Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 9th 08, 01:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

In the fiscal year ending May 30, 2008, three weeks from today, the
USCF will have lost $300,000.

Bill Goichberg seems to think that this change will stop the horrific
losses the USCF has suffered every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I
WAS ON THE BOARD.

However, Goichberg is ignoring the fact that during the one year that
I was on the board membership increased and the year ended with a
small surplus.

Bill Goichberg is claiming that it is because of the "Internet" that
the USCF lost money this year.

We had the Internet last year too.

Bill Goichberg is losing money this year because of mismanagement.
That is the reason, pure and simple.

Of course, my posting about this over on the USCF Issues Forum will
probably be pulled as a violation of the AUG, but at least it can not
be said that I did not try to tell the members.

Bill Goichberg needs to resign. However, Goichberg is playing the
Truong card well. By now, everybody knows that Goichberg is not the
right man for the job, but we also know that Truong is an outright
crook and a thief. Nobody wants to try to force Goichberg out knowing
that he might be replaced by Truong.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old May 9th 08, 01:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:

Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.


That is an awful lot of money in exchange for being
able to play in USCF-rated events. Why so much?


In the fiscal year ending May 30, 2008, three weeks from today, the
USCF will have lost $300,000.

Bill Goichberg seems to think that this change will stop the horrific
losses the USCF has suffered every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I
WAS ON THE BOARD.

However, Goichberg is ignoring the fact that during the one year that
I was on the board membership increased and the year ended with a
small surplus.


According to Mr. Sloan's own accounts, he was
unable to do much of anything while on the board
because it was more-or-less controlled by BG and
his cronies. So then, we see that the credit for
(allegedly) not losing money in the year that SS
was on the board belongs to none other than BG
& Co., Inc. (although blind luck may have been a
factor).


Bill Goichberg is claiming that it is because of the "Internet" that
the USCF lost money this year.


Other accounts (by Mr. Sloan, as I recall) maintained
that the dregs in charge refused to admit to any loss;
obfuscation and blustering was the rule, to which the
above admission account must be a rare exception (if
not a mere fabrication).


We had the Internet last year too.


Here, Mr. Sloan is 100% correct. /How odd... ./


Bill Goichberg is losing money this year because of mismanagement.
That is the reason, pure and simple.


Indeed, the same is true for our federal government;
they lose money nearly every year, and then print
more to cover their losses.


Of course, my posting about this over on the USCF Issues Forum will
probably be pulled as a violation of the AUG, but at least it can not
be said that I did not try to tell the members.


It's possible that an informational statement could
be phrased such that no individuals are attacked;
then the dregs who work for BG & Co., Inc. would
not have to pull the post.


Bill Goichberg needs to resign. However, Goichberg is playing the
Truong card well. By now, everybody knows that Goichberg is not the
right man for the job, but we also know that Truong is an outright
crook and a thief. Nobody wants to try to force Goichberg out knowing
that he might be replaced by Truong.


A false dichotomy... poisoning the well, red snapper
or herring, etc. There is no way to know who, exactly,
might replace BG if he were to resign.

This tidbit about losing $300K needs to be broken
down a bit; where, exactly, did this loss occur?
And why last year, in particular?


-- help bot

  #3   Report Post  
Old May 9th 08, 12:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF



samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.

In the fiscal year ending May 30, 2008, three weeks from today, the
USCF will have lost $300,000.

Bill Goichberg seems to think that this change will stop the horrific
losses the USCF has suffered every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I
WAS ON THE BOARD.

However, Goichberg is ignoring the fact that during the one year that
I was on the board membership increased and the year ended with a
small surplus.

Bill Goichberg is claiming that it is because of the "Internet" that
the USCF lost money this year.

We had the Internet last year too.

Bill Goichberg is losing money this year because of mismanagement.
That is the reason, pure and simple.

Of course, my posting about this over on the USCF Issues Forum will
probably be pulled as a violation of the AUG, but at least it can not
be said that I did not try to tell the members.

Bill Goichberg needs to resign. However, Goichberg is playing the
Truong card well. By now, everybody knows that Goichberg is not the
right man for the job, but we also know that Truong is an outright
crook and a thief. Nobody wants to try to force Goichberg out knowing
that he might be replaced by Truong.

Sam Sloan



I realize that logic is not Sam's strong point, but how can he
simultaneously refer to "the horrific losses the USCF has suffered
every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I WAS ON THE
BOARD" (obviously implying causality), and assert that every proposal
he made was blocked or voted down? Sloan's term on the Board was a
trivial irrelevancy. Of course, that's what he's always been.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 03:22 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 117
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.


So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.

Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.

- Rich
  #5   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 04:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF



Rich Hutnik wrote:
On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".

Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.


So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.

Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.

- Rich



Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?


  #6   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 05:00 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?


Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.


-- help bot


  #7   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 06:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF



help bot wrote:
On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:

Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?


Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.


-- help bot



I suggest you stop and read what you wrote. Those "loss leader" rates
are designed to attract new people, on the assumption that enough of
them will become subscribers (at the _real_ rates) to earn out over
time. This makes sense for a "new" publication which has not yet found
its market, less for for "mature" magazines which have already reached
most people who might be interested. There is an extensive literature
on this subject, and it would be interesting to discuss it with
someone who actually knows something about it. But I suppose instead
we'll get another spitting match from the usual suspects.

BTW, if the "captive audience" comment was meant to refer to you, it's
silly. At your current rate of activity, you'd come out about the same
with the $12/event "tournament membership."
  #8   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 03:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 117
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:
Rich Hutnik wrote:
On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan wrote:
Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine membership".


Regular dues for those who want the magazine will be $42. Those who do
not want the magazine will only have to pay $29.


So, the magazine doesn't have enough of a circulation in order to be
able to have the advertising pay for its circulation? If it were done
right, with a large enough subscriber base, the magazine could be
free.


Oh well. Good luck on the USCF getting this going.


- Rich


Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?


Consider the likes of trade publications I get. I have multiple
subscriptions in the area of sales and so on, which are free to me.
Advertising is supposed to pay for all, if not most, of the publishing
costs. Money paid for the publication is supposed to be profit. And
people pay for Time, Newsweek, etc... because the publisher can charge
for it.

- Rich
  #9   Report Post  
Old May 13th 08, 03:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2008
Posts: 117
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

On May 13, 1:46 am, wrote:
help bot wrote:
On May 12, 11:03 pm, wrote:


Really? And how many free magazines do you know of? Since all you need
is "a large enough subscriber base," where go I go to get my free
copies to /Time/, /Newsweek/ and /People/?


Many magazines are sold at very low rates for a one-
year subscription, including those which are far better
-- and thicker -- than Chess Lies. They make money
from the heavy advertising, while using the minimal
subscription fees to offset postage costs. When you
consider how skimpy Chess Lies magazine is and its
"captive audience" of rated chess players, I see no
good reason why it could not be free. However, the
low, low rates I mentioned are often reserved for new
subscribers; after the first year, most will try to get
renewals at substantially higher rates to augment
their advertising profits.


-- help bot


I suggest you stop and read what you wrote. Those "loss leader" rates
are designed to attract new people, on the assumption that enough of
them will become subscribers (at the _real_ rates) to earn out over
time. This makes sense for a "new" publication which has not yet found
its market, less for for "mature" magazines which have already reached
most people who might be interested. There is an extensive literature
on this subject, and it would be interesting to discuss it with
someone who actually knows something about it. But I suppose instead
we'll get another spitting match from the usual suspects.

BTW, if the "captive audience" comment was meant to refer to you, it's
silly. At your current rate of activity, you'd come out about the same
with the $12/event "tournament membership."


Go look up trade publications. A large number come free. Advertisers
can pay to cover the cost of a publication. If this was impossible,
then you wouldn't see things like the Pennysaver (Perhaps Thrifty
Nickel is identical). Websites also run on the same model. You make
a profit from the subscribers, however.

- Rich
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 15th 08, 09:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF

Quote:
Originally Posted by DD-OK
Instead of cutting services (pages in Chess life,
putting Chess life on a path to destruction through elimination of its
subscriber base), the organization must look much more seriously at
cutting costs. Although gut wrenching, any business in similar
financial condition - revenues not adding up to cover costs - must re-
engineer the cost profile. It is simply too risky to assume that dues
tinkering will drive revenues up. It may have the opposite effect in
the mid-term.

As a business man who has had to shepherd such cost cutting actions in
the past from a variety of roles, it is very hard to make such a
decision. However, I cannot believe that current costs are what they
need to be, especially given the financial facts at hand.

A typical, effective Board of Directors would order a 20 - 25% cost
cutting plan be developed immediately for consideration and likely
rapid implementation.

Mark F Simpson
Thank you, my points exactly.

During my one year on the board, Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall were
resistant to any serious efforts to cut costs. Now, it seems that they
want to sacrifice the entire magazine just to save the jobs of a few
of their non-productive employees.

Here are a few examples:

At the USCF board meeting in Monrovia, California on February 2-3,
2007, Bill Goichberg asked Bill Hall why the USCF had spent $37,000 to
sent a team to the World Youth Championships in Batumi, Republic of
Georgia, especially since that was not in the budget.

Bill Hall answered that he did not know but he would find out and get
back to us !!!

I did not say anything, but I felt that obviously he should be fired
if he did not know the answer to that question immediately.

Prior to the board USCF Board meeting in Stillwater, Oklahoma May
17-18, 2007, I sent Bill Hall an email with copies to the other board
members directing Bill Hall to bring to the meeting a list of all
employees of the USCF and a brief description of what each one of them
does.

The propose of my request was not to satisfy my idle curiosity. It was
because the USCF was suffering huge financial losses and there was an
obvious need to cut staff. Before cutting staff, we needed to know who
was on the staff and what jobs they were supposedly doing so that we
could decide what to cut.

When Bill Hall came to the meeting, not only did he not bring the list
I had demanded of him but he addressed my question in a very insulting
way. You can play the tapes and hear what he said. Any normal board
who heard such insulting and abusive language addressed to a member of
the board would have said in unison “You're fired”. Instead, the board
just went on to the next item in the agenda. The result was I never
found out and still do not know how many people are employed by the
USCF. Saying to read Chess Life misses the point. We need to know what
our costs are and Chess Life will just give us job titles as of a few
months ago, certainly not enough information upon which to make a
decision.

Even more importantly, during just one week before the May 17-18, 2007
meeting in Stillwater, there had been a week-long meeting of what I
called “Joel Channing and the nine wise men” in Crossville, Tennessee
during which they worked on the budget. Most of the nine wise men,
which included one woman, Donna Alarie, plus Chuck Unruh and several
other top financial guys, had taken time off from their jobs and
traveled at their own expenses to Crossville, Tennessee, to
participate in this meeting and discussion on USCF finances.

One result of this week-long meeting was the committee developed a
balanced budget to be presented to the board at its meeting the
following week.

However, when the board met one week later, the budget Bill Hall
presented to the board was not that budget but a different budget that
Bill Hall himself had written that called for a deficit of over
$100,000. When Bill Hall was asked what happened to the balanced
budget developed one week earlier, he replied that he had added in
some additional expenses after the meeting had concluded and the nine
wise men had gone home.

Included in these additional expenses that Bill Hall had just decided
to throw in was a 3.2% raise for every employee. When I objected,
Harry Payne, who was at the meeting, said that we just have to give
raises to the employees.

Actually, we do not have to give raises to the employees. One big
complaint against Bill Hall is that he hired these people at salaries
that were too high in the first place. The purpose of the move from
New Windsor to Crossville was to cut costs because employee salaries
were said to be lower in Crossville than in New Windsor.

However, at every position, the new hires in Crossville were being
paid more than their predecessors had been paid in New Windsor.

If we insist on giving all the employees raises, the result will be
that the USCF will go out of business and all of them will lose their
jobs. Is that what they want?

The result of Bill Hall just deciding to throw in some additional
expenditures that he wanted to make was that the work done by Joel
Channing and the Nine Wise Men during their one week in Crossville was
just thrown out. Their effort was completely wasted. Instead, during
the meeting May 17-18 in Stillwater, Bill Goichberg went through the
budget Bill Hall had handed to him and with a pencil crossed out
figures and wrote in new numbers, creating a balanced budget in that
way.

Here is where I was especially shocked that Joel Channing did not
insist that Bill Hall be fired. Imagine all the effort of nine highly
qualified people spending one week in Crossville and then having the
results of their efforts thrown in the trash. When Joel Channing just
yawned and moved on to the next item, I realized that he was not the
hard-headed businessman he claimed to be.

The current situation is that Bill Goichberg has presented a “New
Plan” that will make Chess Life optional and, he admits, will
eventually lead to a stop in the publication of Chess Life. In
addition, he also wants to change the dues structure again. Every year
that Bill Goichberg has been on the board he has changed the dues
structure, sometimes up, sometimes down, sometimes creating and then
abolishing new membership categories. He cannot seem to stop tinkering
with the dues.

He keeps claiming that it is the “Internet” that causes the USCF to
lose money. Here is a quote from Bill Goichberg's announcement of his
new plan:

“We need to recognize that we are in the Internet age and properly
adjust to new circumstances. It is the Internet that has been mainly
responsible for our membership decline, with online play hurting chess
clubs and hard copy Chess Life no longer being a valuable source of
current news.”

However, this is simply not true. It is not because of the Internet
that the USCF loses money every year. It is because of too much staff
and too little work for them to do. The Internet has resulted in
tremendous cost savings. Nowadays, most tournament and rating reports
are submitted online over the Internet. Previously, the USCF had to
employ clerk-typists to type in the results of every tournament game
so that it could be rated. Nowadays, most USCF members join and pay
their dues over the Internet. Previously, this was labor intensive
work that had to be done by hand by the office staff. In addition,
Chess Life production work now all takes place over the Internet. The
office in Crossville no longer has much involvement in that.

In spite of all of these tremendous savings, the office staff at
Crossville remains at about 23 employees, the same as it was back in
2003 before all of these improvements and also while the USCF was
still selling chess books and equipment.

This is why I keep wondering what the staff in Crossville has left to
do.

Now, instead of cutting the no longer necessary employees, Bill
Goichberg wants to cut out and stop the printing of Chess Life
magazine, which is the only membership benefit most members receive.
This is suicidal.

Sam Sloan
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chaning Attacks Donna Alarie's Integrity B. Lafferty[_3_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 November 7th 07 03:00 AM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.play-by-email (Chess - Play by Email) 1 March 19th 07 09:09 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 January 27th 07 03:21 PM
From the USCF Forum - Susan Polgar All-American Girls Program Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 10 March 4th 06 12:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017