Re: PAM

["Villa Sunscape" <davidlass@villasunscape.com>]

Just my opinion, but I really think we should try and keep the ownership of
PAM as simple as possible. This means that other than Gomberg and, I guess,
Herlong, folks who write for the magazine, submit pictures, etc. should be
paid in cash money. After all, that's what it was invented for, so we do not
have to go around swapping services and keeping account books. If we want to
offer investment in PAM to some folks in return for cash perhaps we could do
that, but I think it's a rewally bad idea to swap ownership for articles,
etc.
Anyway -- the first thing that must be resolved is whether AGA is going to
register as a 401.c.3 non-profit, and if so, can we have ownership in a for
profit venture.
Lass
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Gomberg <gomberg@wcf.com>
To: <krandall@world.std.com>
Cc: Robert P. Cashin <rcashin@juno.com>; <nfrank@mindspring.com>;
<erik@thekrib.com>; <dreimer@wwdc.com>; <aga-mcm@thekrib.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: PAM


> In a chat with Erik, Neil, and others at Parsippany, I suggested that if
it
> fit with their other needs, stockholders (who got stock for writing, etc.)
> COULD assign their voting rights to AGA for a year or two.
>
>
>
> At 04:29 PM 10/20/1999 -0400, krandall@world.std.com wrote:
> >At 09:11 AM 10/21/99 -0400, Robert P. Cashin wrote:
> >> At last, we have a decision, we are unanimously in favor of PAM.  Now,
> >>the next decision is "Do we want to invest in PAM, and if so, how much?"
> >>
> >> To review, a zero investment would give us zero influence on policy and
> >>content.
> >
> >I don't believe that a zero investment equals zero influence.  PAM needs
> >_us_ too.  We will turn over our members to PAM as subscribers, and will
be
> >paying part of our dues toward the magazine.  This is a pretty hefty
slice
> >of influence.
> >
> >>An investment around $3000 would make us a majority share
> >>holder and give us the maximum influence, but still not control, we have
> >>to allow the editor some leeway and he probably wants a lot.  An
> >>investment in between would give in between influence.
> >
> >I have come to feel that it would be best for AGA and PAM to have a
> >consumer/service provider relationship, at least at this point in time.
> >The more I think about it, the less I think that AGA would be able to
> >continue it's majority shareholder position until the magazine actually
is
> >running in the black.
> >
> >I think that AGA has a lot to offer PAM and vice versa.  An arms length
> >distance might make it easier for us to make decisions.  If we are
_really_
> >unhappy with how things are going, (and I don't think we will be) we can
> >always, with notice, just withdraw from the project.  Then we could go
back
> >to publishing a hobby journal that we felt was a better fit for our
> >members.  If we have a large amount of money invested, this is a much
> >harder decision to make.
> >
> >While it would be nice if PAM takes off like a rocket, and runs in the
> >black very quickly, I don't know that that is a realistic expectation.
> >Will we be happy if we've invested as much as we can and we _still_ can't
> >maintain our majority stock holder position?
> >
> >Karen
> >
> >
> --
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>