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.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Working Capital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 12th 03, 01:40 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

There are just under 700 adult USCF affiliates. I wonder what is their
aggregate sum of chess oriented working capital? Of the rough 700, how many
would have $10,000 or more of personal funds that they risk to produce chess?
How many state affiliates have $5000 of free working capital after newsletter
expenses? How many state associations front the money for their own state
championships? (RSHaas)
  #3  
Old July 12th 03, 03:46 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

"Um, 700 x $10,000 is seven MILLION dollars. You now expect us to believe
that your idea of dues-funded metro regions could generate anything in that
range? What's in the water down there?
-- (Mike Nolan)
==============
No!! Forget the Mensa thing for a moment. I'm momentarily interested in
what really exists out there now. How much money do the affiliates actually
have? How much do the states have? In other words, how much money actually
backs chess under the USCF banner?
As for the water down here.. we hope fish are in the water. Usually its
fish but sometimes its an alligator or water moccasin. (RSHaas)
  #5  
Old July 12th 03, 02:33 PM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital


"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...

Here's some data by year on the number of 'A' affiliates that have
run events:

year | count | players | games
------+-------+---------+--------
1992 | 528 | 113760 | 225916
1993 | 548 | 125404 | 253672
1994 | 561 | 136290 | 276811
1995 | 575 | 144591 | 295756
1996 | 544 | 152385 | 305835
1997 | 542 | 149140 | 300065
1998 | 546 | 147808 | 301663
1999 | 523 | 142878 | 298624
2000 | 489 | 130097 | 274965
2001 | 435 | 146698 | 307626
2002 | 457 | 171155 | 367026
2003 | 374 | 87588 | 191288


I see they peaked in 1995 and have shrunk ever since. 1995 is when they
began funding the LMA. A clear correlation.

StanB


  #6  
Old July 12th 03, 04:59 PM
ASCACHESS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

I see they peaked in 1995 and have shrunk ever since. 1995 is when they
began funding the LMA. A clear correlation.

StanB


I think you forgot your smiley face.
They peaked in 2002 not 1995.
1995 was NOT when they began funding the LMA.

Rp


  #7  
Old July 12th 03, 05:34 PM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

The number of affiliates running events has declined but the number of games
rated has increased quite a bit. Very interesting. (RSHaas)
  #8  
Old July 12th 03, 06:32 PM
Tom Martinak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

"StanB" wrote

year | count | players | games
------+-------+---------+--------
1992 | 528 | 113760 | 225916
1993 | 548 | 125404 | 253672
1994 | 561 | 136290 | 276811
1995 | 575 | 144591 | 295756
1996 | 544 | 152385 | 305835
1997 | 542 | 149140 | 300065
1998 | 546 | 147808 | 301663
1999 | 523 | 142878 | 298624
2000 | 489 | 130097 | 274965
2001 | 435 | 146698 | 307626
2002 | 457 | 171155 | 367026
2003 | 374 | 87588 | 191288


I see they peaked in 1995 and have shrunk ever since. 1995

is
when they began funding the LMA. A clear correlation.


No 1995 was when adult dues were raised from $30 to $40 ($26
to $35 after commissions).

- Tom Martinak


  #9  
Old July 12th 03, 06:37 PM
Beatchess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

"The number of affiliates running events has declined but the number of games
rated has increased quite a bit. Very interesting. (RSHaas)"

This phenomenon is quite interesting. The USCF is in the business of
information, which means that technology should play a strong role in
outreaching and sending a powerful to thousands, hopefully millions, of people.

The USCF cannot make any progress without the appropriate technological tools.
Therefore, it's vital for the advancement of the USCF to upgrade the existing
resources and change the old ways of doing businesses. My main concern is
losing the momentum, because we are too busy struggling for survival.
Stabilizing the financial situation of the USCF by reorganizing the existing
model it is crucial. The clock is ticking and we are not moving fast enough.

In addition, it's a real tragedy that the USCF network through the affiliates
is going down the hill. I wish there was a way to revitalize this component of
the organization.

I am a strong believer in networking and team work. However, the only group
that seems to understand the value of this concept in the scholastic community.
The success of the scholastic group is focusing in a mission and putting our
personal differences aside.

The greatest asset of the USCF is the members, we should focus in the mission
of providing the appropriate support to our members and stop the power hungry
people who are just interested in their own egos, short side views and personal
interests.

Finally, regardless the final result of the election, I would like to take this
opportunity to thanks all my supporters: the scholastic group and several
political groups across the nation.

Yours for Chess,

Beatriz Marinello


  #10  
Old July 12th 03, 08:25 PM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Working Capital

"In addition, it's a real tragedy that the USCF network through the affiliates
is going down the hill. I wish there was a way to revitalize this component of
the organization. I am a strong believer in networking and team work."
(Beatchess)
=============
The subnational organizational level would be greatly strengthened if funded
USCF Metro District organizations were present and functioned as the "promoter
- organizer of first and/or last resort in its operational territory." Funding
would come automatically from a $10 share of each adult membership ($5 from
juniors) very much in the style of the Mensa organization. Each Metro District
would caretake the chess affairs of the area it covered in a wide variety of
ways including the direct promotion of chess events, or in partnership with
individual promoters, with the state association, with other Districts and with
Chess HQ itself.
Work on putting a Mensa (Metro District) styled system into the USCF and
you'll finally arrive at a national chess federation in which you can take
pride. Lacking a Mensa type system, we don't need to send anything close to
$49 to Chess HQ for membership in an organization whose only interest in our
local areas and our states is how much money it can harvest therefrom.
(RSHaas)

 




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
Jori's tourney manager not working on win98 n o s p a m p l e a s e rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 February 26th 04 08:17 AM
my CCC login just quit working Euc1id rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 1 January 25th 04 02:01 PM
FICS Registration not working Anders Carlsson rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 5 August 25th 03 09:45 PM
Another Longtime Chess Club Bites the Dust Fifiela rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 July 11th 03 08:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.