A Chess forum. ChessBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , ,

UTD Scholarship Monopoly



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 04, 04:58 PM
Sam Sloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default UTD Scholarship Monopoly

On 19 Apr 2004 07:07:52 GMT, (Mike Nolan) wrote:

"David Kane" writes:

My perception is exactly the opposite. If this newsgroup
is any indication, there is excessive concern with detail and a gross
lack of appreciation of the big picture - a huge blindspot
when it comes to seeing how the USCF's actions harm
chess.


I agree that there is way too much attention paid to details, but IMHO
that is still oriented towards the end result of the policy, not the
implementation specifics. Go back and review minutes of the EB or
Delegates meetings and look at all of the highly detailed mandates
that have been passed without much regard for how they have to function
in order to be implementable. (I think my favorite one was the
requirement that the LMA portfolio earn at least some specific rate of
return, a rate that was substantially above the money market rates
at that time.)


You are referring to the "5% vs. 7% Rule", something which I have
railed against for a long time.

Tom Dorsch viciously attacked Cavallo over this, saying that the USCF
was losing money because the LMA was only increasing at the 5% rate,
not at the 7% rate.

Cavallo was fired over this.

And, in fact, the group that Dorsch brought in solved this problem,
because under that group the LMA stopped increasing at either the 5%
rate or at the 7% rate. In fact, they completely solved the LMA
problem altogether, because the LMA no longer exists.

Sam Sloan

Ads
  #2  
Old April 19th 04, 11:19 PM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default UTD Scholarship Monopoly


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

You are referring to the "5% vs. 7% Rule", something which I have
railed against for a long time.

Tom Dorsch viciously attacked Cavallo over this, saying that the USCF
was losing money because the LMA was only increasing at the 5% rate,
not at the 7% rate.

Cavallo was fired over this.


He was not.

StanB



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UTD Scholarship Monopoly ASCACHESS rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 125 April 22nd 04 04:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 ChessBanter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Free Credit Reports - MPAA - Car Loans - Share Prices - Fast Loans