CFC Webzine - A Bold Experiment...but....

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Tony:

As I understand it, the deal being negotiated between David and Larry was for both the book and equipment business, not just the book part. So the question is whether David had any projection of expected annual revenue from the deal Larry was proposing. Maybe he could confirm to us with figures that his joint deal with Amazon and FEN, was more lucrative than the projection with CMA.

Bob

[Tony Ficzere]

Hi Tony:

As I understand it, the deal being negotiated between David and Larry was for both the book and equipment business, not just the book part. So the question is whether David had any projection of expected annual revenue from the deal Larry was proposing. Maybe he could confirm to us with figures that his joint deal with Amazon and FEN, was more lucrative than the projection with CMA.

Bob

Yes, the deal with CMA would have been for everything, not just books. That is why it was a mistake to split things up. We would have done more business with books AND equipment with CMA. I have no doubt about this.

To late now, the lost revenue can't be made up.

[Larry Bevand]

I totally agree. A deal with CMA would have meant considerably more revenue then the deals made by the executive.

We had worked out a deal with the CFC with Hal when he was President. It was a simple 12% of sales. Unfortunately that deal did not make it to the approval stage.

The deal we were offered when David took over included an obligation on our part to rate all our scholastic events with the CFC. Basically the CFC wanted a minimum guarantee on book and equipment sales (which was higher than what they have budgeted for 2009-2010), plus ratings.

Larry

[Ken Craft]

Well there will be a new exec after the AGM.

[David Lavin]

Hi Larry:

We have always had and excellent personal relationship and I sought your advice before and after running for President. As you may remember, the first person I sat down with after the 2008 AGM was you and we had numerous discussions about working out a deal.

We did discuss 12% of revenues but you and I also agred that there was no way to monitor this figure. Since the CMA was already selling both books and equipment, the potential for protracted discussions about what was generated by the CFC and what was generated by the CMA was too great. Ultimately, the CFC would receive 12% of what number and for how long? You couldn't provide a solution for this potential problem and neither could I.

As well, you and I agreed in principle to having the CFC rate all CMA tournaments for an annual flat fee but then you unilaterally took this off the table a few days later. If you hadn't done so, I would have pushed strongly for this deal to happen.

I was happy with the deal we struck with Amazon and FEN at the t ime and I am still happy with it. I believe that in both the short and long term it provides the CFC with the most potential for grrowth without burdening itself with overhead costs.

It's time to move on and stop debating a few hundred dollars. The important thing to recognize is the the book and equipment business was probably costing the CFC nearly $10,000 a year. We both stopped the bleeding and guaranteed the CFC reasonable revenues.

[Ken Craft]

The debate will continue after a new exec is seated. None of the issues you raised David were insurmountable.

[Larry Bevand]

Hi Larry:

We have always had and excellent personal relationship and I sought your advice before and after running for President. As you may remember, the first person I sat down with after the 2008 AGM was you and we had numerous discussions about working out a deal.

We did discuss 12% of revenues but you and I also agred that there was no way to monitor this figure. Since the CMA was already selling both books and equipment, the potential for protracted discussions about what was generated by the CFC and what was generated by the CMA was too great. Ultimately, the CFC would receive 12% of what number and for how long? You couldn't provide a solution for this potential problem and neither could I.

As well, you and I agreed in principle to having the CFC rate all CMA tournaments for an annual flat fee but then you unilaterally took this off the table a few days later. If you hadn't done so, I would have pushed strongly for this deal to happen.

I was happy with the deal we struck with Amazon and FEN at the t ime and I am still happy with it. I believe that in both the short and long term it provides the CFC with the most potential for grrowth without burdening itself with overhead costs.

It's time to move on and stop debating a few hundred dollars. The important thing to recognize is the the book and equipment business was probably costing the CFC nearly $10,000 a year. We both stopped the bleeding and guaranteed the CFC reasonable revenues.

Hi David,

I respect you and your decision. I agree with everything you wrote above. There is no doubt that the agreement you have now is better than what was happening.

However, if you remember correctly, we were going down the road towards a percentage and a minimum guarantee. Yes monitoring was a stumbling block (I see you have solved the monitoring problem with FEN and Amazon). Then after you spoke with a CFC Past Past Past President, you came back with the ratings clause. I agree with this clause in principle. However much work has to be done before we get there. And you are correct when you say "but then you unilaterally took this off the table a few days later." I got up that morning and said to myself...why are we renogotiating all this again. We had a deal with Hal at 12% and now we are being asked to sweeten the pot. So I sent you an e-mail saying the 12% straight commission stands...and I left on vacation.

Sorry if my original post did not accurately reflect what transpired. It was not my intention to mislead anyone.

Sincerely,

Larry

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

a new exec is seated.

Any real pontential names?

[Ken Craft]

a new exec is seated every year. Candidates continue to declare themselves.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

a new exec is seated every year. Candidates continue to declare themselves.

Current president at least will be there (as re-elected or a past)
Vice (?)
Secretary - goes again ("I will be a candidate for Secretary in 2009/10")
Treasurer - ?
Junior Coordinator - ?
FIDE - potential Hal Bond (new and at the same time old Exec)

Seems to me an old-new band