$201,466.60 Moving Expenses to Date
Sam Sloan
Crossville to date are $201,466.60
http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/finance/moveexpenses.pdf
This has led George John, a candidate for election and a supporter of
the move, to state that the USCF has "saved" $41,008.78 because the
estimated expenses are $242,475.38
Funny how I adhere to the old-fashioned idea that spending money is
still spending money especially since we could have stayed in New
Windsor for free.
But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
employees.
Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the cost
of the new building?
Sam Sloan
George John
Sam Sloan wrote:
All,
> Fantastically,the USCF website reports thart the moving expenses to
> Crossville to date are $201,466.60
>
> http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/finance/moveexpenses.pdf
>
> This has led George John, a candidate for election and a supporter of
> the move, to state that the USCF has "saved" $41,008.78 because the
> estimated expenses are $242,475.38
This is an interesting quote. What I did say was, and I quote:
"These move expenses will come in about $41k less than what was
budgeted, which is good."
> Funny how I adhere to the old-fashioned idea that spending money is
> still spending money especially since we could have stayed in New
> Windsor for free.
>
> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New
Windsor
> employees.
>
> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
>
> Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
> being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the
cost
> of the new building?
A posted cost/benefit analysis would certainly be welcomed by me.
Best regards,
George John
Randy Bauer
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:424c89e2...@ca.news.verio.net...
> Fantastically,the USCF website reports thart the moving expenses to
> Crossville to date are $201,466.60
No, it does not. It reports that the expenses paid through March and the
remaining expenses total $201,466. My estimate was that the move would cost
between $150-200,000. Where's Larry Parr now? I know, he'll point out I'm
missing the high end of my range by $1,466.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/finance/moveexpenses.pdf
>
> This has led George John, a candidate for election and a supporter of
> the move, to state that the USCF has "saved" $41,008.78 because the
> estimated expenses are $242,475.38
>
> Funny how I adhere to the old-fashioned idea that spending money is
> still spending money especially since we could have stayed in New
> Windsor for free.
While the New Windsor building cost may have been less than constructing a
new facility, we owned a building with far more space than the USCF needed,
with various repairs that needed to be made, and in a higher cost area with
higher labor costs, property taxes, insurance, and utility payments as a
result. Hardly free. Beatriz' estimate is that we will save somewhere in
the range of $90,000 a year on employee costs alone -- it doesn't take long
for that to dwarf the $200,000 to move.
>
> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
> employees.
>
> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
>
> Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
> being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the cost
> of the new building?
If I thought you had the money, I'd be happy to make a bet with you on it.
I calculate it will be a matter of a few years. In the meantime, the USCF
will benefit from rightsizing its workforce, better aligning staff to
provide services, and improving its technology and physical plant. That's
what profitable businesses do to maintain a comparative advantage -- and the
USCF will be better for it as well.
Randy Bauer
>
> Sam Sloan
Shelby
> the range of $90,000 a year on employee costs alone -->
Are you taking into account the salary & expenses of Beatriz & her lesbian
lover? Seems like the $60K in expenses per year is going to cut into any
savings that result from cutting employees. Does she get a salary too? How
much does her girlfriend earn?
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> My estimate was that the move would cost
> between $150-200,000. Where's Larry Parr now?
> I know, he'll point out I'm
> missing the high end of my range by $1,466.
Most likely Larry is waiting for the final figure
to show up. Don't we have april ahead of March?
> Beatriz' estimate is that we will save somewhere in
> the range of $90,000 a year on employee costs alone
> -- it doesn't take long for that to dwarf the $200,000
> to move.
You seem to forget that in a contrast
to other USCF officers in her place, her
expenses alone would dwarf everything else,
if not for still larger sums wasted in order to
justify her "expenses".
It remainds me of my old-old aphorism:
a thief in order to steal ten dollars
will make a damage for a million dollars
> I calculate it will be a matter of a few years.
The money are thrown away already, while
gains are very ify.
> In the meantime, the USCF will benefit from rightsizing
> its workforce,
You could "rightsize the workforce"
without moving to Crossville.
> better aligning staff to provide services, and improving
> its technology and physical plant. That's what profitable
> businesses do to maintain a comparative advantage -- and the
> USCF will be better for it as well.
All this sounds like meaningless BS.
What comparative advantage?
Chess players around the country would appreciate
rating done at a dime per game per player, plus
a one time $5 fee. There would be perhaps 2 million
players and easily over 20 million rated games per
year. The $2M+ revenue, just for rating, would easily
be enough to run this kind of wide chess activity.
Certainly the millions of chess players in the USA
don't give a blip to your "mantaining a comparative
advantage".
Wlod
Randy Bauer
"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspamme...@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:5emdna5x7tF...@garden.net...
>
>
>
>
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote
>
>> Fantastically,the USCF website reports thart the moving expenses to
>> Crossville to date are $201,466.60
>
>
>> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
>> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
>> employees.
>>
>> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
>
We have a bet on that. In a few years, when we surpass that calculation,
I'll be asking you for my money.
Angelo De Pa1ma
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote
> Fantastically,the USCF website reports thart the moving expenses to
> Crossville to date are $201,466.60
....
> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
> employees.
>
> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
I did about six months ago. It will take roughly 750 years.
Angelo De Pa1ma
If you count the free vs. $500,000 (soon to be $800,000) building it's
rougly 2,000 years. But if you get Stan B to do the accounting we're already
in the black.
"Randy Bauer" <randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ya53e.7042$Vx1.3862@attbi_s01...
StanB
>
> If you count the free vs. $500,000 (soon to be $800,000) building it's
> rougly 2,000 years. But if you get Stan B to do the accounting we're
> already in the black.
Figures don't lie...
irvin
--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com
"Angelo De Pa1ma" <adpspamme...@tellurian.net> wrote in message
news:TtOdnUcR4J_...@garden.net...
"pee"
>
But Liars figure. Stan B claims he was on a School Board, and that means he
is someone to keep an eye one.
In many districts, these School Board types typically will chisel kickbacks
from the book sellers, soda machine vendors, etc. They are the lowest form
of political slime, because they are basically stealing from children.
klg...@mailinator.com
Prevoiusly I agitated for release of numbers in the interest of
going above and beyond the call of duty where transparency was
concerned, because of USCF's history of dubious and duplicitous
dealings. I feel obligated to recognize this current release
and express my appreciation for it. Thanks. It has and will
unleash criticism and answering that is a burden that the management
could do without but I do think it's worth it. It's a deserved
burden.
I pulled the following quote from the 'Expenses' thread, and it is
admittedly out of context and you made several other points to
support your position. I don't offer it to debate the merits of
releasing the numbers in this case (although I again fall on the
side of release) but more as an opportunity to remind you again
what history and depth of feeling you are dealing with:
============== quote from other thread ========================
If I had, and I was only getting the payment of expenses Beatriz is
getting AND I was having to put up with this kind of abuse, I would
have quit long ago. Beatriz is not a quitter, she's done a great
job keeping the office and the move afloat, and the Executive Board
owes her much thanks and praise. I would hope the membership would
understand these facts and reach their own conclusion.
============== end of quote ===================================
I was drawn to the last sentence because it is the type of statement
that under normal circumstances I might agree with but find hard
to support for the USCF at this time (in its 'evolution'). I don't
think that the membership can trust what the USCF says as "fact"
and I know I wouldn't feel confident in reaching any conclusion based
just on statements by the management, regardless of my personal
beliefs about the integrity of the individuals involved ('secrets'
don't always make their way to the honest). "Show me the numbers"
would be my response, or whatever the backing documentation might
be appropriate for the topic at hand.
But anyway, thanks again for your part in the release of the
relocation numbers and shouldering some of the burden that creates.
Kirk
(snip)
David
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:424c89e2...@ca.news.verio.net...
> Fantastically,the USCF website reports thart the moving expenses to
> Crossville to date are $201,466.60
>
> http://www.uschess.org/org/govern/finance/moveexpenses.pdf
No, it doesn't. It says that moving expenses to date are about $80,000.
<snip strawman>
>
> But I suppose that we will make it back "in the long run" by paying
> the Tennessee employees two dollars less per hour than the New Windsor
> employees.
>
> Somebody should calculate how long it will take to make that back.
<graps a napkin and a pencil> Let's see...25 employees at $2/hour is
$50/hour...times 8 hour day is $400/day...is $2,000/week...is roughly
$100,000/year... two years. Pick away at the estimates.
>
> Will the USCF be in business long enough to make back the $201,466.60
> being spent on the move to Crossville, which does not include the cost
> of the new building?
Let's see...sold a building for about $500,000..bought a building for about
$500,000...less operating expense for new building...sounds like we save
expense there, too. Note the very rough numbers..this is napkin and pencil
time. Now admittedly, we restructured our finances in the interim. In
exchange for that cash cushion, we have some offsetting interest
expense...call it $30,000 or so in the first year. Offset that by the
reduced operating expense.
Looks like we get a pile of cash, and the reduced facility expense largely
pays the interest to get that pile of cash. We use that cash to finance the
move, with $300,000 left over. The move generates lower expenses in the
long run due to lower labor expenses.
In conclusion: we have a much better ability to stay in business under this
model, with more cash on hand and reduced recurring expenses.
Thank you for bringing this situation to our attention.
David
--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block
Weeb Eubanks
$400/day...is $2,000/week...is roughly $100,000/year... >
They don't have 25 employees you dumb inbred monkey-fucking idiot. they had
17 and cut half of those when they outsourced all of the book & chess set
sales. Now they have maybe 8 employees plus or minus Beatriz' lesbian
girlfriend who may be on the payroll but will not be working. Add to the
annual costs the $60,000. stipend for expenses the LezBeatriz gets and it is
hard to see when or how they will ever recoup the costs of the move to
ASSWOOD, Tennessee.
Randy Bauer
>
>
>If you count the free vs. $500,000 (soon to be $800,000) building it's
>rougly 2,000 years. But if you get Stan B to do the accounting we're already
>in the black.
Why was the previous building free? I assume you think paying utilities,
insurance, property taxes, and repairing an overly large building for our needs
is free?
Besides, that wasn't the choice presented to those of us who chose Crossville.
The building had already been sold. We were now renters. Rent isn't free.
Randy Bauer
Randy Bauer
klg...@mailinator.com says...
I do appreciate your feedback - you have been reasonable and willing to dicuss
these issues in a fair way. In the next couple of months, the extent of
Beatriz' expenses will be clear, and I will be happy to discuss them with
anyone. I've worked with this woman on the Board for several months, and she is
an incredible asset for the USCF. We are lucky to have her. She has put so
much of her time and energy into our organization, and she has claimed very
little of the expenses owed to her. I absolutely believe in her and know she
has the USCF's interests first and foremost -- often before her own.
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>I do appreciate your feedback - you have been reasonable and willing to dicuss
>these issues in a fair way. In the next couple of months, the extent of
>Beatriz' expenses will be clear, and I will be happy to discuss them with
>anyone.
>
>Randy Bauer
By then, it will be too late.The money will be gone, spent, and there
will be no hope of getting it back.
We are now approaching the million dollar mark of the costs of a move
to Crossville. $240,000 moving expenses, $60,000 for Beatriz and
$600,000 for the new building and other expenses have not been added
in yet.
Can't you see that? Are you really the Budget Director for the State
of Iowa that you claim to be? Of course, Iowa has virtually unlimited
taxpayer funds that it can dip into.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
wrote:
>Why was the previous building free?
>
>Randy Bauer
The previous building was free because it was purchased with donated
funds, funds donated with the promise that the USCF would now have a
permanent home.
You have stolen those donated funds for this crazy move to Crossville.
That is why I hope to see you in jail some day.
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
>
>On 1 Apr 2005 20:39:20 -0800, Randy Bauer <Randy_...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I do appreciate your feedback - you have been reasonable and willing to dicuss
>>these issues in a fair way. In the next couple of months, the extent of
>>Beatriz' expenses will be clear, and I will be happy to discuss them with
>>anyone.
>>
>>Randy Bauer
>
>By then, it will be too late.The money will be gone, spent, and there
>will be no hope of getting it back.
>
>We are now approaching the million dollar mark of the costs of a move
>to Crossville. $240,000 moving expenses, $60,000 for Beatriz and
>$600,000 for the new building and other expenses have not been added
>in yet.
The projected moving expenses (many of which are really necessary investments in
new equipment) are $201,000. Beatriz' expenses were NEVER EVER estimated to be
$60,ooo, that was Parr's cheap parlor trick of "annualizing" an amount for a few
months expenses, and they will be lower than even this pro-rated amount.
If we're spending $600,000 for a new building but have $500,000 in cash from our
previous building, please explain who that equates to $600,000 "costs of the
move."
>Can't you see that? Are you really the Budget Director for the State
>of Iowa that you claim to be? Of course, Iowa has virtually unlimited
>taxpayer funds that it can dip into.
Wrong again. The price of government in Iowa (state tax revenue as a share of
personal income) is at its lowest level in 33 years. Unlike New York, where you
wanted the USCF to stay, Iowa is not considered a high tax state.
Randy Bauer
>
>Sam Sloan
Spam Scone
Sam Sloan wrote:
> Are you really the Budget Director for the State
> of Iowa that you claim to be?
ChessDon's Chess Journalist of the Year nominee seems to be stumped.
Let's help him. It took 15 seconds to find this:
http://www.state.ia.us/tax/taxlaw/PTCMembers.html
Randy Bauer
Appointed State Budget Director in 1999
Prior to State Budget Director, Randy served for 10 years on the staff
of the Senate Democratic Research Staff, most recently as senior
analyst on budget and tax issues. He is a certified public manager and
a member of the National Association of State Budget Officers, where he
has served as a member of the executive committee and as regional
director.
StanB
""pee"" <pee...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:tof3e.13493$vK6....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
As I told you before, Charlie that is a rare event in the past 25 years. Any
support for your bullshit tip?
StanB
> We are now approaching the million dollar mark of the costs of a move
> to Crossville. $240,000 moving expenses, $60,000 for Beatriz and
> $600,000 for the new building and other expenses have not been added
> in yet.
$600,000 less 515,000 received for the old building and a 100,000 saved on
renovations for the old building. 60,000 for Beatriz? Even Larry Parr says
it is 30,000 although he never says how he arrives at this number. And the
240,000 number is overstated by almost a 100,000 and does not take into
account the savings to be realized by lower operating costs over the coming
years.
Frank Seavers
saved on renovations for the old building. >>
Hey dumbass, the sales price of the building took into account that it
needed $100K in repairs. So the repairs cannot be factored in twice as some
kind of positive, you idiot.
>does not take into account the savings to be realized by lower operating
costs over the coming years.>
Good fiscal management does not require a Psychic in order to show results.
Any plan that sold off all of the USCF's assets and has nothing but a
construction plan to show for it is Bad Management.
George John
Frank Seavers wrote:
> "StanB" <> $600,000 less 515,000 received for the old building and a
100,000
> saved on renovations for the old building. >>
>
> Hey dumbass, the sales price of the building took into account that
it
> needed $100K in repairs. So the repairs cannot be factored in twice
as some
> kind of positive, you idiot.
If the USCF had not sold the building they would be out $100,000 in
repairs.
In Crossville they are out $85,000 ($600,000 - $515,000)
That's a net of $15,000.
>
> >does not take into account the savings to be realized by lower
operating
> costs over the coming years.>
>
> Good fiscal management does not require a Psychic in order to show
results.
> Any plan that sold off all of the USCF's assets and has nothing but a
> construction plan to show for it is Bad Management.
The USCF has 3 acres of donated prime land in a growing community, a
year of free rent (minus $500 a month for 2500 sq-ft of storage), the
promise of a mortgage with no down payment (the land is the
collateral), and $515,000 in the LMA account. In my book that's
showing something.
Best regards,
George John
Hank Webber
> That's a net of $15,000.
>
Except that Crossville is the armpit of Uranus, and that 3 acres of land
there is worth less than a phone booth in New York. Paying $500. in rent for
2500 square feet is not much of a bargain considering that Crossville might
as well be called Loserville and the rents in such a small town in the
middle of nowhere are very subjective and certainly not even 1/10 as much as
rent in New York or any major metropolitan area.
parrt...@cs.com
Over a month ago, I dropped the bombshell that
the cost of the small new building in Cross-to-Bear
would exceed the selling price of the building in New
Windsor, which was more than twice the size.
I was the first to mention the numeral "6" as
in $650,000 or more for the new buiding in the middle
of nowhere. Stan Booz, if I understand the matter
rightly below, has now also provided us with that "6" numeral.
Let us keep in mind that just a few weeks ago,
George John and others were going on about a building
costing possibly less, if memory serves, than $400,000
as they were doing their research in square footage costs.
Now, Mr. John takes the latest officially
admitted figure and doesn't bat a bat's lash. It is
still fine and dandy. The real number will be likely
in the, ah, "7" range. But don't worry: we will be
hearing about the leaky old building and that famous
non-existent parking problem. What a hoot that was!
The truth is that the building in New Windsor
was functional and would not have required anything
like the repairs suggested, which is the latest excuse
for moving. I worked in the that office, in the
basement of the building, and developed bursitis
in the shoulders because of poor heating, but the
mission got done. Others also suffered, but the work
got done and the Federation thrived in relative terms
for several years.
Much of that building could have been rented
out, and one day, when the Federation rebounds, it
could have been filled up with employees. As matters
stand, there is a coming bill for $650,000 or
significantly more for a small new building that will
be supplemented by a further bill for a second
structure or additions to the new building at a future
date. I would add that George John's assumption that
the Federation actually received $515,000 for the
large old building remains unclear. It is possible
the figure is significantly less.
Sam Sloan is not far wrong to write that this
will turn out to be a near-million buck move, though
not for the reasons he gave.
"George John" <>
area. -- Hank Webber
George John
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
Larry,
[SNIP]
> Now, Mr. John takes the latest officially
> admitted figure and doesn't bat a bat's lash.
Don Schultz already gave what I thought were reasonable explinations
for the higher cost:
1) It is a single story building (the calculator estimated for 1-3)
2) The building is designed to allow for a second story expansion.
Since I was using an online calculator, which was using Knoxville and
not Crossville (it didn't have a Crossville option), I realized there
was *uncertainty* about the estimate. That is why I asked the readers
of their newsgroup, who might have knowledge about building costs, to
add their input. It was a *starting* place for the discussion, and
*not* meant to be a reliable estimate of what the true costs might be.
[SNIP]
> I worked in the that office, in the
> basement of the building, and developed bursitis
> in the shoulders because of poor heating, but the
> mission got done. Others also suffered, but the work
> got done and the Federation thrived in relative terms
> for several years.
Readers, please make note of the above! Consider the benefits to the
USCF office staff working in a new building which doesn't have these
issues versus what Larry has just described about the New Windsor
facility.
[SNIP]
> I would add that George John's assumption that
> the Federation actually received $515,000 for the
> large old building remains unclear. It is possible
> the figure is significantly less.
This is the figure which has been consistantly reported, and has never
been questioned, SFAIK, except by you. If it is not $515K, I recommend
that an accurate figure be reported ASAP.
[SNIP]
Best regards,
George John
StanB
"Frank Seavers" <fsea...@yeahbaby.com> wrote in message
news:CHY5e.46742$f%4.4...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "StanB" <> $600,000 less 515,000 received for the old building and a
> 100,000
> saved on renovations for the old building. >>
>
> Hey dumbass, the sales price of the building took into account that it
> needed $100K in repairs. So the repairs cannot be factored in twice as
> some
> kind of positive, you idiot.
No Dumbass, 515,000 is what we got and the extra 100,000 is what we didn't
have to spend.
Stick to selling timeshares.
>>does not take into account the savings to be realized by lower operating
> costs over the coming years.>
>
> Good fiscal management does not require a Psychic in order to show
> results.
> Any plan that sold off all of the USCF's assets and has nothing but a
> construction plan to show for it is Bad Management.
Charlie we have the 515,000. Anyway, what a two-bit hustler like you know
about it ?