"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" writes:

**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from
any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000.

There is no such projected loss.

ROFL.

You are paid to do what, Mike? Who is Donna Alarie?

Donna, like me, is a member of the Finance Committee.

In that case I put it to you that your very own colleague Donna Alarie did
make this projected loss. Unless she herself wishes to contradict me, she
wrote a detailed analysis which wrote the number $344,225 in red ink as
interim December projection. When you say there is no such projected loss,
it is not confidence-building that you seem to deny that fellow finance
committee member issued it!

The key word is PROJECTED. The financial reports themselves do not
contain any projected results, though they do show some budget figures
for the full fiscal year.

I don't quite understand how its possible to operate at all with no
cash-flow forecasting, and a budget is itself a type of projected
expenditure.

Through December the USCF was well ahead of the (cash based) budget.
Comparisons to an accrual-based budget were not made, since we don't
have an accrual-based budget for the current fiscal year, but in my
section of the Phase I report (available on the website, even to
non-members
such as yourself) I noted that current year revenue was slightly ahead of
last year's pace, as was deferred revenue. The latter is due to
increased multi-year membership sales.

Statements of income without expenditure do not reflect profitability. What
seems to have happened is that the budget forecast expenditures to meet
expected income, and these expected incomes were off - too high, as well as
seemingly every portfolio over-spending on the cost side.

I made a summary of the Alarie figures below.

Moreover, the budget was based on membership revenue of $1.7 million,
a $50,000 decrease in membership revenue compared the 2005-06 fiscal
year results. Depending on what happens with memberships in the next
3 1/3 months, we could actually top $1.8 million in memberships collected
during the current fiscal year.

The group that met in Crossville in January did come up with a projected
result, their consensus range was that the USCF would finish the year
somewhere in between a $50,000 loss and a $10,000 profit. Looking at
the 8 month numbers, we still appear to me to be on pace to achieve that.

With, I must suppose at least one desenting member of the finance committee
[who was 'the group that met'?] - and of course, it is the 12-month figure
which is crucial, not an extrapolation of 8 months. But I am confused - is
Alarie wrong, since she seems to have independently produced a radical
different figure?

Nobody has ever denied that the results through 7 months (now 8 months)
are in the red. That's due to the seasonal nature of the USCF's
two main revenue streams, memberships and tournament entry fees.

We're in the best months of the year for membership revenue now
(Nov-April)
and the best months for tournament revenue are yet to come: March and
April.

[I see a fire-sale adult membership drive is currently underway and
discounted fron $49 to $39]. That is also no sign of confidence, and must
surely be a radical reaction to the non-renewal rate being way-off
projections.

While yours are all projections on the part of this group you mention, they
hardly contradict any /specific/ line-item that delegate Alarie raised.

Are any of these /specifics/ actually wrong [here is summary of them]:-
----

$131,858 spent in 'Professional fees', and $38,000 lost on the World Youth
tournament, and the Pan Am is showing a loss of $18,807 - again. A loss of
$20,000 for the National Open? And then the Olympiad for a $20,000 loss?
Chess Life Advertising was under budget by $32,422. Royalties - under budget
by $14k to-date. Salaries over budget by $27k and Professional Fees over
budget by $10k. Building improvements $13k over budget. Miscellaneous
Expenses are $26k over budget. Balance Sheet bottom line as of December 31,
2006

Net Loss: $344,225.

This interim analysis was conducted by Donna Alarie, Massachusetts Delegate.

----
Apart from event-oriented line items, a whopping $131,858 for 'professional
fees' is a most mysterious entry! What can such a huge number encompass?

If Misc Expenses alone are $26,000 /over/ budget in December, and in fact
all the above line items are correct as of Dec 1, what sort of confidence do
you still have in the budgetary system as projecting income or expense,
therefore overall P&L??

Phil Innes

Mike Nolan

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
"Chess One" writes:

**I think its clear that this board member is exculpating himself from
any
responsibility for the projected loss of $314,000.

There is no such projected loss.

ROFL.

You are paid to do what, Mike? Who is Donna Alarie?

Donna, like me, is a member of the Finance Committee.

In that case I put it to you that your very own colleague Donna Alarie did
make this projected loss. Unless she herself wishes to contradict me, she
wrote a detailed analysis which wrote the number $344,225 in red ink as
interim December projection. When you say there is no such projected loss,
it is not confidence-building that you seem to deny that fellow finance
committee member issued it!

The key word is PROJECTED. The financial reports themselves do not
contain any projected results, though they do show some budget figures
for the full fiscal year.

I don't quite understand how its possible to operate at all with no
cash-flow forecasting, and a budget is itself a type of projected
expenditure.

Through December the USCF was well ahead of the (cash based) budget.
Comparisons to an accrual-based budget were not made, since we don't
have an accrual-based budget for the current fiscal year, but in my
section of the Phase I report (available on the website, even to
non-members
such as yourself) I noted that current year revenue was slightly ahead of
last year's pace, as was deferred revenue. The latter is due to
increased multi-year membership sales.

Statements of income without expenditure do not reflect profitability. What
seems to have happened is that the budget forecast expenditures to meet
expected income, and these expected incomes were off - too high, as well as
seemingly every portfolio over-spending on the cost side.

I made a summary of the Alarie figures below.

Moreover, the budget was based on membership revenue of $1.7 million,
a $50,000 decrease in membership revenue compared the 2005-06 fiscal
year results. Depending on what happens with memberships in the next
3 1/3 months, we could actually top $1.8 million in memberships collected
during the current fiscal year.

The group that met in Crossville in January did come up with a projected
result, their consensus range was that the USCF would finish the year
somewhere in between a $50,000 loss and a $10,000 profit. Looking at
the 8 month numbers, we still appear to me to be on pace to achieve that.

With, I must suppose at least one desenting member of the finance committee
[who was 'the group that met'?] - and of course, it is the 12-month figure
which is crucial, not an extrapolation of 8 months. But I am confused - is
Alarie wrong, since she seems to have independently produced a radical
different figure?

Nobody has ever denied that the results through 7 months (now 8 months)
are in the red. That's due to the seasonal nature of the USCF's
two main revenue streams, memberships and tournament entry fees.

We're in the best months of the year for membership revenue now
(Nov-April)
and the best months for tournament revenue are yet to come: March and
April.

[I see a fire-sale adult membership drive is currently underway and
discounted fron $49 to $39]. That is also no sign of confidence, and must
surely be a radical reaction to the non-renewal rate being way-off
projections.

While yours are all projections on the part of this group you mention, they
hardly contradict any /specific/ line-item that delegate Alarie raised.

Are any of these /specifics/ actually wrong [here is summary of them]:-
----

$131,858 spent in 'Professional fees', and $38,000 lost on the World Youth
tournament, and the Pan Am is showing a loss of $18,807 - again. A loss of
$20,000 for the National Open? And then the Olympiad for a $20,000 loss?
Chess Life Advertising was under budget by $32,422. Royalties - under budget
by $14k to-date. Salaries over budget by $27k and Professional Fees over
budget by $10k. Building improvements $13k over budget. Miscellaneous
Expenses are $26k over budget. Balance Sheet bottom line as of December 31,
2006

Net Loss: $344,225.

This interim analysis was conducted by Donna Alarie, Massachusetts Delegate.

----
Apart from event-oriented line items, a whopping $131,858 for 'professional
fees' is a most mysterious entry! What can such a huge number encompass?

If Misc Expenses alone are $26,000 /over/ budget in December, and in fact
all the above line items are correct as of Dec 1, what sort of confidence do
you still have in the budgetary system as projecting income or expense,
therefore overall P&L??

Phil Innes

Mike Nolan

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
12529296: PHIL INNES

Rating (February Supplement)
Regular Rating 2044 1995-12
Quick Rating 2005 (Based on 15 games) 1995-12
Correspondence Rating (Unrated)
State VT
Expiration Dt. 1996-12-31
Last Change Dt. 1995-12-15
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Phil Innes is not even a USCF member, so why should I listen to
your opinion regarding anything to do with the USCF?


"Chess One" wrote in message
news:X5ECh.3947$_O1.3719@trndny04...
Since I am currently interviewing 4 new board candidates - Polgar,
Korenman, Bauer and Truong...

Phil Innes
Vermont

"Chess Freak" wrote in message
t...
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
12529296: PHIL INNES

Rating (February Supplement)
Regular Rating 2044 1995-12
Quick Rating 2005 (Based on 15 games) 1995-12
Correspondence Rating (Unrated)
State VT
Expiration Dt. 1996-12-31
Last Change Dt. 1995-12-15
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Phil Innes is not even a USCF member, so why should I listen to
your opinion regarding anything to do with the USCF?

Exactly USCF's own policy! They have no curiosity why any one leaves, not
the 10,000 who left in 2003/2004. Its called anti-marketing. When sponsors
ask anything, they say, um... dunno. We never performed any real market
survey in our history, they say. Its more important to us who says what than
what is said. For example, board members are the most important of all
speakers, least important are active players who leave.

Thank you for posting the smallest rating I ever held in USA, but from zippo
to 2044 in 15 games ain't bad OTB after 20 years off! I seem to even have
reached 2199. There are not really so many adults who play even this much,
7,500 at last count, who play more than 10 rated per year. How many of those
did that at tournaments, not at their clubs, if they have a club? Half?

If USCF continues to claim [and hog] national status as a non-profit to
promote chess to the mainstream, then it need to be held accountable. If it
wants to live in some alternate-universe but still talk like its in this one
I assume it will continue to attract uncritical people with no curiosity to
attend to its remaining forty-five hundred active club players.

I have no trouble with that at all, except may I suggst it renames itself
ChessHut?

For alternate visions, see below. Phil Innes


"Chess One" wrote in message
news:X5ECh.3947$_O1.3719@trndny04...
Since I am currently interviewing 4 new board candidates - Polgar,
Korenman, Bauer and Truong...

Phil Innes
Vermont