Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 13th 03, 02:37 PM
Bruce Draney
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

One of the biggest cheerleaders and spinners for the
Niro-McCrary-Camaratta axis was our good buddy Bill Goichberg who
frequently posted inside information with his own peculiar slant and
bias to it, months before anyone could read or challenge the
information's accuracy on his own webpage. For over two years if you
wanted to know what was going on at USCF you never looked at USCF's
website because the only thing there worth looking at was the latest
hideous cover of Chess Life and the ratings update page. Hopefully with
Mr. Truong now running this aspect of the show, this is going to
change.

Just looking back at the posting titles from this website over the past
16 months since the McCrary-Camaratta-Niro administration took over,
gives a strong indication of just how biased Bill could be in his
"analysis" of USCF's true situation. Below are just a few of the titles
of reports on Bill's site which incidentally have not been taken down
even when their veracity has clearly become questionable. At the time
they were posted, such swill was often believed to be gospel.

8/10/03* Marinello is USCF President

8/8/03* USCF operations loses $318,000

8/7/03* Niro resigns

8/5/03* Membership without a publication: a history of failure

8/5/03* Crossville move expected next summer

7/16/03* Upset in EB election

7/16/03* 1822 votes in OMOV election

6/10/03* Executive Board choices

6/9/03* Ballot problem


Since June the reports have been factual and balanced for the most part,
although it's interesting to read Bill's endorsement choices.


5/18/03* USCF reports surplus after 11 months

4/22/03* USCF nears breakeven for year

4/4/03* 2002 Audited USCF Financials

3/16/03* USCF $20K closer to even


Three of these four seem quite ironically humorous in light of what was
just revealed. Does any feel the truth may just possibly being
stretched here?


3/15/03* Debi Sherry

2/20/03* USCF still down 81K for fiscal year

2/20/03* Alex Dunne tragedy

2/7/03* Niro to leave hospital, by John McCrary

2/5/03* McCrary statement on Niro

2/5/03* Niro expects to return in two weeks

2/4/03* Niro hospitalized

1/17/03* USCF to move to Palm Beach Gardens

1/16/03* Six candidates for Executive Board


The winter of our discontent perhaps. Niro's illness and
hospitalization the disastrous release of Debi Sherry, the only apparent
person in the office who knew about TLA's.


1/14/03* USCF December revenue strong

1/14/03* USCF membership reaches another high

12/21/02* USCF midyear finances: down, but ahead of budget


More Bill spin and McCrary-Camaratta-Niro garbage. Obviously it had no
meaning unless its intent was to deceive.

What a breath of fresh air to have actual information directly from
USCF. Let's hope it continues into the distant future.

Best Regards,

Bruce
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 13th 03, 08:21 PM
Recmate
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

Subject: Bill's Reporting.
From: Bruce Draney
Date: 08/13/2003 9:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

One of the biggest cheerleaders and spinners for the
Niro-McCrary-Camaratta axis was our good buddy Bill Goichberg who
frequently posted inside information with his own peculiar slant and
bias to it, months before anyone could read or challenge the
information's accuracy on his own webpage. For over two years if you
wanted to know what was going on at USCF you never looked at USCF's
website because the only thing there worth looking at was the latest
hideous cover of Chess Life and the ratings update page. Hopefully with
Mr. Truong now running this aspect of the show, this is going to
change.

Just looking back at the posting titles from this website over the past
16 months since the McCrary-Camaratta-Niro administration took over,
gives a strong indication of just how biased Bill could be in his
"analysis" of USCF's true situation. Below are just a few of the titles
of reports on Bill's site which incidentally have not been taken down
even when their veracity has clearly become questionable. At the time
they were posted, such swill was often believed to be gospel.

8/10/03* Marinello is USCF President

8/8/03* USCF operations loses $318,000

8/7/03* Niro resigns

8/5/03* Membership without a publication: a history of failure

8/5/03* Crossville move expected next summer

7/16/03* Upset in EB election

7/16/03* 1822 votes in OMOV election

6/10/03* Executive Board choices

6/9/03* Ballot problem


Since June the reports have been factual and balanced for the most part,
although it's interesting to read Bill's endorsement choices.


5/18/03* USCF reports surplus after 11 months


You fail to mention that this report contained the following:

"While the end of the federation's streak of consecutive yearly losses would be
cause for celebration, we should keep in mind that several audited reports and
post-audit corrections during the past six years have negatively altered the
expectations of past Executive Directors."

The story reported was true- that USCF had reported a surplus after 11 months.
The USCF report itself turned out to be incorrect, but I didn't say it was
correct and even warned that history suggested it might be incorrect.


4/22/03* USCF nears breakeven for year


Likewise, you fail to mention that this report contained the following:

"If the federation shows a profit for the fiscal year, it will be the first
time that has happened since 1995-1996. It should be kept in mind, though,
that the final audited figures have sometimes been disappointing, and that even
some audited results have later been negatively revised (notably for 2000-2001,
when an audited $14,000 profit was reported which was later found to be a
six-figure loss)."

Bruce, your comments might be appropriate if I reported "USCF has made a profit
for the first time in 7 years. This is a great breakthrough..." etc. But the
record shows that I repeatedly reminded readers that USCF financial reports
have been inaccurate in the past. My reports were that USCF had issued
financial statements, not that these statements were correct or incorrect.

There is no need to take down any of these reports from chessnews.org, as they
are a factual account of what USCF reported, and are followed up by a later
story saying the USCF reports were wrong.


4/4/03* 2002 Audited USCF Financials

3/16/03* USCF $20K closer to even


Three of these four seem quite ironically humorous in light of what was
just revealed. Does any feel the truth may just possibly being
stretched here?


3/15/03* Debi Sherry

2/20/03* USCF still down 81K for fiscal year

2/20/03* Alex Dunne tragedy

2/7/03* Niro to leave hospital, by John McCrary

2/5/03* McCrary statement on Niro

2/5/03* Niro expects to return in two weeks

2/4/03* Niro hospitalized

1/17/03* USCF to move to Palm Beach Gardens

1/16/03* Six candidates for Executive Board


The winter of our discontent perhaps. Niro's illness and
hospitalization the disastrous release of Debi Sherry, the only apparent
person in the office who knew about TLA's.


I complained to Niro and some Board members about the unfair and harmful
decision to fire Debi, to no avail. If only I had the influence Bruce thinks I
have...


1/14/03* USCF December revenue strong

1/14/03* USCF membership reaches another high

12/21/02* USCF midyear finances: down, but ahead of budget


More Bill spin and McCrary-Camaratta-Niro garbage. Obviously it had no
meaning unless its intent was to deceive.

I think Niro and the others believed these reports, and I just reported who
Niro issued. If anyone had realized that multi-year memberships were bring
recorded incorrectly, this practice would have been stopped. I am not
defending
the failure to notice this and other errors- it was the responsibility of the
ED and Board to make sure the employees did not commit such errors- but I see
no evidence of intent to deceive.

Bill Goichberg


What a breath of fresh air to have actual information directly from
USCF. Let's hope it continues into the distant future.

Best Regards,

Bruce








  #3   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 04:56 AM
ASCACHESS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

If anyone had realized that multi-year memberships were bring
recorded incorrectly, this practice would have been stopped.


Bill Goichberg


Bill,
I refer you to the resignation letter of half the Finance Committee.
They knew the multiyears were being booked incorrectly.

Rp
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 12:51 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.


"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...

Bill,
I refer you to the resignation letter of half the Finance Committee.
They knew the multiyears were being booked incorrectly.


That's bull****.

StanB


  #5   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 01:46 PM
Altes Weisel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

"Recmate" wrote in message
...
SNIP

I think Niro and the others believed these reports, and I just reported who
Niro issued. If anyone had realized that multi-year memberships were bring
recorded incorrectly, this practice would have been stopped. I am not
defending
the failure to notice this and other errors- it was the responsibility of

the
ED and Board to make sure the employees did not commit such errors- but I

see
no evidence of intent to deceive.

Bill Goichberg


Tom Doan posted and communicated with the Office that there was an error
with Multi-year memberships in April 2001. Here is the first post in a
thread where Doan posted several times.

From: )
Subject: Questions re Financial Statements


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Date: 2001-04-08 22:13:48 PST


I was looking over the Feb 28 financial statements and there were a couple
of
things that looked a bit puzzling.

1. Has there been any change in how multi-year memberships are being booked?
Every one of them (regular, senior, junior and scholastic) is up rather
sharply over last year and up rather sharply over budget, even when the
corresponding one year category is flat.

2. What gives with the "Tournament" revenue and prize data? The data for
1999-2000 shows 12,109 in "Open Tournament Rev and Donation" with 125,459 in
"Open Prizes and Exp" while the corresponding lines in 2000-2001 shows 2,000
and zero. From the National Scholastics alone, there must be over 150K in
EF's
working through USCF accounts over the course of the year. Why don't they
show
up here?

Tom Doan

***
The only way that the memberships reasonably could have been booked wrong
after being corrected for this is if someone changed something that was
already correct. If people are making changes without double-checking that
is horrible. Is there no documentation of recent history in the office?
Wouldn't someone have known that this had just been recently corrected?






  #6   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 07:46 PM
Altes Wiesel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.


"Recmate" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Apparently the problem was fixed more recently than 2001, only to

reappear. I
heard that these memberships were being improperly recorded at the start

of the
2002-3 fiscal year but this was corrected, then after a few months the

improper
recording resumed again and no one noticed.

Bill Goichberg


Then at least one someone should be terminated.


  #7   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 10:53 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.


"Altes Weisel" wrote in message
...
***
The only way that the memberships reasonably could have been booked wrong
after being corrected for this is if someone changed something that was
already correct. If people are making changes without double-checking

that
is horrible. Is there no documentation of recent history in the office?
Wouldn't someone have known that this had just been recently corrected?


Tom's concerns have no bearing on what happened this past year. They relate
to two administrations ago.

StanB


  #8   Report Post  
Old August 14th 03, 11:11 PM
Altes Wiesel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

"StanB" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Tom's concerns have no bearing on what happened this past year. They

relate
to two administrations ago.

StanB


You miss the point. Tom's concerns led to the issue being fixed two
administrations ago. Why did anyone F it up again?


  #9   Report Post  
Old August 15th 03, 01:48 AM
Tom Martinak
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.

"StanB" wrote

Tom's concerns have no bearing on what happened this past year. They relate
to two administrations ago.

StanB


Maybe there's something in the name Tom. I started a thread called
"USCF Financials" on 6/24/03 (i.e. this year) which Mike Nolan
answered twice. It's available at Google at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...18a2c92&rnum=4

- Tom Martinak

My posts we

I'm trying to understand the latest financials that the USCF
has posted (for April) at
http://www.uschess.org/docs/xls/Aprcurrvspriorfin1.xls In
particular comparing the current year to date compared to
the previous year to date in membership income. What
exactly do the amounts "Regular One Year Memb", "Regular
Multi 2 Year" and "Regular Multi 3 Year" represent. I
wonder about the big drop in the 3-year. I would have
thought that during this fiscal year (in particular for Nov
and Dec 2002) we would have had heavy sales of 3-year
memberships when compared to the previous year when there
was no upcoming dues increase scheduled.

- Tom Martinak



"Mike Nolan" wrote in

3 year: 1/3 from this year, 1/3 from last year, 1/3 from

2 years ago.

Doesn't the 33% drop for the current year compared to last
year look strange then. Basically we are only replacing the
1/3 of 1998-1999 income with the 1/3 of 2002-2003 income
when comparing the numbers for 2001-2002 and the current
2002-2003 fiscal years. These numbers should be relatively
stable, but my intuition would be that they would tend
higher this year because the dues increase would have
encouraged more multi-year memberships this year. There
were problems a few years ago with improper accounting for
multi-year memberships. Could the old numbers be
uncorrected figures?

- Tom Martinak
  #10   Report Post  
Old August 15th 03, 03:06 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bill's Reporting.


"Tom Martinak" wrote in message
om...

Doesn't the 33% drop for the current year compared to last
year look strange then. Basically we are only replacing the
1/3 of 1998-1999 income with the 1/3 of 2002-2003 income
when comparing the numbers for 2001-2002 and the current
2002-2003 fiscal years. These numbers should be relatively
stable, but my intuition would be that they would tend
higher this year because the dues increase would have
encouraged more multi-year memberships this year. There
were problems a few years ago with improper accounting for
multi-year memberships. Could the old numbers be
uncorrected figures?


The problems that CAN arise include posting an estimated number for several
months and then adjusting it to actual (GAAP wise) in the month you're
looking at. That would be misleading but yet an acceptable practice in a
busy and/or understaffed and/or undertalented office. I just don't put a
whole lot of stock in any small organization's monthly numbers. Keep in mind
we're not getting an audit every month nor do we have or can we afford the
horses to reconcile 15 (!) revenue accounts every month. Not to mention a
raft of other accounts with one controller and two clerks and no hands on
manager. I would prefer quarterly releases of financial reports.

StanB


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
Chessbase Reporting All the News Fit to Print? Michael Byrne rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 June 17th 04 02:02 AM
Three People Who Knew More than Mike Nolan Altes Wiesel rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 August 11th 03 04:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 PM.

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