Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 01:08 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

I was copied in on the following letter from Hannon Russell of USCF
Sales to Bill G. Is this the reason why accounts receivable have not
been collected by the USCF? Is this the reason why Bill G. Wants to do
away with membership cards?
------------------------------------------------------------

Bill:

It has come to my attention that there is a proposal that would reduce
the number of copies of Chess Life distributed to the membership.
Although I appreciate the board's desire to cut expenses in these trying
economic times, this idea is a bad one for several reasons.

Without the magazine arriving each month, any stimulus for members to
become more active, participate in chess events, follow the goings-on in
American chess, not to mention purchase chess books and equipment from
their national federation, will slowly but surely erode. The identity
of the USCF will be at risk, becoming only the custodian of a chess
rating system, not the face for the history and culture of chess. A
monthly publication encourages a sense of community, an affiliation with
others which a bare bones organization can never hope to achieve.

It will also reinforce the perception, real or otherwise, that the
weakened financial position of the USCF is only getting worse. This will
hardly be a situation that will encourage more people to join or renew.

There are several ways to deal with declining revenues. Attempts may be
made to cut expenses, increase revenues, or seek somehow to combine the
two. It seems to me that the emphasis should be on increasing
memberships, and therefore revenues. The real problem facing the USCF is
that memberships are either declining or at best, remaining stagnant.

The decline or stagnation of core memberships should be the real
concern, for regardless of any steps taken to cut expenses, such
measures are bound to fail if the number of members continues to decline.

From the point of view of retail sales to USCF members, this is another
discouraging development. We have already had to bring in legal counsel
as a result of what I considered an egregious material breach of the
agreement relating to a secret arrangement with the House of Staunton.
For over a year, the USCF was paid by the House of Staunton to include
promotional material to new members, including but not necessarily
limited to discount coupons, which promoted and directed new members to
patronize the House of Staunton.

Considering that the group of new members has historically and
demographically been the highest spending group per capita for retail
sales, this clandestine arrangement was particularly appalling. This
strategy was short sighted, seeking quick gains in ad revenues and
overlooking potential deep losses in sales revenues. This purchasing
pattern of new members was known, or should have been known by the USCF
when entering into this arrangement with the USCF, and it almost
certainly was known by the House of Staunton.

When a letter from our attorney demanded that this cease and desist, not
only did it continue (and my information is that it continues to this
day), we did not even get the courtesy of a response. Nothing at all. Be
advised that matter is still very much active, pending the results of
legal research that is still ongoing.

Now it appears that one of the significant vehicles for USCF Sales to
promote and market books and equipment is being reduced, perhaps even
eventually eliminated. There seems to be no regard or even realization
that this may have the effect of rendering the USCF brand worthless as
USCF Sales tries to promote retail sales on behalf of the federation.
USCF Sales relies on the ability to reach members with catalogs that are
bound into Chess Life as well as monthly advertisements in Chess Life.
Equally discouraging is the USCF's inability to understand and
appreciate the value of Chess Life to the chess community.

To my knowledge, there is no member of the board, or any officer, who
has any meaningful retail sales experience or marketing skills. Yet the
board appears to take steps intentionally or unintentionally, it
hardly matters which to undercut the efforts of USCF Sales to sell,
promote and market on behalf of the USCF, while of course it
simultaneously deplores the decreasing revenue sales generated and
assumes that these actions should have no bearing on minimum guarantees
or other indicia of performance. In fact, these actions have the effect
of gutting some of the core provisions of an agreement that is already
is under pressure.

As the discussions about what to do with Chess Life and memberships
continue, I felt I should weigh in on the matter. It is distressing
that after more than four years of handling the retail sales for the
USCF the relationship seems more adversarial than one of partnership. I
understand that there will be those who will genuinely disagree and
there will be those who will want to simply "circle the wagons,"
rejecting any contrary views as they promote a personal agenda.

I am reminded of the one-liner that a camel is really a horse designed
by committee. I fear the same is going on here with the redesign and
restructure of the USCF, albeit by those who may mean well. Please
re-think the proposed changes in Chess Life. If implemented, these
changes will be essentially irrevocable. Consider hiring someone who has
professional marketing and public relations experience with other
organizations. Focus on reversing membership trends. I have been a
member of the USCF for over 45 years and have actively supported it at
all times. I very much want to see it continue and flourish.


Regards,

Hanon
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 03:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

Brian Lafferty wrote:
I was copied in on the following letter from Hannon Russell of USCF
Sales to Bill G. Is this the reason why accounts receivable have not
been collected by the USCF? Is this the reason why Bill G. Wants to do
away with membership cards?
------------------------------------------------------------

Bill:

It has come to my attention that there is a proposal that would reduce
the number of copies of Chess Life distributed to the membership.
Although I appreciate the board's desire to cut expenses in these trying
economic times, this idea is a bad one for several reasons.

Without the magazine arriving each month, any stimulus for members to
become more active, participate in chess events, follow the goings-on in
American chess, not to mention purchase chess books and equipment from
their national federation, will slowly but surely erode. The identity
of the USCF will be at risk, becoming only the custodian of a chess
rating system, not the face for the history and culture of chess. A
monthly publication encourages a sense of community, an affiliation with
others which a bare bones organization can never hope to achieve.

It will also reinforce the perception, real or otherwise, that the
weakened financial position of the USCF is only getting worse. This will
hardly be a situation that will encourage more people to join or renew.

There are several ways to deal with declining revenues. Attempts may be
made to cut expenses, increase revenues, or seek somehow to combine the
two. It seems to me that the emphasis should be on increasing
memberships, and therefore revenues. The real problem facing the USCF is
that memberships are either declining or at best, remaining stagnant.

The decline or stagnation of core memberships should be the real
concern, for regardless of any steps taken to cut expenses, such
measures are bound to fail if the number of members continues to decline.

From the point of view of retail sales to USCF members, this is another
discouraging development. We have already had to bring in legal counsel
as a result of what I considered an egregious material breach of the
agreement relating to a secret arrangement with the House of Staunton.
For over a year, the USCF was paid by the House of Staunton to include
promotional material to new members, including but not necessarily
limited to discount coupons, which promoted and directed new members to
patronize the House of Staunton.

Considering that the group of new members has historically and
demographically been the highest spending group per capita for retail
sales, this clandestine arrangement was particularly appalling. This
strategy was short sighted, seeking quick gains in ad revenues and
overlooking potential deep losses in sales revenues. This purchasing
pattern of new members was known, or should have been known by the USCF
when entering into this arrangement with the USCF, and it almost
certainly was known by the House of Staunton.

When a letter from our attorney demanded that this cease and desist, not
only did it continue (and my information is that it continues to this
day), we did not even get the courtesy of a response. Nothing at all. Be
advised that matter is still very much active, pending the results of
legal research that is still ongoing.

Now it appears that one of the significant vehicles for USCF Sales to
promote and market books and equipment is being reduced, perhaps even
eventually eliminated. There seems to be no regard or even realization
that this may have the effect of rendering the USCF brand worthless as
USCF Sales tries to promote retail sales on behalf of the federation.
USCF Sales relies on the ability to reach members with catalogs that are
bound into Chess Life as well as monthly advertisements in Chess Life.
Equally discouraging is the USCF's inability to understand and
appreciate the value of Chess Life to the chess community.

To my knowledge, there is no member of the board, or any officer, who
has any meaningful retail sales experience or marketing skills. Yet the
board appears to take steps intentionally or unintentionally, it
hardly matters which to undercut the efforts of USCF Sales to sell,
promote and market on behalf of the USCF, while of course it
simultaneously deplores the decreasing revenue sales generated and
assumes that these actions should have no bearing on minimum guarantees
or other indicia of performance. In fact, these actions have the effect
of gutting some of the core provisions of an agreement that is already
is under pressure.

As the discussions about what to do with Chess Life and memberships
continue, I felt I should weigh in on the matter. It is distressing
that after more than four years of handling the retail sales for the
USCF the relationship seems more adversarial than one of partnership. I
understand that there will be those who will genuinely disagree and
there will be those who will want to simply "circle the wagons,"
rejecting any contrary views as they promote a personal agenda.

I am reminded of the one-liner that a camel is really a horse designed
by committee. I fear the same is going on here with the redesign and
restructure of the USCF, albeit by those who may mean well. Please
re-think the proposed changes in Chess Life. If implemented, these
changes will be essentially irrevocable. Consider hiring someone who has
professional marketing and public relations experience with other
organizations. Focus on reversing membership trends. I have been a
member of the USCF for over 45 years and have actively supported it at
all times. I very much want to see it continue and flourish.


Regards,

Hanon


From the USCF Issue's Forum:

Moderator: Moderators
Post a reply
6 posts Page 1 of 1

* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby DACP on Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:16 pm #104863
There is now a post on rgcp pertaining to issues with USCF and a lack of
response from USCF management. Is this why there is an Accounts
Receivable that has not been collected from Chess Cafe? And is Chess
Cafe still paying USCF each month or are they withholding funds due to
this "outstanding issue"?
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate

DACP

Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 11:30 am
Location: Massachusetts
USCFId: 12447542

* Private message
* Website
* AIM

Top


* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby Randy Bauer on Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:48 pm #104873

DACP wrote:There is now a post on rgcp pertaining to issues with
USCF and a lack of response from USCF management. Is this why there is
an Accounts Receivable that has not been collected from Chess Cafe? And
is Chess Cafe still paying USCF each month or are they withholding funds
due to this "outstanding issue"?



Not connected. They are still paying USCF for monthly sales, and are
about on track for the minimum for this fiscal year. The AR relates to
advertising expenses that our printer billed to the USCF that we believe
should be paid by Chess Cafe.
Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer

Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
USCFId: 10320372

* Private message

Top


* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby Mulfish on Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:05 pm #104876
Uh, if we don't think the bill is ours, why did we pay it?

Mulfish

Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:24 pm
Location: Atlanta GA
USCFId: 10510376

* Private message

Top


* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby Randy Bauer on Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:11 pm #104877

Mulfish wrote:Uh, if we don't think the bill is ours, why did we
pay it?



I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated by
the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm certainly
not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a ton of
detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with our
attorneys to get resolution.
Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer

Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 8:19 pm
Location: Urbandale, Iowa
USCFId: 10320372

* Private message

Top


* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby Harry Payne on Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:16 pm #104878

Randy Bauer wrote:

Mulfish wrote:Uh, if we don't think the bill is ours, why did
we pay it?



I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.



Sounds like someone was not paying attention. Thank you for the
explanation Randy.
Rich men write the laws, that poor men must defend. But the highest laws
of any land, are written on the hearts of Honest Men.
In love of the game. Harry Payne

Harry Payne

Posts: 3662
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:43 am
Location: Marlow, Oklahoma
USCFId: 12705633

* Private message

Top


* Reply with quote
* Report this post

Postby Sevan Muradian on Sat Jun 07, 2008 8:20 pm #104879

Mulfish wrote:Uh, if we don't think the bill is ours, why did we
pay it?



I'm guessing because the bill from the mailing was in the name of the
USCF since the mailing is done from the printing house?

And if the USCF didn't pay the bill, the printing house wouldn't do any
more work until it was paid?

Just speculation on my part....

Sevan Muradian
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 03:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?

Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.

Thank you.
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 04:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?



Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?

Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.

Thank you.



Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian? Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 05:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 324
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

On Jun 7, 10:07*pm, wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
* * *I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?


Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.


Thank you.


Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian? Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


DING DING DING -we have a winner.


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 10:34 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 USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

On Jun 7, 11:46 pm, Randy Bauer wrote:

DING DING DING -we have a winner.


Apparently Randy Bauer, a member of the board, does not understand the
significance of the Hanon Russell letter.

Bill Goichberg states that his "New Plan", which will drastically
reduce the number of copies of Chess Life and Chess Life 4 Kids
magazines being distributed to the members and may ultimately stop the
printing of these magazines altogether, will save the USCF $86,000 per
year.

However, it will also cause the USCF to lose $150,000 per year.

Hanon Russell pays the USCF $150,000 per year for among other things
the exclusive right to advertise his products in Chess Life, and it is
apparent from his letter that if the Goichberg "New Plan" goes
through. Russell will stop paying that $150,000 and he is already
considering filing suit against the USCF.

It is noteworthy that Hanon Russell is himself a lawyer, and he writes
"pending the results of legal research that is still ongoing".

Bill Goichberg is in water way over his head and it is apparent that
the best thing for himself and the best thing for the USCF would be
for him to resign. However, those of us who know Goichberg know that
he will never admit that he is wrong and he will never resign. He will
continue on his course which will sink the entire USCF.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 02:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?

Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.

Thank you.



Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian?


Standing is a legal issue that is a non-sequitor in this instance. Your
ignorance/senility is showing.

Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.


I represent no one other than my as a USCF member and MA USCF members.
As a member and Alternate Delegate planning to attend the annual meeting
as a voting delegate I seek answers to a serious legal and financial
issue that the EB has not responded to.

..
  #8   Report Post  
Old June 8th 08, 02:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

Randy Bauer wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:07 pm, wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?
Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.
Thank you.

Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian? Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


DING DING DING -we have a winner.


The reason to expect an answer from a USCF board member to legitimate
questions raised is because I raise them as a USCF member and an
alternate delegate who is planning to attend the annual meeting as a
voting delegate. We, the membership, have a right to an explanation as
to what is going on here. What is most bothersome is the failure of the
USCF executive director and USCF counsel to substantively rely to a
contractual notice to cure an alleged material breach of contract by the
USCF.

Instead of making personal attacks on me, which only demonstrate
irresponsibility on your part, and meaningless polemics directed to Mr.
Russell, it would be more helpful to all concerned if you would
substantively address the USCF/USCF Sales issue as raised by Hanon.

Brian Lafferty
MA Alternate Delegate

Randy Bauer wrote:

And the reason I would be answering to you and Mr. Russell is....

come on, Brian, quit being such an asshole.



--- On Sat, 6/7/08, Brian Lafferty wrote:

From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Chess Life
To:
Cc: "Hanon W. Russell" , "Bill Goichberg"

, "Bill Hall" , "Daniel Lucas"
, "Frank A.Camaratta, Jr."
, "Yasser Seirawan" ,
"Bruce Pandolfini" , "Dan Holland"
,
, "Dewain Barber"
, "Glenn Petersen" , "Jeremy
Silman" ,
, "John
Donaldson" , "Mark Donlan" ,
, "Steve Goldberg" ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
,
Date: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 9:38 PM

A question for Mr. Bauer who claims on the USCF Issues forum that

he raised this at the last board meeting stating:

"I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is

complicated by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the
printer. I'm certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without
going into a ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're
working with our attorneys to get resolution."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a material

breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's retail
position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you addressed that
as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has demanded that
USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has been no
meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?

Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due

receivables is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the
exact basis of that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule
of that receivable as it has aged.

Thank you.

Brian Lafferty
MA Alternate Delegate

  #9   Report Post  
Old June 11th 08, 05:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?



Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:

Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?

Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.

Thank you.



Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian?


Standing is a legal issue that is a non-sequitor in this instance. Your
ignorance/senility is showing.

Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.


I represent no one other than my as a USCF member and MA USCF members.
As a member and Alternate Delegate planning to attend the annual meeting
as a voting delegate I seek answers to a serious legal and financial
issue that the EB has not responded to.



Brian, there are over 80,000 USCF members. If you are really
suggesting that the ED be required to answer impertinent questions
form each and all of them, then you are even stupider than the
precious evidence suggested.

As for you status as an Alternate Delegate -- you have none. Under
VI(6)A of the Bylaws, you are the third alternate, ranked behind all
elected Delegates and Alternate Delegates. You have no status beyond
that of an ordinary member until and unless all elected Delegates and
Alternate Delegates either die/resign, or fail to answer the roll call
at the Annual Meeting. Until then, you are merely a loud voice voice
attached to a big ego.

(Speaking of senilty ... I saw your photo on the MACA web site. You
don't look well. Is it the age or the liquor?)
  #10   Report Post  
Old June 11th 08, 12:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default USCF Sales F***ed By USCF/House of Staunton?

On Jun 10, 11:34 pm, wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:


Brian Lafferty wrote:
Bauer wrote on the USCF forum,
I asked the same question at the last EB meeting. It is complicated
by the relationship between USCF, Chess Cafe and the printer. I'm
certainly not happy that this occurred but also, without going into a
ton of detail, understand how it could have happened. We're working with
our attorneys to get resolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Excuse me, but according to Hanon Russell the USCF has committed a
material breach of its contract with USCF Sales by undercutting it's
retail position by it's "deal" with House of Staunton. Have you
addressed that as a board member? Apparently, USCF Sale's attorney has
demanded that USCF cure pursuant to it's contract terms and there has
been no meaningful response from the USCF. Why is that? Why was House of
Staunton given the deal referred to in Hanon's letter and not the USCF's
primary retail/mail order partner USCF Sales as would seem prudent,
contractually required and simply good business sense? Is there
something factual that's missing here?


Lastly, are you saying that the roughly $83,000 in past due receivables
is unrelated to this dispute? If so, please explain the exact basis of
that dispute and provide the membership with a schedule of that
receivable as it has aged.


Thank you.


Do you have standing to ask such questions, Brian?


Standing is a legal issue that is a non-sequitor in this instance. Your
ignorance/senility is showing.


Are you a party to
the contract, or do you represent a party to the contract? Or are you
merely being an officious busybody, and phrasing your questions in a
manner that makes it _sound_ like you have legal standing? Inquiring
minds want to know.


I represent no one other than my as a USCF member and MA USCF members.
As a member and Alternate Delegate planning to attend the annual meeting
as a voting delegate I seek answers to a serious legal and financial
issue that the EB has not responded to.


Brian, there are over 80,000 USCF members. If you are really
suggesting that the ED be required to answer impertinent questions
form each and all of them, then you are even stupider than the
precious evidence suggested.

As for you status as an Alternate Delegate -- you have none. Under
VI(6)A of the Bylaws, you are the third alternate, ranked behind all
elected Delegates and Alternate Delegates. You have no status beyond
that of an ordinary member until and unless all elected Delegates and
Alternate Delegates either die/resign, or fail to answer the roll call
at the Annual Meeting. Until then, you are merely a loud voice voice
attached to a big ego.


Snipped nasty comment.

John, if I may, if Brian refuses to take the high road, perhaps you
could instead?
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
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 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
A bit confused about USCF book sales - from the USCF Forum Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 8 February 20th 06 02:42 PM
Reply to Affidavit of Leroy Dubeck Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 26 March 29th 05 04:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 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