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

$364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 9th 03, 06:43 PM
Altes Weisel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

Has Mike Nolan resigned?

Have the other Board members who were surprised by this loss resigned?



  #2  
Old August 9th 03, 06:56 PM
Bruce Draney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

Altes Weisel wrote:

Has Mike Nolan resigned?

Have the other Board members who were surprised by this loss resigned?


Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss? Not
only did the USCF get a flood of multi-year renewals (now recognized as
the major factor in the loss), but the decline in people joining in the
adult ranks after February has further exacerbated cash flow problems in
the organization, necessitating borrowing and spending of monies that
should have been left alone.

Rebuilding the B&E has also been a disaster, requiring USCF to borrow
and spend to restore the depleted inventory, while also having to
encumber more of our assets as collateral against loans due to our
troubled credit history.

The term "Reds", seems more apt than ever. I'm just curious but
wasn't the net loss for the Niro/McCrary administration as bad or worse
than the net loss for DeFeis/Redman administration?

Perhaps Sam Sloan will begin referring to the "Evil McCrary Gang" in
the future. Much as everyone is praising Frank, his one and one half
years as leader of USCF have been a disaster.

On an ironic note however, staffers should be able to get all of their
freelance work completed on time with no ED in the office.

Best Regards,

Bruce
  #3  
Old August 9th 03, 09:03 PM
Kevin L. Bachler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

In article , Bruce Draney says...

Altes Weisel wrote:

Has Mike Nolan resigned?

Have the other Board members who were surprised by this loss resigned?


Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss? Not
only did the USCF get a flood of multi-year renewals (now recognized as
the major factor in the loss),



Multi-year memberships did not cause a loss, Bruce. Failing to record them
properly made people think that they were running close to break-even when they
were running at a loss.

Kevin L. Bachler

  #4  
Old August 9th 03, 09:16 PM
Fifiela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss?

Doesn't look like anyone's that smart!
  #5  
Old August 9th 03, 10:43 PM
Wickdeer3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

John Fernandez wrote:

Failing to record them
properly made people think that they were running close to break-even when
they
were running at a loss.


Kevin,

I'm thinking about it, and it seems that the only way this could have
happened
was a conscious decision to do it this way, since IIRC, it had been done the
correct way in previous years.



I don't think you recall correctly. I think this treatment of multi-year
memberships is new, and is part of the transition to GAAP.

Wick Deer
  #6  
Old August 9th 03, 10:51 PM
John Fernandez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

I don't think you recall correctly. I think this treatment of multi-year
memberships is new, and is part of the transition to GAAP.

Wick Deer


Wick,

So we were always doing it this way? Yikes.

John Fernandez
  #7  
Old August 11th 03, 02:35 AM
Kevin D. Nyberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

Bruce Draney wrote in message ...

Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss? Not
only did the USCF get a flood of multi-year renewals (now recognized as
the major factor in the loss) . . .


I could have told you it was going to happen. Having been 'down that
block' before, I even hinted at the danger that the money might be
used in cavalier fashion.

Here's a trip down memory lane . . .

From: Kevin D. Nyberg )
Subject: Bruce, MY revenge is complete!
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 2002-10-02 20:18:33 PST

My answer to the Delegates' vote to increase USCF membership rates
finally came back in the mail. My new membership card.

At the Colorado Open last month, I renewed my adult membership
(already renewed for one year by mail previous to the vote at Cherry
Hill) for three ADDITIONAL years.

I now expire in 2006, assuming there WILL be a USCF by then (I'd call
it a 50-50 gamble, the only bet I've ever made).

But in the meantime, I'm a member for $35/year, rather than $40, or
$45, or $49/year. I figure that gives me essentially a free
membership in 2005-6, at the upcoming 2003 rates, cheerfully passed
onto the backs of regular adult members, by vote of our esteemed
Delegates.

Buck (Buchanan, one of the few to vote against the increase, I
believe) told me in Denver that mine was a 'unique way to protest the
rate increase,' but I have my reasons:

I want to play OTB chess. As long as that's the case, I'll have to
pay my yearly national 'chess tax.' The chess 'gods' (read: the
Delegates) at Cherry Hill (May the Almighty save me from ever being
one again myself!) decreed a tax increase, but left open this one
loophole until the year's end.

After presenting the math to my business manager and lovely wife, I
convinced her to let me drive the BIGGEST TRUCK I COULD RIGHT THROUGH
THAT LOOPHOLE! And so I did. Tallyho!

I enthusiastically recommend the same course of action to all who feel
similar to myself, but hurry. Tempus fugit.

Oh, and btw, I am also a scholastic coach.

To USCF: Now don't spend it all in one place. It'll have to last.

One last shot: I fully expect adult rates to be up to $60 by 2006.


Now, my post got no replies. My posts seldom get replies. I say mean
things, and I no longer have powerful political contacts. It's okay;
I got out of chess politics purely for self-preservation, anyway.

I'm not even egotistical enough to presume that my poor little post
sparked a groundswell of action against the rate increase.

It's much more likely that--among rgcp posters, anyway--I inspired a
fair amount of private anger over 'spilling the beans' about a move
many already were considering, less from a desire to make a political
statement than to capitalize upon a loophole the politically
shortsighted Delegates could not legally help but leave behind, as the
multiple special-interest lobbies scrambled to save their own oxen
from goring (and I don't mean the gambit).

One thing, however, is crystal clear--there was an ENORMOUS
grass-roots backlash against the rate increase among the regular adult
membership. Delegates and EB members, please take notice.

USCF collected $161,000 (see http://www.chessnews.org/operations.htm
for as much documentary evidence as we're ever likely to see) in
extended membership money, which, of course, they happily collected
and spent, beginning late 2002 and continuing through July 2003 as
operating capital (INCREDIBLY dumb mistake, btw).

The three-year extended membership option was $100 (until the new
rates took effect on 1/03), so let's bleed off $33 for 2003, leaving,
at most, $67 per member in this $161,000.

$161,000 / $67 = 2403 (FRU) adult members (Of course, some may have
extended for only two years; I doubt many went into further multiples,
because that starts becoming a significant fraction of a Life
membership. Of course, I'm also not factoring multi-year renewals for
the various categories of Junior.). So, for the sake of argument,
I'll limit the number of multi-year memberships at about 2300, erring
on the side of conservatism in my guesstimate.

That's STILL more than the number of OMOV ballots that were returned
for the 2003 election. It's also as much as 10% of the adult
membership total as of 8-02-03 (see
http://detroitchess.com/USCFmem2.htm).

USCF has also hemorrhaged about 2000 adult members since the Cherry
Hill debacle, ALSO a larger number than the number of OMOV votes.

In volunteer organizations, the first OMOV is made with the checkbook,
the second, with the feet.

Iceberg, meet Titanic. Titanic, iceberg.

kdn
  #8  
Old August 12th 03, 03:41 AM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations


"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss? Not
only did the USCF get a flood of multi-year renewals (now recognized as
the major factor in the loss), but the decline in people joining in the
adult ranks after February has further exacerbated cash flow problems in
the organization, necessitating borrowing and spending of monies that
should have been left alone.


The total revenue inched up so the sponsors think it was a good move. What
is not factored in the ancillary money spent by those unrenewed members.

StanB


  #9  
Old August 12th 03, 03:48 AM
StanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations


"Wickdeer3" wrote in message
...

I don't think you recall correctly. I think this treatment of multi-year
memberships is new, and is part of the transition to GAAP.


Not exactly. Multi-years haven't changed, life memberships have. We don't
sell that many of them.

I don't know exactly what the problem was. My guess is that new multis were
booked all in this year and none deferred to future years.

StanB


  #10  
Old August 13th 03, 09:17 PM
Bruce Draney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default $364,000 Loss -- Other Resignations

StanB wrote:

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...

Has anyone considered the idea that the $9.00 increase in adult dues
last year is directly responsible for most of this year's loss? Not
only did the USCF get a flood of multi-year renewals (now recognized as
the major factor in the loss), but the decline in people joining in the
adult ranks after February has further exacerbated cash flow problems in
the organization, necessitating borrowing and spending of monies that
should have been left alone.


The total revenue inched up so the sponsors think it was a good move. What
is not factored in the ancillary money spent by those unrenewed members.

StanB


Yeah, they always tend to look to the dues revenue increase and assume
it was an intelligent idea, despite the impact on tournament attendance,
catalog orders and the like. This is the Sam Sloan method of
accounting. Sam is apparently blind in the eye that reads the debit
side of ledger, but is 20/20 in the eye that reads the credit side.

I'm wondering how many tournament directors of adult events dropped out
of organizing in the past year? I know of at least one.

Best Regards,

Bruce
 




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
Why is this game listed as a loss for WGM Elizabeth Paehtz? Alberich rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 6 October 25th 03 01:54 PM
The $364,000 Question Altes Weisel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 36 August 26th 03 07:43 AM
USCF audited financials show large loss Altes Wiesel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 10 August 15th 03 03:19 AM
Reds Lose $364,000 Of USCF's Money Altes Weisel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 9th 03 07:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 PM.


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.