Re: Fwd: Re: Let's hold up a bit here 9

[Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>]

At 05:55 AM 9/24/1999 -0400, Erik wrote:
>>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 

Erik makes a bunch of good points here.   There is high risk in AGA
investing in the mag.   If Merrill is right that doing such a mag is a
piece of cake that AGA can easily do, then there is little risk and AGA
should own it.   If there is huge risk as some others feel, the AGA should
stay out.  

Stock and subscriptions have NOTHING, repeat NOTHING, to do with one another.

I am sorry this keeps getting confused.   Should I add the line above to my
sig?

BTW, the future of AGA has nothing to do either with PAM subs or PAM stock.
  I agree that there are serious implications in PAM for AGAs future, but
what AGA should be doing two years from now is a question that must be
addressed either way.
--
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 
-----------------------------------------------------------------