US Chess Discussion

Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan Polgar©

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

USCF membership numbers: -2,049


March 2008

Type Total 12/below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
---- ----- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
B 568 1 0 2 11 539 15
E 3260 0 0 0 0 2 3258
J 9047 918 1079 5091 1836 123 0
L 7096 0 0 0 0 5049 2047
N 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
O 136 95 30 11 0 0 0
R 19063 21 12 44 253 18467 266
S 212 0 0 2 5 205 0
U 26916 25385 1530 1 0 0 0
V 79 2 0 1 3 72 1
W 5658 3367 892 731 109 551 8
Y 7714 1378 5527 808 0 1 0
Z 3621 3 8 12 39 3297 262
(13 rows)

Type Total 12/below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
----- ----- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Total 83371 31170 9078 6703 2256 28307 5857
(1 row)

March 2009

Type Total 12/below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
---- ----- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
B 483 1 0 1 8 459 14
E 3259 0 0 0 0 2 3257
J 8824 812 995 4899 1959 159 0
L 7038 0 0 0 0 4806 2232
O 50 31 19 0 0 0 0
R 18763 30 25 100 230 18044 334
S 165 0 1 2 4 157 1
U 26198 24989 1192 17 0 0 0
V 15 0 0 0 2 11 2
W 5737 3311 1135 685 120 477 9
Y 7107 1163 5327 617 0 0 0
Z 3683 4 7 11 36 3324 301
(12 rows)

Type Total 12/below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
----- ----- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
Total 81322 30341 8701 6332 2359 27439 6150
(1 row)

This shows a loss of 2,049 members from 12 months ago.
Posted by Picasa

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

  • At Wednesday, April 01, 2009 6:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Misrepresentations in Goichberg's Campaign Statement

    The April Chess Life has just arrived and the campaign statement of
    USCF President Bill Goichberg is on page 35.

    After recounting his long record as a tournament player and organizer,
    only in the final sentence does Goichberg say what he has actually
    accomplished. He states: “While Office and Manager and executive
    Director, USCF improved from approximately $400,000 debt to $200,000
    surplus, not counting building sale, with record profits in fiscal
    2003-2004 and 2004-2005 after seven consecutive years of losses.”

    There is a lot omitted from this. The so called “profit” comes from
    mostly two items: First, the “gift” of “free land” valued at $264,000
    by the City of Crossville. However, that was an Indian Gift, as the
    USCF cannot sell the land and thus has no real right of ownership.
    Secondly: Most of the cash profit was the sale of the building in New
    Windsor for $513,000. Since the building that the USCF had owned for
    37 years had been depreciated down to nearly zero, the proceeds from
    the sale was almost all “profit”.

    However, then the USCF proceeded to build a much smaller building for
    $650,000 in Crossville Tennessee, which we now cannot sell because we
    do not own the land under it, so we are now $137,000 in the hole plus
    we are locked onto Crossville.

    Also, Bill Goichberg was just an employee then, so he cannot take full
    credit for this. Much of the credit must go to the board, which was in
    opposition to Goichberg much of the time.

    More importantly, Goichberg makes no mention of his four years as USCF
    President from 2005 to 2009. The reason he does not mention this is
    obvious: The USCF has lost more than a half million dollars during the
    four years that Goichberg has been president. The USCF has just been
    bailed out by the $350,000 bequest which has already been almost
    completely spent. Otherwise, the USCF would be nearly bankrupt now.

    If the voters knew this, would they be willing to give Goichberg
    another four years in office?

    Sam Sloan

     
  • At Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Harry, with all due respect, you just joined the USCF for the first time about three years ago. You seem to be suggesting that all the problems that the USCF faces are because of me. You even suggest that I should be kicked out of the USCF. You are stating that, if only I and a few other miscreants would go away or be kicked out, "The USCF would be in very good shape financially, the Executive Board, Staff,
    and members would be considering, how to correct other problems and how to promote the Game of Chess and it's Players of all ages", and everything would be just hunky dory.

    If you would read a little more and write a little less you would find out that these problems go back a long time. These are not new developments. I first joined the USCF in 1956. Like most other members, I stayed out of chess politics and did not even bother to keep track of the elections for the first 40 years until 1996. It was then that I realized that there were serious problems and I started to get involved.

    The problems I thought we had then are trivial compared to what we have now. Actually, the year 1996 when things seemed bad was actually the peak in terms of memberships, revenues and sales. We were profitable up until then. It was then that the downward slide began.

    You will note that Bill Goichberg's candidates statement says, "with record profits in fiscal 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 after seven consecutive years of losses.” Do a little math. Seven years before 2003 was 1996. That was the last profitable year. That was also the year when Bill Goichberg was first elected Vice President of the USCF. Goichberg was Vice-president from 1996 to 1999 and now has been President from 2005 until now. In every one of the seven years that Goichberg has been on the board, the USCF has suffered huge losses, whereas all the years leading up to 1996 were highly profitable. Also, as Tim Redman has pointed out in another thread, during the 1996-1999 period although it seemed like the losses were minor, only $20,000 in one year, in reality our losses in operations were huge, over $300,000
    in one year, but were shielded by big stock market gains, as the LMA was mostly invested in stocks. Because of the profits in the stock market, an outsider reading the financial statements would think that we were doing OK. Then, when the stock market started going down, the operating losses added to the stock market losses created huge deficits.

    So, altogether, for the total of seven years that Goichberg has been on the board, three as vice-president and four as president, the USCF has suffered close to a million dollars in total operating losses, but Harry Payne, a newcomer, thinks that Goichberg is doing a great job and will vote for him and thinks that everything would be sweetness and light if only that Sam Sloan were kicked out of the USCF so he could not bother these people any more.

     
  • At Thursday, April 02, 2009 2:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Since Bill Goichberg's statement that the Federation didn't start to lose money until the last year (fy 99) that you were both on the Board didn't jive with my memory, and since you also have a different recollection, I went back to check the audited financials. Here is what I discovered:

    1996-1997 (fy 97)

    Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (117,542).

    Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA investments: 120,601.

    Gain or (Loss) due to Operations: (238,143).

    Thus for that year, LMA gains masked operational losses.
    1997-1998 (fy 98)

    Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (2,916).

    Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA Investments: 101,283.

    Gain (or Loss) due to Operations: (104,244).

    Thus for that year, LMA gains masked operational losses.
    1998-1999 (fy 99)

    Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (226,505).

    Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA Investments: 148,033.

    Gain or (Loss) due to Operations: (374,538).

    Thus for that year, too, the third year in a row, LMA gains masked operational losses.

    LMA gains or losses are due to the actions of the LMA Committee which acts independently of the Board. Operational gains or losses are under the control of the Board and management.

    One anecdote. In Istanbul at the Olympiad in Fall of 2000, Sam Sloan approached me expressing serious concern about LMA losses. I'm afraid that he was shocked when I shrugged him off, but my view was that the LMA operated completely outside of Board control and thus I couldn't do anything about it. In fact, LMA lost (98,096) in 2000-2001 (fy 2001).

    Therefore, using the audited financial statements, we can see that serious operational losses started in 1996-1997, and for three years they were masked by gains in the LMA Fund.

    Cordially,
    Tim Redman
    Former USCF President

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home