The Real USCF Financial Condition

At the Finance Committee Workshop two weeks ago, the delegates were handed a balance sheet and P & L statement for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007. However, it was marked "DRAFT". The delegates were
explained that the reason it was marked DRAFT was that some final signatures had to be obtained before these figures were official. However, these signatures were just routine and these were the real financial figures.
That was two weeks ago. Since then, there has been silence. Nothing has been posted on the website. I am beginning to wonder whether these routine signatures were really so routine.
What was especially noteworthy was that the figures handed to the delegates showed a surplus {or "profit") of $3,000 whereas the financial figures previously given to the Executive Board showed a loss of $57,915.
Since I am no longer a member of the Executive Board (because I lost the election) I am no longer bound or required to keep the Official Secrets of the USCF secret. (I was not very good at keeping secrets even when I was on the board.)
Since I am no longer required to keep the Official Secrets secret I know of no reason who I should not reveal the financial information that was given to the board members. These same financial figures were never given to the USCF Finance Committee or to the other relevant committees. Only the board members got them.
There are two sets of figures. There is the "Revised Trial Balance" for May 2007 and there is the "Cash Flow Statement".
Here they are. As noted previously, they show a loss of $57,915. They are in the form of an xls spreadsheet.
Here they are:
http://www.samsloan.com/RevisedTrialBalance-2006May07.xls
http://www.samsloan.com/CashFlow06-07MAY.xls
If you have any trouble uploading these, let me know and I will present them in a different way.
Sam Sloan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[quote="nolan"]In other words, Brian, you don't know what the restatement was or why it was necessary.
My copy of the draft financials disappeared (someone took it from under my computer bag during the Finance Workshop) while I was at the Correspondence Chess Workshop, which overlapped the Finance Workshop, so I can't check the footnotes to see how they documented any changes in accounting methodology.
However, my understanding of the (roughly) $60K adjustment to the 2005-06 fiscal year was that it involved a change in accounting methodology with regards to multi-year memberships that are paid for in one fiscal year but don't start until a future fiscal year.
For example, consider someone who purchased a 3 year membership in March because of the dues sale, but his USCF membership was still current until July.
Mike Nolan[/quote]
An amazing statement. As part of the conspiracy to prevent the great unwashed masses (my euphemism for the general membership) from finding out the true financial condition of the USCF, they handed out a "WORKING DRAFT" to those who attended the Finance Committee workshop but to nobody else, not even to the delegates who met the following day.
Now, our computer techie and generally our man-friday (one of the few at the USCF who actually gets things done) finds that somebody took his copy and, since it was only distributed on paper and has not been posted on the Internet or anyplace else, he cannot get another one.
Does this mean that in order to create a profit or surplus of $3,000 this year, they increased the already $130,000 loss of last year?
Sam Sloan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is an excellent example of the financial nonsense. Hypothetically, Let's say there was 150K in multi (three year) year memberships in 2005-06.
In order to make that year look better, a board might put out a draft to take the whole 150K into income for 05-06. So ignoring the matching principle in accounting and even though 100K of those services will be provided in future periods, we want that income now so it looks like we are not selling out tomorrow to flux the numbers today.
So now it is 2006-2007. This current board wants to look as good as possible this year. Soooooo, the current board (most of them the same) are shocked, shocked that the matching principle was ignored and they restate 2005-06 downwards by 100K (who now cares) and ups 2006-2007 income by 50K with the prospect of another (now disapeared) 50K for 07-08.
Only 150K came in, but a "creative" board can make it appear that 250K came in. Nobody cares if some prior year is restated under the USCF "let's move on" principle. Most of the delegates start to roll their eyes during the current year's financial presentation. Fudging numbers from the past to help the present do not even register on the delegates and no explanation of any restatement is ever made save a statement that it happened.
Rp
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 18, 1:08 pm, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Actually, the "fudging" that took place this year caused the income to decrease, not increase. Without the prior period adjustment the income would have been $20,000 higher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey Grant good to see you're still around. Hope life is treating you well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks Bruce, nice to see you are still around as well.
I have been posting at the USCF's forums so not as active here. Now that the USCF's site has in many ways become worse than R.G.C.P. I figure I might as well post here.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You said it.
Looks like Cap'n Mitchell has another rgcp team going - and will maybe do a rgcm one as well? <hint> Hope you and Bruce will join up. Course, he may start /another/ rgcp group, The Exiles <hint>
Some time ago I noticed Randy Bauer also used the same forum we play in, and he could be induced to join up. I am unsure who else on the current board plays chess ;)
If RGCP get over-confident about their chances [as usual[ we could challenge them to a match?
About 8 years ago the Russian Federation board challenged the USCF board to a match [via distance chess], which was not accepted ;)
Phil Innes
ps: alt.legal snipped from this message, we don't want no lawyers in these teams, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

can layers play chess? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.