| |
Main
Date: 08 May 2008 17:35:42
From: samsloan
Subject: 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
|
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2008 08:46:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
In BINFO 200802923 Bill Goichberg states:
"If costs would rise more than I expect, we might add a little bit on
to the Premium dues.
"Bill Goichberg"
Bill just does not get it. The question asked was: If Chess Life
megazine becomes optional and there are not enough subscribers to
support the editorial costs, what will the USCF do?
Goichberg's answer is simple: Simply raise the dues that the Premium
Members, those being the members who receive Chess Life, have to
pay !!??!!
That will really solve the problem.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2008 03:34:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
I completely agree with Tim Redman.
During my one year on the board I persistently brought up the need for
cost cutting. I repeatedly asked questions about where all the money
was going. I never got any meaningful answers.
For example, Bill Hall would never answer my questions about how many
employees the USCF has. I have never heard of a company manager who
does not know how many people are working under him. I bet that the
president of General Motors can tell you exactly how many employees
the company has at any given point of time.
Whenever somebody quit the job, Bill Goichberg would announce that
expenses had been reduced as though this was a big accomplishment.
Bill Hall failed and refused to provide any meaningful financial
information upon which the board could base its decisions. My efforts
to bring about cost cutting were blocked by the votes of Goichberg,
Channing and Hough. On a six member board, they did not have a
majority but their three votes were enough to block anything from
passing.
The USCF already gets $3.2 million in annual revenues. They refuse to
tell us where all the money goes. Anybody who donates money to them
will have the same effect as someone who gives money to a broke
alcoholic so that he can buy another drink.
It seems that the only way that they can be stopped from spending your
dues money in wasteful and stupid ways is if they completely run out
of money and cannot make payroll. Only then might meaningful change
take place. I hope that this does not happen but that is the direction
in which the board is heading.
Sam Sloan
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Timothy P. Redman
<[email protected] > wrote:
Hi, Eric,
Good to hear from you.
It is very difficult to raise money to fund a deficit. Donors want to
fund positive programs, not bail out management.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
[email protected] wrote:
>Where is the appeal for donations? The fund-raising?
>
>Cost-cutting is fine...but frankly, every single affiliate should be
called and the hat passed around. Every affiliate should be sending
in funds.
>
>Other organizations with similar affiliate structures...have affiliates who
>send a substantial portion of local proceeds to the home office. USCF
>gets...$40 and some ratings dollars.
>
>If there is a crisis, act like there is a crisis...and ask for
money...as we do locally.
>
>Eric J.
>
>
>In a message dated 5/15/2008 7:14:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Tim Redman writes:
>
>I agree with the substance of these messages. On December 23 after
>members of the LMA Committee reviewed the six-month financials , I sent
>our analysis to President Goichberg and others. We predicted a fiscal
>year loss in the $100,000-$200,000 and a serious cash crunch in the
>summer. We recommended immediate cost-cutting measures in Crossville.
>Bill chose to take the advice instead of two undoubted financial
>experts in the Federation who projected a much rosier scenario.
>
>Unfortunately weeds came in where the roses were supposed to be.
>
>The new dues plan is fatally flawed for several reasons:
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 13:53:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
I agree with the substance of these messages. On December 23 after
members of the LMA Committee reviewed the six-month financials, I sent
our analysis to President Goichberg and others. We predicted a fiscal
year loss in the $100,000-$200,000 and a serious cash crunch in the
summer. We recommended immediate cost-cutting measures in Crossville.
Bill chose to take the advice instead of two undoubted financial
experts in the Federation who projected a much rosier scenario.
Unfortunately weeds came in where the roses were supposed to be.
The new dues plan is fatally flawed for several reasons:
1) it is way too complicated and confusing.
2) It is not price-point sensitive.
3) It will lead to the demise of one important and tangible benefit,
Chess Life. I think something like half of our renewing regular
members
don't play in rated tournaments in any given year.
4) It will lead to declining revenues.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 07:44:10
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
[quote="Harry Payne"] I think you had better listen to that tape of
the meeting again Sam. "Harry Payne" did not say " We just have to
give the employees raises." Harry Payne did not say anything about
raises. I ask what the cost of living was in-relationship to the
raises.( as I thought the cost of living was 2.7% for 2007) And I ask
that to a person seated next to me.
If you are going to quote me, do make the effort to get it "Right"
Thank You Very Much![/quote]
Thank you for the correction.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2008 01:39:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
[quote=3D"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 [/quote]
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 =93You're fired=94. 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 =93Joel Channing and the nine wise men=94 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 =93New
Plan=94 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 =93Internet=94 that causes the USCF to
lose money. Here is a quote from Bill Goichberg's announcement of his
new plan:
=93We 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.=94
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
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 07:54:26
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
On May 13, 1:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > On May 12, 11:03 pm, [email protected] 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
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2008 07:52:06
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
On May 12, 11:03 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Rich Hutnik wrote:
> > On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2008 22:46:18
From:
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
help bot wrote:
> On May 12, 11:03 pm, [email protected] 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."
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2008 21:00:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
On May 12, 11:03 pm, [email protected] 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
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2008 20:03:45
From:
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
Rich Hutnik wrote:
> On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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/?
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2008 19:22:00
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Goichberg's "New Plan" for the USCF
|
On May 8, 8:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > 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
|
|
