FULL DISCLOSURE

I have two school age chess-playing daughters, and I would never
support a partnership that suggests that the way to improve your chess
is through taking drugs. Period. End of story. Randy Bauer

I asked about the facts surrounding the Natrol decision, and
Randy Bauer responds that he was opposed to the deal from word one.

I did not write differently.

The issue is not the wisdom of the deal (I take no position on
that question) but full disclosure about how it happened.

After weeks of silence Beatriz Marinello has made a start in a
posting, but it is not good enough to put the matter to rest. And she
is still silent about her chief advisor Stan Booz ducking a lie
detector test with Don Schultz

Why it should be like pulling teeth to get information that ought
to be readily available is beyond me. No one, for example, is
suggesting so far as I know that the executive director be axed if he
recommended or particpated in the deal in some fashion. We put it down
to an over-enthusiastic beginning to make a splash. There might even
be some virtue in such entrepreneurial over-exuberance.

But Nikken-Natrol is a conjunction that will require some
further explanation OR there will be a lot of fighting and all of the
information will come out anyway -- as it always does.

Lie detector test?

Are you kidding?

ha ha ha ha

Just who do you think you're dealing with here? Richard Nixon?

Tom Klem

wrote in message
oups.com...
FULL DISCLOSURE

I have two school age chess-playing daughters, and I would never
support a partnership that suggests that the way to improve your chess
is through taking drugs. Period. End of story. Randy Bauer

I asked about the facts surrounding the Natrol decision, and
Randy Bauer responds that he was opposed to the deal from word one.

I did not write differently.

The issue is not the wisdom of the deal (I take no position on
that question) but full disclosure about how it happened.

After weeks of silence Beatriz Marinello has made a start in a
posting, but it is not good enough to put the matter to rest. And she
is still silent about her chief advisor Stan Booz ducking a lie
detector test with Don Schultz

Why it should be like pulling teeth to get information that ought
to be readily available is beyond me. No one, for example, is
suggesting so far as I know that the executive director be axed if he
recommended or particpated in the deal in some fashion. We put it down
to an over-enthusiastic beginning to make a splash. There might even
be some virtue in such entrepreneurial over-exuberance.

But Nikken-Natrol is a conjunction that will require some
further explanation OR there will be a lot of fighting and all of the
information will come out anyway -- as it always does.

wrote in message
oups.com...
FULL DISCLOSURE

I have two school age chess-playing daughters, and I would never
support a partnership that suggests that the way to improve your chess
is through taking drugs. Period. End of story. Randy Bauer

I asked about the facts surrounding the Natrol decision, and
Randy Bauer responds that he was opposed to the deal from word one.

No, you didn't just ask the facts, you presumed a cover-up. You wrote "The
issue here is not the
substance per se but the big clam up by Beatriz Marinello, Randy Bauer and
their cohorts."

That is why I wrote that "I have stated over and over, and from the very
beginning, that the Natrol partnership was a mistake, and I favor a Board
policy that limits our involvement to organizations or groups who wish to
market chess as a social, recreational, or educational activity. I had
absolutely no prior knowledge of the partnership -- the first I knew of it
was when the press release was quoted on the newsgroups, and I originally
thought it was a hoax."

I did not write differently.

The issue is not the wisdom of the deal (I take no position on
that question) but full disclosure about how it happened.

I have fully disclosed my knowledge on the subject. As soon as the deal was
made public (which is how I learned about it) I started getting emails on
it. I immediately and consistently labeled it a mistake and said I would
work to get the policy reversed. It was, and it has, and I fail to see what
more I can contribute to this discussion.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" writes:

That is why I wrote that "I have stated over and over, and from the very
beginning, that the Natrol partnership was a mistake, and I favor a Board
policy that limits our involvement to organizations or groups who wish to
market chess as a social, recreational, or educational activity.

How close is that to abandoning all attempts to form marketing relationships?

Out of curiosity, which of the following hypothetical sponsors would you
consder acceptable?

1. McDonalds
2. Hershey
3. Flintstone Vitamins
4. Nike
5. Mattel
6. Pepsi
7. Budweiser
8. Geritol
--
Mike Nolan

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296

1996??

Why not rejoin USCF, and use "we" with a clear conscience?

All.

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Randy Bauer" writes:

That is why I wrote that "I have stated over and over, and from the very
beginning, that the Natrol partnership was a mistake, and I favor a Board
policy that limits our involvement to organizations or groups who wish to
market chess as a social, recreational, or educational activity.

How close is that to abandoning all attempts to form marketing
relationships?

Out of curiosity, which of the following hypothetical sponsors would you
consder acceptable?

1. McDonalds
2. Hershey
3. Flintstone Vitamins
4. Nike
5. Mattel
6. Pepsi
7. Budweiser
8. Geritol
--
Mike Nolan

So you think members don't have the right to be upset about the Natrol
deal? Everyone who is upset must have political motivations? How are
we up to our eyebrows in theft, filth, and druggery? It wasn't me
supporting Natrol.

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Randy Bauer" writes:

That is why I wrote that "I have stated over and over, and from the very
beginning, that the Natrol partnership was a mistake, and I favor a Board
policy that limits our involvement to organizations or groups who wish to
market chess as a social, recreational, or educational activity.

How close is that to abandoning all attempts to form marketing
relationships?

Out of curiosity, which of the following hypothetical sponsors would you
consder acceptable?

1. McDonalds
2. Hershey
3. Flintstone Vitamins
4. Nike
5. Mattel
6. Pepsi
7. Budweiser
8. Geritol

That depends on how they wish to market chess and their relationship with
the USCF. Educational, recreational, social?

Mind you, I doubt any drug company is going to meet that standard, but
others mentioned above could, I guess.

Randy Bauer
--
Mike Nolan

You have a right to be in a snit about anything you want.

Both sides have a right to manipulate the facts to their advantage.

I'm just sick of the pigs running the hen house.

Both sides have their problems. For my money, Goichberg controls the USCF
through hand picked delegates and committee seats. He is little more than a
Boss Tweed or an old style Tammany politician, except he takes our dues and
turns it into gold bullion for the CCA. People both admire and are afraid of
Goichberg. Clearly, he is a personnage to be reckoned with at the USCF.

As voter/owners, we should make it as hard as possible for Goichberg to
operate our organization for the profit of Continental Chess and to his own
benefit.

We should make it clear that even though we know that Goichberg runs
everything, there is a sea change coming due to the past gross governance
gotchas which were foisted upon our hobby by a greedy Goichberg solely to
promote his own business, and to destroy the businesses of potential
competitors.

Goichbergs penchant for using the governance of the USCF to destroy
competitors, and commit the same kinds of offences he gets his friends on
the committees to ignore, must have a noticeable price, if these abuses are
to stop.

If the voters turn a blind eye to his abusive nature and porcupine
mentality, then the USCF will once again turn into his private preserve,
where promotion of Chess as an element of culture in the United States,
takes a back seat to building the Bill and Brenda retirement fund.

Goichberg and his friends have coopted the USCF for their own ends and to
profit themselves. They are only interested in what is profitable to
themselves and not promoting a larger Chess organization for the membership.

In my opinion, they are as dirty as the day is long and regulary pull dirty
tricks on competitors, use unlawful business practices, and get away with
all sorts things which making the light of day would make a mafia don blush.

Don't make the mistake of giving them control of the USCF. Chess in the US
will continue to founder if you do.

Tom Klem

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you think members don't have the right to be upset about the Natrol
deal? Everyone who is upset must have political motivations? How are
we up to our eyebrows in theft, filth, and druggery? It wasn't me
supporting Natrol.

"Randy Bauer" writes:

That depends on how they wish to market chess and their relationship with
the USCF. Educational, recreational, social?

Randy, this is not intended as a criticism of you, but I think the above
sentences explain why the USCF has been so inept at finding sponsors over
the nearly 20 years I've been involved at the national level.

The USCF is not a charity, it shouldn't be limiting itself to just
charitable sponsorships.

The companies who are likely to put the kinds of dollars into sponsorship
that it would take to move chess into the spotlight aren't doing it for
purely altrustic reasons. They're doing it because the tie-in between
their company and chess is a part of their marketing plans.

That mean their goal is to bring in customers, either from among active
chess players (a rather pitiful number if only USCF members are counted)
or among those who have some passing interest in chess or at least see
something in the media as a result of the sponsorship. The latter two
are much larger markets, of course.

There are two general types of sponsors. Those who market products used
by the target population. For chess that's a rather small marketplace,
basically just books, sets and clocks, plus tournament expenses.

I suspect far more money is spent on golf equipment, clothing, country club
dues and greens fees each year by golfers in the state of Iowa than is
spent on chess equipment and tournaments by chessplayers across the entire
USA, even after factoring in the 5000 people who went to Nashville in
April and the big dollar tournaments like the World Open, plus all the
people who buy chess sets at places like Kids R Us but aren't USCF members.

The other type of sponsor is the one who sees and values the connection
between the positive aspects of chess and the image of their product.
Consider all the money that IBM has spent promoting the Kasparov vs the
Machine matches, for example. In the long run, IBM expects that to
help sell their products, just as insurance companies expect some sales
impact when they sponsor golf tournaments.

Here's a list of the sponsors at the bottom of the littleleague.org
website:

Musco Lighting, Capri Sun beverages, Wilson Sporting Goods, Snickers,
Upper Deck, Cingular, Ace Hardware.

All of them fall into either the category of marketers of baseball equipment
or makers of things that people who play baseball are likely to buy.

I suspect that none of them became sponsors because of the educational,
recreational or social values of little league baseball.
--
Mike Nolan