Snipped Sam's Rant, some of which was very funny.

So I take it that other than a few small complaints Sam that you
generally support Tim's ideas?

I think I'm going to mark that as a "no" to Tim's ideas.

Best Regards,

Bruce

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:17:10 -0400, "Tim Hanke"
wrote:

Most of Sam Sloan's description of my ideas is either outright falsehood, or
extremely misleading. I guess Sam acts this way to get attention.

I plan to present an income and expense budget for my plan to the Board. I
will also post this income and expense budget on the Web, so reasonable
people can comment on it.

As I said, I think my plan works financially. Politically is another matter.

Tim Hanke

Fine. Then tell us exactly what is false or misleading. I copied your
quotes directly from your postings. I doubt that you can claim that
you did not write that.

I and many others would be very interested in hearing a workable plan.
This is not a matter of politics. It is a question of survival. If you
post a workable plan, we are interested. However, your present plan,
based for example on the premise of getting lots of money from Bill
Goichberg, is nonsense.

Sam Sloan

In this thread, in article , Sam Sloan
says...

SNIP

I and many others would be very interested in hearing a workable plan.
This is not a matter of politics. It is a question of survival.

Sam Sloan

In another thread Sam Sloan wrote to Bruce Draney:

On 28 Aug 2003 07:32:11 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote:

They are not going to declare bankruptcy BECAUSE they just cut their
payroll down to a manageable level. They were basically told to either
drastically cut the staff OR file bankruptcy.

Who told them this and how do you know this?

Another fabrication by Bruce.

Sam Sloan


So Sam, on one hand you are telling us that a workable plan is a matter of
survival, and on the other hand you are telling us that the possibility of
insolvency is a fabrication by Bruce.

Do you see any, perhaps small difficulty when you juxtapose these two
statements?

Hmmmm?

Kevin L. Bachler

Get it over it Sam. You lost; Tim won. We knew EXACTLY who we were voting for
and EXACTLY who we were NOT voting for.

So far Tim appears to be doing a good job in a crisis. I hope that he has an
understanding wife and family with the personal time that USCF is going to
consume.

Allan

"Tim Hanke" writes:
Most of Sam Sloan's description of my ideas is either outright falsehood, or
extremely misleading. I guess Sam acts this way to get attention.

I plan to present an income and expense budget for my plan to the Board. I
will also post this income and expense budget on the Web, so reasonable
people can comment on it.

As I said, I think my plan works financially. Politically is another matter.

I think Sam is right, depending on web advertising for nontrivial
amounts of revenue is absolutely hopeless. Dotcom is over.

My opinion of other aspects of the plan ranges from moderate
disagreement to moderate approval.

Getting rid of B&E is a bad idea in principle, but if USCF is
incompetent to operate it, maybe there's no other choice. USCF may
not have enough of one good principle (competence) to satisfy the
needs of another (B&E), so it may be better off doing without both
than continuing to operate B&E incompetently.

Getting completely rid of the printed mag and making people depend on
a webzine is insane. However, the mag can be scaled back a lot (make
Inside Chess the model, as several have said) and made optional. It
can be produced by one person and look about like a state pub.

Free web TLA's are a very good idea and it's pathetic that the USCF
hasn't already been doing that for years.

"Paul Rubin" wrote ...

I think Sam is right, depending on web advertising for nontrivial
amounts of revenue is absolutely hopeless. Dotcom is over.

Paul,

I budgeted $1,000 a month of revenue from B&E advertisers, and $1,000 a
month from tournament organizers. That's about $30 a day of revenue from
each source.

Remember, I am assuming *everything* we do will get put on the website, so
daily traffic will be much higher than now.

If you think $60 a day of total income from our website is excessive, feel
free to name any figure you think is more realistic.

Tim Hanke

Here's the problem. Tim Hanke hasn't even had a chance yet to do
anything and your condemning the guy. He posts and has his ideas and
" BLAMM!!! " Your ready to blast it to kingdom come. While I don't
agree with everything he says he deserves a chance at least to
implement something. After that if it fails then you can blast him to
your hearts content. You are totally unfair in your criticism. Oh
and by the way.....Glenn Peterson would make a fine editor.

EZoto

"Tim Hanke" writes:
If you think $60 a day of total income from our website is excessive, feel
free to name any figure you think is more realistic.

Slashdot self-serve banner ads cost $1000 for 175,000 impressions.
That's the extreme outside of what anyone will pay for banner ads and
USCF probably can't get half that. Let's be insanely optimistic and
say USCF can get $5 per 1000 impressions (0.5 CPM). I don't know
what's realistic these days but 0.1 CPM is probably a lot closer.

Alexa Internet (www.alexa.com) estimates uschess.org reaches about 16
users per million and each viewer clicks about 3.5 times per day. So
that's about 50 clicks per million. If there's 100 million web users
in the US, that's 5000 clicks per day, or 2.5 cents per day at 0.5
CPM. By running several ads on a page you might get up to 5 or 10
cents per day. If Alexa's numbers are ten times too low, you might
get 50 cents or $1 a day.

Although Alexa's numbers are far less reliable than what you should
already be getting from the USCF's own server logs, I think the trend
is pretty clear. You start getting noticable revenue from web ads
when you run a site like Slashdot. To really make money at it you
need something with traffic like cnn.com but far less costs.

EZoto writes:
Here's the problem. Tim Hanke hasn't even had a chance yet to do
anything and your condemning the guy. He posts and has his ideas and
" BLAMM!!! " Your ready to blast it to kingdom come.

Well why else would Tim post his ideas, if he didn't want people
responding to them?

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

However, your present plan,
based for example on the premise of getting lots
of money from Bill Goichberg, is nonsense.

You just changed your story. First you said it was 12,000. Now you're saying
it's lots more. Make up your mind.

StanB