I don't often visit this thread so my apologies if I'm asking a question
that has already been discussed.

The September 22nd USCF press release:

http://www.uschess.org/news/press/uspr0331.html

discusses the fact that the USCF has voted to outsource the book and
equipment business.

But note that interested parties had only from September 23rd thru September
26th to get their questionnaire and bid in!

This extremely short notice and extremely short period of time to submit a
bid for the B&E business seems very strange to me. I would have thought
that such a decision would take place over a series of a few months, (much
like the Crossville decision).

I would not be surprised if a number of vendors were caught off-guard by the
quick timing of this decision! Generally, I'm not one to believe in various
conspiracy theories. But this type of press release makes me very
suspicious of Timothy Hanke and the USCF.

Thanks.

--
Chris Kantack
http://home.earthlink.net/~kantack/lcdchess/home.htm
(remove the "nospampls" from my email address if replying by email)

It sure happened quickly. I was unaware of the short timeframe they imposed
on this process. I'd like to think they got in touch with the major vendors
as well but even if they did, three days is hardly enough time to prepare a
proposal to manage a multi million-dollar business. Sheesh, it takes Fedex a
day to deliver stuff, which only really leaves 2 days, unless they were
looking for a one-page faxed proposal.

No doubt some posters here will see a conspiracy here. As far as I'm
concerned, since USCF is not a democracy and since I'm not a stockholder
they can operate in secret as long as they do the right thing. However, as
I've pointed out, this decision cannot possibly be correct in light of the
three day limit. They could not possibly have considered the many other
possibilities.

I've mentioned some of these before but nobody in this group has shown the
slightest interest in discussing them.

Poutingly yours,

Angelo DePalma



"Chris Kantack" wrote in message
k.net...
I don't often visit this thread so my apologies if I'm asking a question
that has already been discussed.

The September 22nd USCF press release:

http://www.uschess.org/news/press/uspr0331.html

discusses the fact that the USCF has voted to outsource the book and
equipment business.

But note that interested parties had only from September 23rd thru
September
26th to get their questionnaire and bid in!

This extremely short notice and extremely short period of time to submit a
bid for the B&E business seems very strange to me. I would have thought
that such a decision would take place over a series of a few months, (much
like the Crossville decision).

I would not be surprised if a number of vendors were caught off-guard by
the
quick timing of this decision! Generally, I'm not one to believe in
various
conspiracy theories. But this type of press release makes me very
suspicious of Timothy Hanke and the USCF.

Thanks.

--
Chris Kantack
http://home.earthlink.net/~kantack/lcdchess/home.htm
(remove the "nospampls" from my email address if replying by email)

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:14:43 GMT, Chris Kantack
wrote:


I would not be surprised if a number of vendors were caught off-guard by the
quick timing of this decision! Generally, I'm not one to believe in various
conspiracy theories. But this type of press release makes me very
suspicious of Timothy Hanke and the USCF.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It was an outright conspiracy. Tim
Hanke wanted to award the outsourcing contract to somebody he knew.
Another member of the board objected strongly and said that others
should be given a chance to bid. This is the reason for the three day
time limit. In spite of only three days being allowed and the lack of
notice, about ten organizations bid. I found out just in time and
submitted a bid for my company, Ishi Press.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

This is not a conspiracy theory. It was an outright conspiracy. Tim
Hanke wanted to award the outsourcing contract to somebody he knew.
Another member of the board objected strongly and said that others
should be given a chance to bid. This is the reason for the three day
time limit. In spite of only three days being allowed and the lack of
notice, about ten organizations bid. I found out just in time and
submitted a bid for my company, Ishi Press.

Looks like an ethics complaint to me.

StanB

It's hard to believe they would award a multi million-dollar business based
on that questionnaire. Who wrote it up? Did they get the advice of a
successful online retailer or consultant before drawing up the questions or
deciding on minimum terms?

One thing that's lacking, which could only be provided during a legitimate
due diligence period, is information from the USCF side. How can anyone
possibly discuss details like marketing when they have no idea how much of
it USCF will pay for through the magazine? What is the sense asking about
inventory unless you factor in USCF's current sales volume? How could the
contractor provide figures on "gross sales [they] would...envision providing
USCF" -- I love that word, "envision," as in "that envision thing" --
without knowing USCF's current volume of books, clocks, etc?

Has anyone thought of making deals with suppliers whereby only a minimal
inventory would need to be kept, eg just-in-time order fulfillment (if there
is such a thing), in return for such-and-such sales volume?

This issue has me steaming. Bruce D. and Paul R., your positions are
starting to look better and better to me. At best they've done this
amateurishly. I have to fight serious Schadenfreude here.

Angelo

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:14:43 GMT, Chris Kantack
wrote:


I would not be surprised if a number of vendors were caught off-guard by
the
quick timing of this decision! Generally, I'm not one to believe in
various
conspiracy theories. But this type of press release makes me very
suspicious of Timothy Hanke and the USCF.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It was an outright conspiracy. Tim
Hanke wanted to award the outsourcing contract to somebody he knew.
Another member of the board objected strongly and said that others
should be given a chance to bid. This is the reason for the three day
time limit. In spite of only three days being allowed and the lack of
notice, about ten organizations bid. I found out just in time and
submitted a bid for my company, Ishi Press.

Sam Sloan

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:10:11 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

It's hard to believe they would award a multi million-dollar business based
on that questionnaire. Who wrote it up? Did they get the advice of a
successful online retailer or consultant before drawing up the questions or
deciding on minimum terms?

One thing that's lacking, which could only be provided during a legitimate
due diligence period, is information from the USCF side. How can anyone
possibly discuss details like marketing when they have no idea how much of
it USCF will pay for through the magazine? What is the sense asking about
inventory unless you factor in USCF's current sales volume? How could the
contractor provide figures on "gross sales [they] would...envision providing
USCF" -- I love that word, "envision," as in "that envision thing" --
without knowing USCF's current volume of books, clocks, etc?

All of your objections are exactly on point.

In answer to your first question, the questionaire was written up by
Tim Hanke. He did not seek the advice of anybody. And, yes, indeed, it
was very amateurish and stupid. You are also right that any bidder
would have to know more information about the USCF's sales and
inventory before making a reasonable bid.

Sam Sloan

Let's hope this is an isolated incident. I've been saying that for 5-6 years
every time they do something bone-headed. I'm what is known in the
vernacular as a "chump."

Angelo



"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:10:11 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
wrote:

It's hard to believe they would award a multi million-dollar business
based
on that questionnaire. Who wrote it up? Did they get the advice of a
successful online retailer or consultant before drawing up the questions
or
deciding on minimum terms?

One thing that's lacking, which could only be provided during a
legitimate
due diligence period, is information from the USCF side. How can anyone
possibly discuss details like marketing when they have no idea how much
of
it USCF will pay for through the magazine? What is the sense asking about
inventory unless you factor in USCF's current sales volume? How could the
contractor provide figures on "gross sales [they] would...envision
providing
USCF" -- I love that word, "envision," as in "that envision thing" --
without knowing USCF's current volume of books, clocks, etc?

All of your objections are exactly on point.

In answer to your first question, the questionaire was written up by
Tim Hanke. He did not seek the advice of anybody. And, yes, indeed, it
was very amateurish and stupid. You are also right that any bidder
would have to know more information about the USCF's sales and
inventory before making a reasonable bid.

Sam Sloan