan, we would never have known that the contract had
been signed. I hope that they do not fire you for revealing this to
us.

Sam Sloan

On 31 Mar 2004 18:54:52 GMT, OTHERE (Fifiela) wrote:

Tim Hanke has a volitile and explosive
personality.

LOL! Never seen one of those on a USCF board! Two or three yes, but never
one...

PS: Sam, Tim w-o-n; Look it up.

Alan Fifield keeps making the perfectly valid point that Tim Hanke won
the 2003 election, and I lost. However, I have some questions for Mr.
Fifield:

1. When he was running for election, did Tim Hanke reveal that he
wanted to shut down the books and equipment business?

2. When he was running for election, did Tim Hanke reveal that he
wanted to expel all scholastic members from the USCF?

3. When he was running for election, did Tim Hanke reveal that he
wanted to stop the publication of Chess Life magazine in paper format
and turn it into an Internet publication?

4. When he was running for election, did Tim Hanke reveal that he
wanted to withdraw from FIDE and to stop sending teams to the World
Chess Olympiads and to stop sending players to the World Chess
Championships?

5. When he was running for election, did Tim Hanke reveal that he had
stated on this newsgroup that he was running for election as a way to
force the USCF to sell his chess trivia game on a drop ship basis?

Those of us who read this newsgroup regularly knew all these things
because Tim Hanke posted all this and more on this group, but most
USCF members do not read this group regularly.

The members who voted for Tim Hanke probably read his candidate's
statement published in Chess Life and little or nothing else. Did his
published campaign statements reveal any of the above plans and
intentions by Tim Hanke?

By contrast, when I have campaigned I have always stated exactly,
precisely what I intended to do if elected. If I am elected, everybody
knows what is going to happen. ALL HELL is going to break loose. That
is what is going to happen.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

It is true that I do not have any unique ideas. I am saying that we
should go back to the old ideas which were successful. In 1999, the
LMA had two million dollars in it.

Didn't that two million include 600,000 for a building we still have?

StanB

"Sam Sloan" wrote
It costs us $2 per book to print a book,
and then we sell it for $20. That is a 1000% markup.

I know I'm late on this, but since no one has mentioned it, is this not a 900% mark-up?

"Sam Sloan" wrote
However, the membership and the delegates have not yet been informed
even of the plans to jettison the books and equipment business.

The new CL is inundated with the news.

(Sam Sloan) writes:
The USCF does not have this problem. They have the sales. Only a
complete incompetent would lose money on a book business with $3.5
million in sales. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have had at
the USCF, complete incompetents. The solution is not to get rid of the
business, but to fire the incompetents and hire somebody who knows how
to run the business.

Unfortunately, that requires making competent hiring decisions, and
after seeing the De Feis, Cavallo, and Niro debacles, it doesn't look
so easy any more.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:02:46 -0600, "sandirhodes"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote
It costs us $2 per book to print a book,
and then we sell it for $20. That is a 1000% markup.

I know I'm late on this, but since no one has mentioned it, is this not a 900% mark-up?

Since Sloan can't add nobody expects him to be able to multiply.

Sam Sloan wrote:
I am just trying slowly to bring them up do date. I did not want them
to know that we have lost two million, so I gave them the more
comforting news that we have only lost one million.

Great way to get yourself elected: lie to the electorate and then justify
the lie by patronizing them.

Further, you're making the assumption that nobody in the USCF reads these
groups. If that is the case, could you please stop splurging all this
USCF politics here? In any case, it *certainly* does not belong in
rgc.misc as there is a more specific group.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Flammable Clock (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a clock but it burns really
easily and it's full of teeth!

"Jürgen R." wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:02:46 -0600, "sandirhodes"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote
It costs us $2 per book to print a book,
and then we sell it for $20. That is a 1000% markup.

I know I'm late on this, but since no one has mentioned it, is this
not a 900% mark-up?

Since Sloan can't add nobody expects him to be able to multiply.


He can multiply, alright. Like a rabbit.

Wotan

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 15:31:14 GMT, "Roy Schmidt"
wrote:

"Jürgen R." wrote:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 23:02:46 -0600, "sandirhodes"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote
It costs us $2 per book to print a book,
and then we sell it for $20. That is a 1000% markup.

I know I'm late on this, but since no one has mentioned it, is this
not a 900% mark-up?

Since Sloan can't add nobody expects him to be able to multiply.


He can multiply, alright. Like a rabbit.

Wotan

Just to explain, our ability to print a book for $2 which sells for
$20 is because we have been in business for 36 years and we know all
the printers and all the deals. We get our books printed much more
cheaply than others. For example, the USCF just published a book
entitled "Test, Evaluate and Improve Your Chess" by Danny Kopec. An
excellent book, by the way. However, the USCF is not in the book
publishing business and I will bet that they paid twice what we would
have paid to print the same book.

Sam Sloan