samsloan wrote:
> Bill Goichberg has been circulating a "new plan". Essentially, his new
> plan calls for a reinstatement of the "no magazine member****p".
>
> 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 member****p 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
I realize that logic is not Sam's strong point, but how can he
simultaneously refer to "the horrific losses the USCF has suffered
every year EXCEPT FOR THE ONE YEAR THAT I WAS ON THE
BOARD" (obviously implying causality), and assert that every proposal
he made was blocked or voted down? Sloan's term on the Board was a
trivial irrelevancy. Of course, that's what he's always been.
|
