At the Finance Committee Workshop two weeks ago, the delegates were
handed a balance sheet and P & L statement for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2007. However, it was marked "DRAFT". The delegates were
explained that the reason it was marked DRAFT was that some final
signatures had to be obtained before these figures were official.
However, these signatures were just routine and these were the real
financial figures.

That was two weeks ago. Since then, there has been silence. Nothing
has been posted on the website. I am beginning to wonder whether these
routine signatures were really so routine.

What was especially noteworthy was that the figures handed to the
delegates showed a surplus {or "profit") of $3,000 whereas the
financial figures previously given to the Executive Board showed a
loss of $57,915.

Since I am no longer a member of the Executive Board (because I lost
the election) I am no longer bound or required to keep the Official
Secrets of the USCF secret. (I was not very good at keeping secrets
even when I was on the board.)

Since I am no longer required to keep the Official Secrets secret I
know of no reason who I should not reveal the financial information
that was given to the board members. These same financial figures were
never given to the USCF Finance Committee or to the other relevant
committees. Only the board members got them.

There are two sets of figures. There is the "Revised Trial Balance"
for May 2007 and there is the "Cash Flow Statement".

Here they are. As noted previously, they show a loss of $57,915. They
are in the form of an xls spreadsheet.

Here they a

http://www.samsloan.com/RevisedTrial...-2006May07.xls

http://www.samsloan.com/CashFlow06-07MAY.xls

If you have any trouble uploading these, let me know and I will
present them in a different way.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 15, 8:30 pm, samsloan wrote:
At the Finance Committee Workshop two weeks ago, the delegates were
handed a balance sheet and P & L statement for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2007. However, it was marked "DRAFT". The delegates were
explained that the reason it was marked DRAFT was that some final
signatures had to be obtained before these figures were official.
However, these signatures were just routine and these were the real
financial figures.

That was two weeks ago. Since then, there has been silence. Nothing
has been posted on the website. I am beginning to wonder whether these
routine signatures were really so routine.

What was especially noteworthy was that the figures handed to the
delegates showed a surplus {or "profit") of $3,000 whereas the
financial figures previously given to the Executive Board showed a
loss of $57,915.

Since I am no longer a member of the Executive Board (because I lost
the election) I am no longer bound or required to keep the Official
Secrets of the USCF secret. (I was not very good at keeping secrets
even when I was on the board.)

Since I am no longer required to keep the Official Secrets secret I
know of no reason who I should not reveal the financial information
that was given to the board members. These same financial figures were
never given to the USCF Finance Committee or to the other relevant
committees. Only the board members got them.

There are two sets of figures. There is the "Revised Trial Balance"
for May 2007 and there is the "Cash Flow Statement".

Here they are. As noted previously, they show a loss of $57,915. They
are in the form of an xls spreadsheet.

Here they a

http://www.samsloan.com/RevisedTrial...-2006May07.xls

http://www.samsloan.com/CashFlow06-07MAY.xls

If you have any trouble uploading these, let me know and I will
present them in a different way.

Sam Sloan

What is interesting is that back in the late 1990's and early 2000's
whenever I posted questions like this you criticized me for asking for
honest financial statements from our leaders and our board.

The only time you didn't was when I criticized Redman for not doing it
and you agreed with me, because you hated Redman.

On Aug 15, 8:30 pm, samsloan wrote:

What was especially noteworthy was that the figures handed to the
delegates showed a surplus {or "profit") of $3,000 whereas the
financial figures previously given to the Executive Board showed a
loss of $57,915.

Since I am no longer a member of the Executive Board (because I lost
the election) I am no longer bound or required to keep the Official
Secrets of the USCF secret. (I was not very good at keeping secrets
even when I was on the board.)


I have been reading about how the USCF loses money
or lies in these financial reports for years, yet the concept
of accountability never seems to crop up; instead, there
appears to be a sort of game in which "secrets" are posted
here, for no other reason than to get the credit for having
scooped the story. It reminds me of The Daily Globe -- a
newspaper commonly found near the checkouts at grocery
stores; do the editors really believe in space aliens? No,
but they do believe in boosting sales of newspapers.


Clearly, one solution to this would be for the folks at the
USCF to appoint someone, who, after being so appointed
would be beyond the influence of petty politics, to take
full responsibility for the accuracy of these financial reports.

Then, for example, if any shenanigans were pulled to try
and jimmy the numbers by shifting a large source of
income from one period to the next, a note pointing this
out would accompany the report in question, and that
note would in effect defeat the whole purpose of the scam
in question, because the ploy would attract attention in
that an "exception" occurred on the report.

At any rate, the many, many reports of the USCF having
lost huge sums, as told by ace reporters here, leave a few
unanswered questions, such as "how is it that they have
not yet gone bankrupt, then?" In real life, if one loses
large amounts of money consistently, there is a slight
problem in that the money eventually runs out; strangely,
this never seems to faze the USCF, or the ace reporters
for that matter.


-- help bot

help bot writes:
At any rate, the many, many reports of the USCF having
lost huge sums, as told by ace reporters here, leave a few
unanswered questions, such as "how is it that they have
not yet gone bankrupt, then?" In real life, if one loses
large amounts of money consistently, there is a slight
problem in that the money eventually runs out; strangely,
this never seems to faze the USCF, or the ace reporters
for that matter.

When this all got started, there was a substantial cash reserve (the
LMA) and a building in New York. The losses in any particular year
were not enough to wipe those assets out all at once. But over time,
the LMA did get drawn down and the NY building was sold. The USCF
shrunk in size when it moved to TN, so its overall expenses are lower
now, and the annaual losses are presumably smaller in absolute terms.
Since there is still nontrivial dues income, the agony may last a
while longer.

On Aug 16, 2:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
help bot writes:

At any rate, the many, many reports of the USCF having
lost huge sums, as told by ace reporters here, leave a few
unanswered questions, such as "how is it that they have
not yet gone bankrupt, then?" In real life, if one loses
large amounts of money consistently, there is a slight
problem in that the money eventually runs out; strangely,
this never seems to faze the USCF, or the ace reporters
for that matter.

When this all got started, there was a substantial cash reserve (the
LMA) and a building in New York. The losses in any particular year
were not enough to wipe those assets out all at once. But over time,
the LMA did get drawn down and the NY building was sold. The USCF
shrunk in size when it moved to TN, so its overall expenses are lower
now, and the annaual losses are presumably smaller in absolute terms.
Since there is still nontrivial dues income, the agony may last a
while longer.


Not too many years ago, there were complaints here
that the LMA fund was far from sufficient to cover the
actual liabilities in question. The idea was that in spite
of the ongoing nature of the USCF and its activities, a
large sum should be set aside each time a member
buys a life membership, and then gradually drawn
against during the member's actual "life". But there are
problems, such as the fact that when a player dies, he
always fails to notify the USCF via netherworld-mail, so
the magazines are still mailed out. "Wow, this guy's
rating is as steady as a granite mountain!", I observed
of one local player who died many years ago, but who
like so many others is still listed among active players.

From the comments posted here by ace reporter
Sam Sloan, it seems like Bill Goichberg is in control
of everything, so presumably he could arrange to have
an accountant who just rubber-stamps everything,
including spending down the LMA fund to zero. My
question is this: who put these clowns in charge? As
a non-profit organization, it would seem like anybody
could file a complaint, and Big Brother could step in
and put a full Nelson on 'em.


-- help bot

On Aug 16, 5:39 am, help bot wrote:

From the comments posted here by ace reporter
Sam Sloan, it seems like Bill Goichberg is in control
of everything, so presumably he could arrange to have
an accountant who just rubber-stamps everything,
including spending down the LMA fund to zero. My
question is this: who put these clowns in charge? As
a non-profit organization, it would seem like anybody
could file a complaint, and Big Brother could step in
and put a full Nelson on 'em.

-- help bot

Bill Goichberg already has a rubber-stamp accountant.

His name is Grant Perks.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 16, 5:53 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 16, 5:39 am, help bot wrote:

From the comments posted here by ace reporter
Sam Sloan, it seems like Bill Goichberg is in control
of everything, so presumably he could arrange to have
an accountant who just rubber-stamps everything,
including spending down the LMA fund to zero. My
question is this: who put these clowns in charge? As
a non-profit organization, it would seem like anybody
could file a complaint, and Big Brother could step in
and put a full Nelson on 'em.

-- help bot

Bill Goichberg already has a rubber-stamp accountant.

His name is Grant Perks.

Sam Sloan

they used to lose 6 figures a year, now they only lose 5 figures a
year.
Grant doesn't work for Goichberg.

It was the general practice during the year that I was on the board
that the monthly financial figures were supposed to be released ten
days after the end of the month, but in practice they were sent to the
members of the Executive Board and the members of the Finance
Committee on about the 15th of the month.

Then, the financial people were given about two weeks to study the
figures and then they were posted to the website and a link was
provided to the USCF Forum, for study and comments.

I know of no instance in which the figures were modified in between
the two weeks that the financial figures were provided to the board
and the finance committees for study. Part of the reason for this was
that our Finance Committee Chairman was completely inactive and never
commented on the financial reports, so the main comments came from
Donna Alarie and sometimes from myself, Beatriz Marinello and Leroy
Dubeck, who also had comments.

However, the monthly statements for the month ending May 31 were
special because that was also the year-end statement. It is to be
recalled that Bill Hall went off on an extended vacation starting on
June 1, which included playing in the National Open.

The financial figures that I have posted above were sent to the
Executive Board members on June 18, 2007. However, THEY WERE NOT SENT
TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEES. That is why you will see that Donna Alarie
complained that she had not been given the figures. (I gave them to
her later, however, since she was entitled to them.)

A few weeks later, when the figures still had not been posted to the
website, I reported the bottom line only, which was a loss of $57,915.

From that day until the delegates meetings, that was the only
information the delegates got, except that Joel Channing stated that
when the final audited figures came out, they would show a profit.

Joel Channing, as VP of Finance, had several meetings with the
auditors, but none of the other board members were given the
opportunity to meet with the auditors and ask questions and provide
comments.

Nothing more happened until the Finance Committee workshop on the
afternoon of August 3, 2007 when everyone present was handed paper
printouts showing a profit of $3,000 and an adjusted profit of
$23,292.

Just a few minutes later, as the assembled delegates were looking
through the printouts, Joel Channing who, as VP of Finance was the
Chairman of the meeting, got up and stated, "If anybody has any more
questions I will be in the bar", and he left the room.

The meeting continued for another hour with many questions being asked
of Joe Nanna, who stayed behind at the meeting after Joel Channing
left.

Still, to this day, nothing has been posted on the website.

Sam Sloan

On Aug 16, 10:43 am, samsloan wrote:
It was the general practice during the year that I was on the board
that the monthly financial figures were supposed to be released ten
days after the end of the month, but in practice they were sent to the
members of the Executive Board and the members of the Finance
Committee on about the 15th of the month.

Then, the financial people were given about two weeks to study the
figures and then they were posted to the website and a link was
provided to the USCF Forum, for study and comments.

I know of no instance in which the figures were modified in between
the two weeks that the financial figures were provided to the board
and the finance committees for study. Part of the reason for this was
that our Finance Committee Chairman was completely inactive and never
commented on the financial reports, so the main comments came from
Donna Alarie and sometimes from myself, Beatriz Marinello and Leroy
Dubeck, who also had comments.

However, the monthly statements for the month ending May 31 were
special because that was also the year-end statement. It is to be
recalled that Bill Hall went off on an extended vacation starting on
June 1, which included playing in the National Open.

The financial figures that I have posted above were sent to the
Executive Board members on June 18, 2007. However, THEY WERE NOT SENT
TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEES. That is why you will see that Donna Alarie
complained that she had not been given the figures. (I gave them to
her later, however, since she was entitled to them.)

A few weeks later, when the figures still had not been posted to the
website, I reported the bottom line only, which was a loss of $57,915.

From that day until the delegates meetings, that was the only

information the delegates got, except that Joel Channing stated that
when the final audited figures came out, they would show a profit.

Joel Channing, as VP of Finance, had several meetings with the
auditors, but none of the other board members were given the
opportunity to meet with the auditors and ask questions and provide
comments.

Nothing more happened until the Finance Committee workshop on the
afternoon of August 3, 2007 when everyone present was handed paper
printouts showing a profit of $3,000 and an adjusted profit of
$23,292.

Just a few minutes later, as the assembled delegates were looking
through the printouts, Joel Channing who, as VP of Finance was the
Chairman of the meeting, got up and stated, "If anybody has any more
questions I will be in the bar", and he left the room.

The meeting continued for another hour with many questions being asked
of Joe Nanna, who stayed behind at the meeting after Joel Channing
left.

Still, to this day, nothing has been posted on the website.

Sam Sloan

I asked about this about a week ago and Phil posted that we were
losing $57,000 this year in ops which was I think what your figures
show Sam.

On Aug 16, 1:13 pm, Bruce wrote:

I asked about this about a week ago and Phil posted that we were
losing $57,000 this year in ops which was I think what your figures
show Sam.

Phil got his figures from me. He has no independent source.

Sam Sloan