| |
Main
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:24:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
[quote="Randy Bauer"]Geez, we're having trouble getting above the "Sam
Sloan line" as it is - do you really want to make it more difficult to
get more candidates than "open seats including Sam plus one" to run?
Randy Bauer [/quote]
What Randy Bauer means by this remark is that for the last several
weeks Bill Goichberg has been trying to recruit enough candidates so
that, including me, there would be one more candidate than open seats.
So, assuming that there are still four open seats, there should
ideally be five candidates. Then, Goichberg will campaign hard to
bring about my defeat and that way the four that Goichberg has
recruited including himself will take control of the board.
I have been trying to warn Goichberg through intermediaries that this
strategy might backfire. It might turn out that he, not I, is the one
who finishes last.
Goichberg feels that this is impossible as he is confident of getting
a lot of votes.
Now, all of you additional uninvited people are threatening to ruin
the party.
Have you no manners?
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 13:27:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
--- In [email protected], jerryhanken@... wrote:
>
> Sam, Bill G. will finish last when pigs fly! As usual, Sad Sam hasn't got a
> clue. There will be a field of 7 or 8 as it now stands and SAM WILL FINISH
> LAST, which will show that the universe still functions!
> Jerry Hanken
Since I have been publishing history books lately, I have learned that
on election day in 1932 President Herbert Hoover was absolutely
certain that he was going to be re-elected and that there was no
chance that Franklin D. Roosevelt would beat him.
Similarly, Bill Goichberg seems incapable of realizing that his time
may be up and that there are many reasons why the voters might not re-
elect him.
Those reasons include:
1. The huge operating losses every year. This past year the actual
loss was more than $250,000 but Goichberg claims that it was "only"
$70,000.
2. The litigation. Eventually the voters will come to recognize that
this litigation is the direct and foreseeable consequence of actions
and inactions taken by Bill Goichberg as USCF President.
3. Goichberg has not learned his lesson. Right now he is trying to
recruit candidates to run on his slate who will be obedient to him, so
that he can keep the USCF under his control. If he truly had the
interests of the USCF at heart, he would try to recruit the most
qualified people, and not just people who will obey him.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Jan 2009 09:17:42
From: WPraeder
Subject: Re: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
On Jan 1, 12:38=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 11:24=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [quote=3D"Randy Bauer"]Geez, we're having trouble getting above the "Sa=
m
> > Sloan line" as it is - do you really want to make it more difficult to
> > get more candidates than "open seats including Sam plus one" to run?
>
> > Randy Bauer [/quote]
>
> > What Randy Bauer means by this remark is that for the last several
> > weeks Bill Goichberg has been trying to recruit enough candidates so
> > that, including me, there would be one more candidate than open seats.
>
> > So, assuming that there are still four open seats, there should
> > ideally be five candidates. Then, Goichberg will campaign hard to
> > bring about my defeat and that way the four that Goichberg has
> > recruited including himself will take control of the board.
>
> > I have been trying to warn Goichberg through intermediaries that this
> > strategy might backfire. It might turn out that he, not I, is the one
> > who finishes last.
>
> > Goichberg feels that this is impossible as he is confident of getting
> > a lot of votes.
>
> > Now, all of you additional uninvited people are threatening to ruin
> > the party.
>
> > Have you no manners?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Here is an new idea (already posted to USCF forum)
>
> How about we try to elect 4 absolutely new EB members with no alliance
> to any of the existing or past slates. =A0Maybe then we can get to a
> better place.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark,
Of course experienced and successful is always a first choice. In
agreement with you, I would submit that absolutely new is preferred
over those who have been previously unsuccessful at leading us. Those
who can be successful will promote their ideas, those who cannot will
criticize others. Perhaps radical change is necessary.
Regards,
Wayne Praeder
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 11:31:06
From:
Subject: Re: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
On Jan 1, 12:44=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 1, 12:38=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here is an new idea (already posted to USCF forum)
>
> > How about we try to elect 4 absolutely new EB members with no alliance
> > to any of the existing or past slates. =A0Maybe then we can get to a
> > better place.
>
> In principle that was a good idea and I would support it.
>
> However, there are several problems with this idea.
>
> The biggest problem is finding good qualified people to run. Very few
> are interested.
>
> Secondly, newcomers who have come in in the past have often turned out
> to be very poor board members, probably because they had no idea what
> they were getting into.
>
> One recent newcomer who was elected and highly regarded quit after
> just one meeting of the board. Another was said to be "The Next Fan
> Adams" and he turned out to be a very bad board member and the
> opposite of Fan Adams.
>
> We all know what has happened with the two most recent newcomers who
> got elected to the board.
>
> I personally would like to bring back some of the good old guys such
> as in particular Fred Gruenberg and Bill Sneed who served on the board
> when the USCF was making money.
>
> Remember them? There was a time when the USCF used to make money. They
> were on the board back then. The reason the USCF was able to lose more
> than $2 million over the past few years and still survive it that it
> had the two million dollars that was made when those guys were on the
> board.
>
> So, your idea of bringing in four rank newcomers with no prior
> experience in USCF Governance is in my opinion not workable.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
YOU ARE A GOD DAMN FELON AND CHILD MOLESTER. FUCK YOU
I will beat the shit out of you if you threaten me again! You are a
god
DAMN criminal and child molester!
Marcus Roberts
Ambassador of St kitts and Nevis
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 10:44:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
On Jan 1, 12:38=A0pm, marknibb <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is an new idea (already posted to USCF forum)
>
> How about we try to elect 4 absolutely new EB members with no alliance
> to any of the existing or past slates. =A0Maybe then we can get to a
> better place.
In principle that was a good idea and I would support it.
However, there are several problems with this idea.
The biggest problem is finding good qualified people to run. Very few
are interested.
Secondly, newcomers who have come in in the past have often turned out
to be very poor board members, probably because they had no idea what
they were getting into.
One recent newcomer who was elected and highly regarded quit after
just one meeting of the board. Another was said to be "The Next Fan
Adams" and he turned out to be a very bad board member and the
opposite of Fan Adams.
We all know what has happened with the two most recent newcomers who
got elected to the board.
I personally would like to bring back some of the good old guys such
as in particular Fred Gruenberg and Bill Sneed who served on the board
when the USCF was making money.
Remember them? There was a time when the USCF used to make money. They
were on the board back then. The reason the USCF was able to lose more
than $2 million over the past few years and still survive it that it
had the two million dollars that was made when those guys were on the
board.
So, your idea of bringing in four rank newcomers with no prior
experience in USCF Governance is in my opinion not workable.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jan 2009 09:38:45
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Will the Goichberg Strategy Backfire?
|
On Jan 1, 11:24=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"Randy Bauer"]Geez, we're having trouble getting above the "Sam
> Sloan line" as it is - do you really want to make it more difficult to
> get more candidates than "open seats including Sam plus one" to run?
>
> Randy Bauer [/quote]
>
> What Randy Bauer means by this remark is that for the last several
> weeks Bill Goichberg has been trying to recruit enough candidates so
> that, including me, there would be one more candidate than open seats.
>
> So, assuming that there are still four open seats, there should
> ideally be five candidates. Then, Goichberg will campaign hard to
> bring about my defeat and that way the four that Goichberg has
> recruited including himself will take control of the board.
>
> I have been trying to warn Goichberg through intermediaries that this
> strategy might backfire. It might turn out that he, not I, is the one
> who finishes last.
>
> Goichberg feels that this is impossible as he is confident of getting
> a lot of votes.
>
> Now, all of you additional uninvited people are threatening to ruin
> the party.
>
> Have you no manners?
>
> Sam Sloan
Here is an new idea (already posted to USCF forum)
How about we try to elect 4 absolutely new EB members with no alliance
to any of the existing or past slates. Maybe then we can get to a
better place.
|
|
