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

The election has probably delayed the membership numbers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 23rd 03, 02:38 PM
GreenPencil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

Last month the update was very late. This month it is even later. I
assume it's because of the chaos created from the elections. Does
anyone have them yet?
  #3  
Old July 23rd 03, 08:22 PM
Peter C. Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

Thanks Mike. I have posted your numbers to:
http://detroitchess.com/USCFmem2.htm

I have had trouble getting a copy of the audit since Laura resigned.
Thanks for putting them on rgcp.

Peter C. Nixon
http://detroitchess.com/

On 23 Jul 2003 14:07:17 GMT, (Mike Nolan) wrote:

(GreenPencil) writes:

Last month the update was very late. This month it is even later. I
assume it's because of the chaos created from the elections. Does
anyone have them yet?


I thought the numbers had been posted.

The audit report was supposed to be run on July 3rd, but that's when
they had a power outage at the USCF office that, among other things,
fried the hard drive on the voice mail system. (The voice mail system
was unrepairable, which is why a new phone system was installed at the
office last week, one that can be moved to Crossville easily.)

The Expiration Audit was run over the weekend and was in the hands
of senior staff on Monday, July 7th. I guess in the turmoil over the
phone system problem nobody e-mailed a copy of the expiration audit to
Pete Nixon.

Here are the numbers by membership type:

Life 10639
Regular Adult 23360 (628 prison)
Economy Adult 549
Senior 3141 (2 prison)
Sustaining 390
Family 464
Youth 11380
Scholastic 32329
Economy Sch 7053
Special 481 (437 prison)
Trial 28
Computer 1

Regular Affil 684
College Affil 66
HS Affil 1149
Prison Affil 22
State Affil 48

Tournament 121
Jr Tournament 7
C/L Subscr 1236 (1 prison This may be a coding error.)
S/M Subscr 46
Exchange 46
Non-Member 1

Current Paid Membership 89,814
Current Affiliates 1,969


  #4  
Old July 24th 03, 01:27 AM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers


"Peter C. Nixon" wrote in message
...

Thanks Mike. I have posted your numbers to:
http://detroitchess.com/USCFmem2.htm


Down and down we go.
In a spin, luvva that spin we're in.

StanB


  #5  
Old July 24th 03, 03:00 AM
RSHaas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

"Down and down we go. In a spin, luvva that spin we're in." (StanB)
==============
Maybe BG's World Open helped slow the decline for the early July figures. We'll
see what the coming month shows. (RSHaas)
  #6  
Old July 24th 03, 04:58 AM
Dan Heisman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

Peter,

Thanks; for a long while I have had a link to your numbers at my web site. Last year the Main Line CC had
about 110 members, almost all USCF, and this year we may have more by the end of the year. The roster is
about 75% adults. That means over 0.3% of adult members of USCF are members of our club (which requires USCF
membership to play in our weekly rated events - a couple of members like myself are life members). I am not
sure if I am happy or sad we have such a high percentage of all adult USCF members in the country!

- Dan Heisman
  #7  
Old July 24th 03, 04:50 PM
Fifiela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

That means over 0.3% of adult members of USCF are members of our club (which
requires USCF
membership to play in our weekly rated events - a couple of members like myself
are life members). I am not
sure if I am happy or sad we have such a high percentage of all adult USCF
members in the country!

If Goichberg retired USCF adult membership would really sink into the depths.
  #8  
Old July 24th 03, 07:33 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

"Bruce Draney" wrote ...

The only way for USCF to survive in my opinion is to find some way to
capitalize the market ...


Bruce,

Richard Haas has an idea he would like to discuss with you....

Seriously, I think it may be necessary to blow up the whole organization and
reconstitute it from scratch.

Here's what I think USCF should do, as its core activities, and the number
of staff I guesstimate would be required to accomplish these core
activities.

1. Provide an accurate and timely rating service: Two staff doing data input
and running reports.

2. Edit and produce "Chess Life." Three staff: one editor, one graphic
designer, and one editorial assistant.

3. Design and maintain the website. Three staff: one editor, one graphic
designer, one programmer. But this is bare-bones; you might want one or two
additional staff if having a really kick-*ss website is your goal.

4. Executive Director to keep the inmates in line. One staff.

5. Executive Assistant to ED. One staff.

5. Bookkeeper and financial assistant. Two staff.

6. Office manager. One staff.

7. Postal chess. Zero staff.

8. Books & Equipment. Zero staff.

8. Provide clerical support for the national office. Four staff.

9. Provide IT support for the national office. Three staff.

I come up with 20 staff, one-half of the current operation's size. OK, I'm
sure I've missed something, and there are a few functions we are currently
performing that would no longer be performed. But maybe those functions can
be performed by volunteers, or dropped. I mean, look: I'd like USCF to do a
thousand-and-one wonderful things, but if the money's not there, it's not
there. USCF isn't like the federal government which can just print more
money when the money runs out.

Tim Hanke


  #9  
Old July 24th 03, 10:20 PM
Tony D.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers


The only way for USCF to survive in my opinion is to find some way to
capitalize the market for scholastic chess. Adult chess is going the
way of the dinosaur and clearly the future of USCF lies in the
profitability of being the official rater of scholastic tournaments.
Recently Mike Nolan's preliminary analysis confirms what I have long
suspected and that is that the USCF LOSES money on the one service that
members value the most which is the rating system. I don't know if
Mike's figures have been carefully analyzed or critiqued, but I find it
ironic, if not ludicrous that USCF could have been losing money on
ratings for years and not even known.

Best Regards,

Bruce


IMO adult chess is not going the way of the dinosaur; the internet is making it
easier for adults who work, have families, et al (such as myself) to play chess
at our leisure. Certainly this approach is much easier than taking out a whole
weekend to play a tournament or drive to a remote location to play when I can
do it from the privacy of my home. I have a rating where I play online, so I
don't know why I also need a USCF rating. I was a USCF member for 10 years but
I no longer feel the need to belong to that organization.

Perhaps it's the USCF that has become the dinosaur here.


"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"

Tony D.



  #10  
Old July 24th 03, 11:18 PM
Tim Hanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The election has probably delayed the membership numbers

Some good ideas in here; I'll save Eade's message.

Tim Hanke

"JimEade" wrote in message
...
Hi Bruce,

Do you remember this old thread?

From: JimEade )
Subject: Clash of the Titans, Eade vs. Petrel. Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 2001-07-16 15:37:19 PST


Bruce Draney wrote:

snip

Bruce, you are correct that I think tournament OTB growth will always be
marginal in this country. You're also correct that there has been a

relative
absence of ideas about how to make significant change to the organization,

so
that it's better suited to carry out its mission. I have quite liked some

of
mine though. ;-)

One way to reinvent the organizaton is to get out of the books and

equipment
business, sell the building, move to a cheaper location, cut staff to the

bone,
publish the magazine quarterly, fill it mostly with ads, concentrate on

ratings
and certification (TD levels and Championships for example) and cut dues

to no
more than $15, probably less. Make it easy and pleasurable for the casual
player to feel a part of the organization, even if they never play a

serious
game in their lives.

I'll almost certainly never play in a USGA tournament, but I send them $15
every year. They send me a US Open Cap, a name tag that goes on my bag,

and a
quarterly magazine that I don't read (I subscribe to two others). Make it

a
pure feel good thing for the millions of people who have some relationship

to
the game, but no desire whatsoever to compete OTB.

Drive membership up over a quarter million and go after sponsors and
advertizers big time. Right now we're too small to matter except to other
small businesses.

Do I think any of that is likely to happen? No, but the old model doesn't

seem
to work anymore, and we need a new one.

James Eade

Same tune different year...

Instead of a foolish attempt to revive the B+E business, we should

outsource
virtually everything except the rulebook. The move to anycheapplace, USA

is
one piece of the answer, but it won't matter, if it isn't done as part of

a
larger coherent strategy.

The USCF must be reinvented in order to remain relevant. It has become
increasingly obvious that the pattern of stagnation and decline will not

be
reversed by any of the old ideas. (I bet you're shocked, SHOCKED that the
Grand Prix wasn't the answer.)

I don't know whether you're going to be in LA. I'm off to Europe, but

will be
back in time to attend the Trust meeting on that Thursday.

Tim Just and I have a $10 bet (from years ago) that was settled by the

outcome
of this election. We just can't remember who won. Richard Koepcke is

holding
the money and he'll be there. Be at the bar when he is, because $10

doesn't go
very far these days.

Incidentally, this year I sent the USGA $55 for an upgraded membership

class.
I still feel goodwill towards the USGA.


James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond. Don't worry. Talk happy.



 




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
The membership has spoken Jane Adams rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 18 July 23rd 03 06:32 AM
Unofficial EB election results on USCF website Miriling rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 July 20th 03 03:27 PM
Will Bill announce election results this year before USCF? Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 15 July 17th 03 06:55 AM
Defining a successful OMOV election. Bruce Draney rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 July 17th 03 02:28 AM
Some final thoughts on the first USCF OMOV election. Beatchess rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 July 13th 03 03:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 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.