Re: Let's hold up a bit here 11

[Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>]

At 05:58 AM 9/24/1999 -0400, krandall@WORLD.STD.COM wrote:
>At 10:06 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Erik Olson wrote:
>>[got grabbed to go walking.. time lapse]
>
>Sounds like a better use of one's time in any case!<g>
>
>> This is one of the reasons the board is
>>talking about replacing Herlong.
>
>When I spoke with Dave last night, he told me that he had been in contact
>with another publisher (Charlene Nash's SO) who was very interested in
>working with him (or us) on PAM.  I also gave him the name of a third
>private publisher to check out.  Maybe the way to resolve this part of the
>issue is to ask him to come back to us with several bids.  I suspect Dave
>H. will come in way low in comparison, but even if we decided to go with
>Dave H., it would give us an idea of what the costs would jump to if we
>_did_ change.  We might decide that for safety's sake it makes sense to go
>with someone we trust more, even if the initial costs are higher.

I agree this should be seriously considered.  But I expect that putting out
12 PAMs (48 issues a year) would be about as much work as AFM.  And they
have a dozen staff at $40K per year each, that's $40K per year per small
mag.   And Herlong will do it for $4K.   It's like Ray "Kingfish" Lucas, he
does it for love.   Sure he charges, but $40K a year total.  Not enough to
motivate anyone who doesn't LOVE to go talk to folks.

>>guaranteed a salary.  Are all the other people who help edit PAM going to
>>be paid $20 per hour?
>
>Good question.  We should probably be including Dave in these discussions
>again.  He suggested that we put together a list of questions similar to
>the one Bob did for him to answer.  Then when we come up with new question,
>or need clarification, go to round two of questions.  

The authors will be paid, the ad guy will be paid, the makeready guy will
be paid, the printer will be paid, the editors will be paid.  Everyone who
makes a critical contribution will be paid FOR THE WORK PERFORMED.  No
work, no pay.  Work done too late to be useful, no pay.

>>It sounds to me like one course of action here would be for the AGA to own
>>NO stock in the venture, let Dave keep his 100% majority and profit.  
>>He's already got the clauses that make it very difficult to separate him
>>from PAM (eg. the "one year" thing).  On the other hand, the fact that he
>>gets a built-in subscriber base to begin with must carry some value (is
>>that equal to the 4 pages in every issue reserved for the AGA?  Maybe
>>so.).
>
>His original idea was to do it without AGA having to invest any up front
>money.  The idea of  AGA being majority stockholders came about when people
>were afraid of losing "control" of the magazine.  At that point, he
>suggested that if AGA were majority stockholders, they would, in essence,
>remain in control.  He is perfectly happy with it either way.  

Hey, I would be delighted for AGA to do this.   With or without me as
editor.  I don't care so much about the job, but I do want to see PAM
exist.   Right now I will do what it takes.  But if that is nothing I am
glad to sit on my hands and just enjoy.   If you guys can collar up the
$30K you will need the first year, go for it.

>>Whew. Someone help me here. It sounds like we would need an attorney to
>>close the deal.
>
>I definitely think it makes sense for an attorney to review the deal if and
>when we get to the point where we have decided we want to do this.

I agree with Karen here.   But we should be crystal clear ourselves about
what we mean before we see the attorney.   BTW, both Jay and Steve Dixon
(my two co-angels) are attorneys.  If you don't see that as a problem we
could use one of them.
--
Dave Gomberg, San Francisco            mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
For low cost CO2 systems that work:  http://www.wcf.com/co2iron 
Tropica MasterGrow in the USA:      http://www.wcf.com/tropica 
-----------------------------------------------------------------