ACBL BOD to vote on whether to withdraw from the WBF

[Adam Wildavsky]

They would cede all responsibility to the USBF, CBF, and MBF.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/chicago-bod-motion-proposes-that-the-acbl-stop-paying-wbf-dues/

This would change high level bridge as we know it.

If you have a strong opinion I suggest posting on bridgewinners, contacting your BOD representative, or both.

[Peter Boyd]

As an organization potentially affected in a major way by this BOD motion, if it passes, I wonder if the USBF (via its Board of Directors?) might want to take a position on this issue, and advocate for some resolution?

 

The $1-per-ACBL member “tax” that the WBF imposes seems like a relative small amount to pay to have our members officially belong to the World Bridge Community.  If viewed as an apportionment of the annual dues ($1 out of $39), then the ACBL can afford to pay.  On the other hand, the USBF is not (currently) in a position to afford $160K+ per year, since we don’t have access to all ACBL member dues.  To me, the only way the BOD motion makes sense, is if the ACBL would also plan to turn over $1 per ACBL member to the USBF (and CBF, etc.), so that the WBF dues can continue to be paid.

 

  -- Peter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "International Team Trials Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usbf-ittc+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Marty Fleisher]

i think this is good and I forwarded it to the board

--

Martin Fleisher

7 Times Square

27th floor

New York, NY 10036-6516

(p) 212-767-7307
(c) 347-766-7696

[Robb Gordon]

"They would cede all responsibility to the USBF, CBF, and MBF"

This is an important and, I think underappreciated (by the proposers) point. It goes further than they envision.

In their effort to make themselves a true "zonal organization" and to make the above organizations the true "NBO's" essentially what they are doing is saying - "Hey, USBF, why don't you start collecting the dues and holding the tournaments and making the decisions and hiring/firing staff". "We at the ACBL will just get a buck or two from the NBOs for administration". 

Maybe we should take them up on their "offer". Could the USBF, CBF, and MBF really do a worse job of, well, anything than the ACBL?

Robb

[BPol...@aol.com]

Maybe I'm just being cranky, but I read a deeper motive into the BoD resolution.  The tenor of the motion is the ACBL basically saying 'screw you' to the "1%".  Who cares about seeing our best players represent our country in world bridge events.  Who cares about the best players, period....  That's not worth <$1 per member per year.

 

I wonder if the BoD members realize the full consequences.  To raise the $165K WBF dues (assuming the WBF would not back off), the USBF would need a new source of funding.  The likely result would be new USBF-run tournaments that would compete with the Spingold, Vandies, etc.  Over time, the USBF events could supercede Nationals and other ACBL events, similar to an unfortunated divide that once occurred in the chess world.

 

There was discussion twenty or so years ago that the USBF should have full control (but still under the ACBL aegis) of any event that helped determine the US WBF participants (i.e. granting seeding points and byes), but those discussions withered on the vine, as the overall feeling was that it wasn't worth 'declaring war' on the ACBL at that time.  Alas, if the ACBL makes such a declaration, there will be significant repercussions.  This is not the same as when the ACBL decided that the USBF should run the trials, which was all done amicably.

 

Let's hope sanity prevails.

 

Bill Pollack  -- Former USBF President & BoD Chairman

[Jeff Aker]

Jan tells me that this proposal has been set forth at intervals over the years with only minimal support. With that in mind, while we shouldn’t ignore it, let’s not overreact either. We certainly need to prepare for the possibility that it may garner more support in the future.

 

Jeff Aker

Senior Trader

The Gargoyle Group

ja...@gargoylegroup.com

201-227-2247

 

From: usbf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:usbf...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:01 PM
To: usbf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: ACBL BOD to vote on whether to withdraw from the WBF

 

Maybe I'm just being cranky, but I read a deeper motive into the BoD resolution.  The tenor of the motion is the ACBL basically saying 'screw you' to the "1%".  Who cares about seeing our best players represent our country in world bridge events.  Who cares about the best players, period....  That's not worth <$1 per member per year.

 

I wonder if the BoD members realize the full consequences.  To raise the $165K WBF dues (assuming the WBF would not back off), the USBF would need a new source of funding.  The likely result would be new USBF-run tournaments that would compete with the Spingold, Vandies, etc.  Over time, the USBF events could supercede Nationals and other ACBL events, similar to an unfortunated divide that once occurred in the chess world.

 

There was discussion twenty or so years ago that the USBF should have full control (but still under the ACBL aegis) of any event that helped determine the US WBF participants (i.e. granting seeding points and byes), but those discussions withered on the vine, as the overall feeling was that it wasn't worth 'declaring war' on the ACBL at that time.  Alas, if the ACBL makes such a declaration, there will be significant repercussions.  This is not the same as when the ACBL decided that the USBF should run the trials, which was all done amicably.

 

Let's hope sanity prevails.

 

Bill Pollack  -- Former USBF President & BoD Chairman

 

 

 

In a message dated 7/21/2015 10:58:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ma...@dearborncapitalpartners.com writes:

i think this is good and I forwarded it to the board

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peter Boyd <pete...@prodigy.net> wrote:

As an organization potentially affected in a major way by this BOD motion, if it passes, I wonder if the USBF (via its Board of Directors?) might want to take a position on this issue, and advocate for some resolution?

 

The $1-per-ACBL member “tax” that the WBF imposes seems like a relative small amount to pay to have our members officially belong to the World Bridge Community.  If viewed as an apportionment of the annual dues ($1 out of $39), then the ACBL can afford to pay.  On the other hand, the USBF is not (currently) in a position to afford $160K+ per year, since we don’t have access to all ACBL member dues.  To me, the only way the BOD motion makes sense, is if the ACBL would also plan to turn over $1 per ACBL member to the USBF (and CBF, etc.), so that the WBF dues can continue to be paid.

 

  -- Peter

 

From: Adam Wildavsky

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:03 AM

To: usbf-ittc

Subject: ACBL BOD to vote on whether to withdraw from the WBF

 

They would cede all responsibility to the USBF, CBF, and MBF.

 

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/chicago-bod-motion-proposes-that-the-acbl-stop-paying-wbf-dues/

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, for information and/or discussion purposes only and does not constitute advice about, or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, any security, investment product or service. Offers of securities may only be made by means of delivery of an approved confidential offering memorandum or prospectus, may be legally privileged and confidential under applicable law, and are intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. We do not, and will not, effect or attempt to effect transactions in securities, or render personalized advice for compensation, through this email. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material, nor are we obligated to update any information contained herein. Certain information has been obtained from various third party sources believed to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Our investment products involve risk and no assurance can be given that your investment objectives will be achieved. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Email transmissions are not secure, and we accept no liability for errors in transmission, delayed transmission, or other transmission-related issues. This message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. Neither confidentiality nor any privilege is intended to be waived or lost by any error in transmission.

[mark feldman]

I would be quite disappointed in the ACBL elect to withdraw from the WBF.

But assuming that is a realistic possibility, I propose that there be some effort on our part to develop

potential negotiating positions with ACBL and preliminarily develop potential fallback positions.

Also, if gets to the point where the USBF (and CBF and MBF) were attempting to replace the ACBL in the WBF, I would hope that the total dues from these organizations, while perhaps well above $1 per member, would in totality be below $165,000.

[Michael Kamil]

Why would the ACBL pay WBF dues when 99% of their membership couldn't pick out a Bermuda Bowl player in a police lineup? While I am disgusted that the ACBL has totally given up even the pretense of supporting and promoting real bridge I can't blame them for wanting to represent their non-real-bridge playing constituency. If WBF countries are supposed to pay a buck per member the USA has been overpaying dues from folks like "Irma from the club." It is clear USBF should be paying dues since it fields all participants. The only question is how much? I hope WBF only charges a buck per USBF member which would be no big deal for members to cover. Anything more than that would be excessive and unfair. 

Mike Kamil

Sent from my iPhone

--

[Chris Compton]

This Kamil letter makes fallacious arguments in an attempt to create a stir. For example, the letter argues "$1 is fair"[(300 USBF members equal $300)]"but any more would be excessive." Really? $1 is fair? But, any more is excessive? The WBF can run tournaments and exist on $300 from 140,000 U.S. ACBL members?  "Irma from the club"(I have 40 years of club ownership) expects the League to support our international representatives. We are a patriotic country and League. 

Please don't tell me that the WBF is poorly managed or that other countries (like China) do not pay their full dues. We all know those issues.

Chris 

[Ira Chorush]

I don't think anyone is trying to create a stir. We should lobby our "representatives" to continue to support world bridge. Consideration of other ways of financing our representation in the WBF should await determination of whether or not there is a need to do so.

[Ulti...@aol.com]

There is no way that the WBF would accept less than about $165,000 ($1 per member) from Zone 2. All the other zones are treated similarly, I think.

 

If the ACBL stopped paying the WBF dues, we would need to get that money somewhere to be eligible for international play, I think.

 

But I am not concerned about this proposal. It has (more or less) been presented before and been [soundly] defeated before.

 

The best course of action is contacting the USBF BoD (already on the case, I think), and your (or any) ACBL district director. 

 

Mike

[Michael Kamil]

Well Ira was right...I didn't mean to create a stir.  However, it appears I got under at least one someone's skin.  I'll leave the argument here, but I would just have you notice that someone at the ACBL appears to think that not all the Irmas are "patriotic". 

[William Arlinghaus]

I was on the Board of Directors until the beginning of 2014

Ken Monzingo proposed this motion at least twice and talked about it more.

The motion has never garnered a lot of support.

Bill Arlinghaus

William C. Arlinghaus, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science

Lawrence Technological University
Full Curriculum Vitae

ACBL Board of Directors, District 12
2004-2013

http://www.BillArlinghaus.com/

[Al]

There is a lot of discussion on BWs and a lot of misinformation. While I hope this motion is dead on arrival it has again raised the issue of whether we are just a service organization. Our mission statement is: To promote, grow and sustain the game of bridge and service our members. We need to concentrate on the first part as well as second part. 

Please contact your DD and make your case. 

Yes, in the past this has had little support. However, there is a side issue of (possible) refusals by the current WBF reps and others which could cause a problem. 

Chris: the WBF operates much better and leaner than in the past. The WBF has few hired staff, lead the world in new technology, support youth activities, have world championships booked for many years, are is responsible for the growth in China which has lead to bridge in the Asian Games in 2018. Don't make the mistake of overly criticizing a 'connected' organization, but rather look for ways for everyone to work together in harmony.  

Of course I'm preaching to the choir but without the top end and recognized and prestigious national and world championships we would likely become as important as canasta. 

In many ways I would like to see the ACBL recognize the great efforts and success of the USBF and to some extent, the CBF. The role you guys have taken on has added tremendously to bridge. 

Al

[Chris Compton]

Al, I raised $100k plus for the Atlanta Junior event. Every donor complained of how the WBF operated. We received, for the first time ever, an event budget, progress... The budget disclosed a staff of 21 (half received "full board'" half received "full board" plus (mostly) discounted salary. The event drew 40 tables for its largest session. The actions of the WBF speak louder than your words. 

Chris 

[Adam Wildavsky]

I'm told that the motion was withdrawn today by its sponsors.

[Chris Compton]

In my opinion, the status quo is fine; but, the withdrawn motion gave the USBF 165k per year and the choice of WBF reps. Not at all clear that this was not better for us.

Chris 

[Adam Wildavsky]

Were that the case I'd have been in favor, but the motion I read gave the USBF $0.

[Frank Nickell]

It was not my understanding that we were to get any additional revenue pursuant yo the motion.  

Sent from my iPhone

[Chris Compton]

Basically, there was a motion that Heller had ready (heller believes the USBF, not the ACBL should deal w the WBF; theoretically at least a reasonable position) introduced during discussion of Monzingo's motion or at least the idea, to fund the 165k. Think what you want about the ACBL BOD, but they are not pissing off 15% of the gross revenue base by abandoning them .... (When they just lost 2$M on technology and influential people are asking them to resign.)They are, indeed, political animals w a keen survival instinct. This is why Monzingo's motion failed: the ACBL BOD sees no reason to continue to fund the WBF and give all the trips away to the USBF, but they know in their hearts that the membership will support their representatives. Members of the ACBL generally (not all) are happy to hear they belong to the WBF for $1 per year. In summary: The ACBL will not defund international bridge; if one motion passed wdrawing the ACBL from the WBF; then, the other motion funding the 165K would have passed. It seems things are never as they seem.

Chris 

[Alvin Levy]

Not the case, Chris. The motion withdraws funding by the ACBL.  Further, the makers expect the USBF to pay for only their active members.  250 was quoted by league counsel as number the makers mentioned to him.  The makers are determined to make a case that we are paying too much.  Read the makers open comments on the 'waste' of money spent on the top end of the game.

The motion was deferred to Denver, pending a rewrite of the Conflict of Interest policy.  The change in COI policy will allow all board membres to participate in the discussion and vote.  The motion will probably be defeated overwhelmingly.

The problem with it lingering until Denver is that it will be discussed on forums and elsewhere, with much misinformation and misunderstanding of the consequences if it passes is that it harms the game of bridge and the image of the ACBL.

Al

[Alvin Levy]

Not the case.

[Chris Compton]

Al, you claim that the motion to withdraw from the WBF would pass without a paired motion to fund the international reps in some manner? I state with confidence that the BOD would virtually never do that, or if it did do that, it would reverse itself quickly. I admit that the bad publicity over the technology waste made it clear at this time that the the BOD would not further alienate its frequent flyers. Meanwhile, please have the WBF General Council take some steps to make us at least think that tournaments can be run more economically. What is driving Monzingo crazy is the appearance of so much financial waste.

Chris 

[deepn...@gmail.com]

Chris, I made no such claim and funding our reps is not an issue. What you claim about Ken Monzingo is not the case either. It is difficult to have an email conversation with you. We could get together with others as well and I will explain the motion and motivation of the makers.  You might also want to read their discussion attached to the motion and legal counsel's comments. 

Al