StanB   Feb 6 2004, 10:56 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: "StanB" <s...@snbco.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:56:08 GMT
Local: Fri,Feb 6 2004 10:56 am
Subject: Re: Yes, I am running
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
 

 

"Ron Suarez" <ron_suarez_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

 
news:pkh720lqbrmncqd8ugagdh53gcu88977mc@4ax.com...
 

 

> Ummmm.. Wake up TMB...the USCF HAS partnered with Chess Cafe.  In fact
> the agreement is that even the goods sold at the Chess Cafe web site
> will be counted as USCF sold stuff, meaning the USCF will get a
> percentage of those sales as well.

 
No percentage, flat fee. When it became apparent that the board was leaning
towards Malcolm Pein's operation, Bill Goichberg brought on board. Frank
Camaratta, who told me personally that he had no financial interest in
ChessCafe, was able to solicit Bill's help in convincing the board to go
with Frank's partners.
 

At the last board meeting Bill then took over the meeting and wouldn't let
anyone else get a word in edgewise. So: the board was swayed to accept the
Camaratta's company's bid. One more instance of people with vested interests
having inside information and a vote to SELF DEAL.
 

As to Bill, he used to say that Doris Barry had a financial interest in
Games Parlor and that is why she pushed for it. Some questions for Bill:
 

1. Do you have a financial interest in this ChessCafe deal?
2. Do you have a financial interest in serving as ED?
3. Who is the ED since you haven't you been in the office for almost two
months?
4. Does "team player" mean someone that keeps quiet while others SELF DEAL?
5. Did you take a vow as a OMOV supporter to not run for office or serve as
an officer if it passed?
 

StanB
 



Recmate   Feb 7 2004, 1:03 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: recm...@aol.com (Recmate) - Find messages by this author
Date: 07 Feb 2004 09:03:34 GMT
Local: Sat,Feb 7 2004 1:03 am
Subject: Re: Yes, I am running
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
 

 

>Subject: Re: Yes, I am running
>From: "StanB" s...@snbco.com
>Date: 2/6/2004 10:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <crRUb.12920$jH6.11...@newsrea­d1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
 

>"Ron Suarez" <ron_suarez_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pkh720lqbrmncqd8ugagdh53gcu88977mc@4ax.com...
 

>> Ummmm.. Wake up TMB...the USCF HAS partnered with Chess Cafe.  In fact
>> the agreement is that even the goods sold at the Chess Cafe web site
>> will be counted as USCF sold stuff, meaning the USCF will get a
>> percentage of those sales as well.
 

>No percentage, flat fee.

 

Incorrect, it's the larger of a percentage or $350,000 per year, and we expect
to get mre than $350,000.  You shouldn't misinform people when you could have
just asked me or a Board member and learned the facts.
 

 When it became apparent that the board was leaning
 

 

>towards Malcolm Pein's operation, Bill Goichberg brought on board. Frank
>Camaratta, who told me personally that he had no financial interest in
>ChessCafe, was able to solicit Bill's help in convincing the board to go
>with Frank's partners.

 
Not so.  I negotiated with three bidders and all submitted much better bids
than what we had received before the Board meeting. Camaratta was not involved
in the negotiations and recused himself from the Board discussions and votes.
 

The ChessCafe bid was clearly the best in terms of both 1) money to USCF and 2)
avoiding the conflict of interest of having the outsourcer run a separate
business in competition with us.  Not only will ChessCafe not compete with
USCF, we will get commissions on sales to their existing customers.  And they
have a great reputation for service.
 

 

>At the last board meeting Bill then took over the meeting and wouldn't let
>anyone else get a word in edgewise. So: the board was swayed to accept the
>Camaratta's company's bid.

 
Wrong. At the Board meeting, I was authorized to negotiate with bidders. The
Board could have accepted the bid they had then, but it they did so we would
now have a lower percentage, no guarantee, and no payment for Chess Life ad
space.  Is that the bid you would have supported?
 

ChessCafe subsequently made the best bid and it was approved in a conference
call three weeks later.  No swaying was necessary as their bid was clearly the
best.
 

 One more instance of people with vested interests
 

 

>having inside information and a vote to SELF DEAL.

 
One more instance of people who don't know what they're talking about sounding
off.  
 

Who had inside information?  What information did they have?  Is it your
position that if USCF is getting a good deal, this shows there is corruption?
Would you prefer that we had gotten a bad deal? If we had accepted an inferior
offer, wouldn't you now be suggesting that someone must have been paid off to
agree to such a lousy deal?  
 

 

>As to Bill, he used to say that Doris Barry had a financial interest in
>Games Parlor and that is why she pushed for it. Some questions for Bill:
 

>1. Do you have a financial interest in this ChessCafe deal?

 

Of course not.
 

 

>2. Do you have a financial interest in serving as ED?

 
I am not paid, and don't even claim all my expenses.  I do want the USCF to
survive; maybe you think that's a conflict of interest.
Maybe you would rather have an ED who doesn't care if USCF pulls through or
not.
 

 

>3. Who is the ED since you haven't you been in the office for almost two
>months?

 
Your math isn't so good for a CPA- I was last in the office January 13.  I will
be back in a few days and have no more long trips scheduled. While in the west
I have been working more than 40 hours a week on USCF business, including the
outsourcing negotiations, building sale, Trust negotiations, meeting with Erik
Anderson in Santa Monica, and many other matters.
 

 

>4. Does "team player" mean someone that keeps quiet while others SELF DEAL?

 
I would say that a team player does not make irresponsible charges backed up by
not a shred of evidence.  "Self deal" doesn't become true just because you put
it in all caps and repeat it over and over, you know.
Instead of posting what you GUESS is probably happening, why not ask some Board
members what is ACTUALLY happening?
 

 

>5. Did you take a vow as a OMOV supporter to not run for office or serve as
>an officer if it passed?

 
No.
 

Bill Goichberg
 

Recmate   Feb 7 2004, 8:56 am     show options
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: recm...@aol.com (Recmate) - Find messages by this author
Date: 07 Feb 2004 16:55:58 GMT
Local: Sat,Feb 7 2004 8:55 am
Subject: Re: Yes, I am running
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
 

 

- Hide quoted text -

 

>Subject: Re: Yes, I am running
>From: "StanB" stanb...@comXXXcast.net
>Date: 2/7/2004 5:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Qo-dnQnpU4yGcrndRVn...@comcas­t.com>
 

>"Recmate" <recm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040207040334.21890.00001345@mb-m06.aol.com...
 

>> >No percentage, flat fee.
 

>> Incorrect, it's the larger of a percentage or $350,000 per year, and we
>expect
>> to get mre than $350,000.  You shouldn't misinform people when you could
>have
>> just asked me or a Board member and learned the facts.
 

>I asked and got that info from board members.

 

OK, let's see how many Board members agree with you that there's no percentage.
 We have a written bid and if sales top $2.533 million in any year, USCF will
get more than the $350,000 minimum guarantee on a percentage basis.
 

 

- Hide quoted text -

 

>>  When it became apparent that the board was leaning
>> >towards Malcolm Pein's operation, Bill Goichberg brought on board. Frank
>> >Camaratta, who told me personally that he had no financial interest in
>> >ChessCafe, was able to solicit Bill's help in convincing the board to go
>> >with Frank's partners.
 

>> Not so.  I negotiated with three bidders and all submitted much better
>bids
>> than what we had received before the Board meeting. Camaratta was not
>involved
>> in the negotiations and recused himself from the Board discussions and
>votes.
 

>Are you saying you have several long phone calls regarding this subject
>prior to his reclusing himself?

 

I don't know what you mean, but if you want to know the history, the Board
considered approving a bid at its Florida meeting.  Camaratta recused himself
from both the discusssion and the vote.  The Board asked me to negotiate with
bidders.  I kept the Board subcommittee on outsourcing, which did not include
Camaratta, informed regarding the progress of the negotiations. Camaratta did
not particpate in any way and was not informed about details of any bids.
Finally a conference call was scheduled for Feb 3 to vote on the bids.
Camaratta began the call by announcing his resignation from the Board and then
left the call.  The Board then discussed the bids and selected ChessCafe.
 

 

- Hide quoted text -

 

>> >At the last board meeting Bill then took over the meeting and wouldn't
>let
>> >anyone else get a word in edgewise. So: the board was swayed to accept
>the
>> >Camaratta's company's bid.
 

>> Wrong. At the Board meeting, I was authorized to negotiate with bidders.
>The
>> Board could have accepted the bid they had then, but it they did so we
>would
>> now have a lower percentage, no guarantee, and no payment for Chess Life
>ad
>> space.  Is that the bid you would have supported?
 

>You changed the subject. The statement was: At the last board meeting Bill
>then took over the meeting and wouldn't let anyone else get a word in
>edgewise.

 

That was not your entire statement.  You also said that the Board was swayed to
accept a certain bid.  The bid you were referring to did not even exist at that
point. It came later because I asked ChessCafe if they were interested in
bidding. Also, the Board members of course had plenty of opportunity to
disagree when I expressed the opinion that the bidding should remain open.
 

 

>> ChessCafe subsequently made the best bid and it was approved in a
>conference
>> call three weeks later.  No swaying was necessary as their bid was clearly
>the
>> best.
 

>Bargaining in bad faith. They were allowed to rebid after frank knew the
>competing bids and issues.

 

Completely false.  Camaratta had no knowledge of any of the three final bids.
Also, I promised all the bidders that no other bidder would be told the details
of their bid, and this was strictly observed.
 

 

>>  One more instance of people with vested interests
>> >having inside information and a vote to SELF DEAL.
 

>> One more instance of people who don't know what they're talking about
>sounding
>> off.
 

>How so?

 

How so?  Well, you have posted a lot of incorrect information regarding both
the final bid that was accepted and the process.  There is a percentage to USCF
in the accepted bid, there was no ChessCafe bid at the time of the Florida
meeting, Camaratta was not involved in negotiations and had no knowledge of the
three final bids, and I could not and did not prevent Board members from
expressing their views at the Florida meeting.  Virtually everything that you
have posted on the subject of B & E outsourcing has been incorrect.
 

 

>> Who had inside information?  What information did they have?  Is it your
>> position that if USCF is getting a good deal, this shows there is
>corruption?
>> Would you prefer that we had gotten a bad deal? If we had accepted an
>inferior
>> offer, wouldn't you now be suggesting that someone must have been paid off
>to
>> agree to such a lousy deal?
 

>Ibid above.

 

I suspect that if USCF had accepted an inferior bid, for instance one with a
smaller percentage than we finally got, no minimum guarantee, and the
obligation to give away a lot of Chess Life pages free, then you would have
said "SELF DEAL" and wondered who at USCF was paid off to accept so much less
than the Federation could have obtained by negotiating with more bidders.
 

 

- Hide quoted text -

 

>> >As to Bill, he used to say that Doris Barry had a financial interest in
>> >Games Parlor and that is why she pushed for it. Some questions for Bill:
 

>> >1. Do you have a financial interest in this ChessCafe deal?
 

>> Of course not.
 

>> >2. Do you have a financial interest in serving as ED?
 

>> I am not paid, and don't even claim all my expenses.  I do want the USCF
>to
>> survive; maybe you think that's a conflict of interest.
>> Maybe you would rather have an ED who doesn't care if USCF pulls through
>or
>> not.
 

>> >3. Who is the ED since you haven't you been in the office for almost two
>> >months?
 

>> Your math isn't so good for a CPA- I was last in the office January 13.  I
>will
>> be back in a few days and have no more long trips scheduled.
 

>Does this mean you were in the office from before Christmas until 1/13 or
>does it mean you made a one day guest appearnace during that two month
>period?

 

Before Christmas to 1/13 is not a two month period.
 

If you must know, after running the Las Vegas tournament Dec 26-29 I flew back
to New York Jan 1, was in the office Friday, Jan 2 and Jan 5-8, flew to Florida
Jan 9, attended the Board meeting Jan 10-11, flew back to New York the night of
Jan 11, was in the office Jan 12-13, flew to Los Angeles Jan 14, and directed a
tournament at Agoura Hills, CA Jan 16-19.
 

 

>> While in the west
>> I have been working more than 40 hours a week on USCF business, including
>the
>> outsourcing negotiations, building sale, Trust negotiations, meeting with
>Erik
>> Anderson in Santa Monica, and many other matters.
 

>Why would we need to sell the building now that we have such a deal from
>Chesscafe?

 

As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am sure you realize that getting
$350,000 or $400,000 per year from B & E outsourcing by itself, while helpful,
does not solve all of USCF's financial problems.
 

 

And why would we want to spend a lot of money fixing up the
>basement for our new landlords when all we get is a year's free rent? What
>then? Buy another building?

 
This is a new subject but since you asked, we have an offer which includes a
year of free rent in our lower floor.  This coupled with the space we are
already leasing next door would be sufficient space for us now that we are
outsourcing B & E.  However, our downstairs is not suitable for offices without
renovation. We are not willing to pay for all of the latter and have asked the
buyer to pay for it. They are willing to help with it but not pay the entire
cost.  Negotiation is continuing.  The cost of renovation is expected to be
much less than the market price for renting the space for a year.
 

As to what will happen after a year if we sell to this buyer and accept the
free rent offer, that is for the Board to decide.
 

 

>> >4. Does "team player" mean someone that keeps quiet while others SELF
>DEAL?
 

>> I would say that a team player does not make irresponsible charges backed
>up by
>> not a shred of evidence.  "Self deal" doesn't become true just because you
>put
>> it in all caps and repeat it over and over, you know.
 

>No, it becomes true when a board member gets a deal for himself by agreeing
>to step down if they award a contract to himself and his partners. Is that
>not the case?

 

No, that's not the case.  
 

Ask a Board member to show you the three final bids.  Since you are a financial
professional I'm sure you would have voted for ChessCafe also as it was clearly
the best bid.  There was no politics or self dealing involved in the decision.
 

 

>> Instead of posting what you GUESS is probably happening, why not ask some
>Board
>> members what is ACTUALLY happening?
 

>Who do you think told me if not board members.

 

Then there has been a misunderstanding.  Go back to those Board members and
recheck your facts.
 

 

You certainlt didn't ask for
>any advice from the finance chair when you "negotiated" the financial
>aspects of this deal for Frank's company.

 
Frank does not own part of ChessCafe, though he did formerly have a 2% interest
in it.  The Board was free to consult you about the bids, although it doesn't
take much expertise to know that more money beats less, and a bidder who will
merge with USCF and give us a commission on the whole thing beats one who will
keep running his own B & E business on the side that competes with the
Federation.
 

 

>> >5. Did you take a vow as a OMOV supporter to not run for office or serve
>as
>> >an officer if it passed?
 

>> No.
 

>That's not what the FAQ said.

 

What is "the FAQ" ?
 

Bill Goichberg
 

- Hide quoted text -

 

>StanB

 

Report to the members             Vote for Channing, Tanner and Shahade