Re: Round 2 with Gomberg

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

> Heeding Erik's request, I went through the roof yesterday, and thought about
> it overnight -- but I am still pretty torqued at Gomberg's proposal.

David & all,

Just keep this in mind: every time anyone negotiates with Dave, he always
has ridiculous notions, and one can either go through the roof, or tell
him it's a ridiculous notion.  Karen understood this back when he was
doing that little stunt with "AGA needs to pay for its ads" last year, and
set him in his place.  And I am doing the same thing here: I told him flat
out that expecting the AGA to pay $4800 for two pages was not acceptable,
and just because the AGA has a surplus and PAM has a debt does not mean
that the AGA is responsible DIRECTLY for keeping PAM out of debt.  (I do
note that if we do agree to this, then the AGA is INDIRECTLY responsible,
as it would be not so good for us).

This is why I need to put ALL the cards on the table.  We find out
exactly how many subscribers there are to PAM, how many AGA members, how
many are both.  Then it all becomes a matter of numbers.  I am approaching
this strictly from the numbers.  That makes it a lot easier to say "Here's
what we need, and it looks like we could do it.")


> The one thing I think we should really consider is -- what do we do if
> a year into the thing Gomberg decides he still isn't making any/enough
> money and folds PAM.

Right, I am making sure we have exit strategies for all three cases:
1) PAM folds, 2) AGA folds, 3) neither folds but we want to terminate the
agreement.

> My take on this is, even after sleeping on it, that this is a very good, and
> perhaps quick, way for AGA to spend the not unsubstantial nest egg that we
> have been accumulating over the years. AGA has been really starting to get
> its act together, and we have gotten excellent response to the convention,
> the contest and TAG all by ourselves,

This is one way to look at it.  Another way to look at it is that THREE
people on the AGA worked their tails off in the last year and a half:
Charlene on the convention, myself on the contest, and Mary on TAG.  This
year, Charlene got no more support on the convention (i.e. no local club
to hold it), and will probably bail next year.  I got no support on the
contest (i.e. none of the dozen or so people who volunteered to help
actually wanted to help on any of the real work), and WILL bail next year.
And we're talking about shutting down TAG because the only person we know
who will edit it is impossible to deal with.


> However, I have a suggestion.
> This is an important enough decision that I think we should put it off til
> the November convention, when we can discuss it amongst the SC (or what will
> hopefully be the Board of Directors of the newly incorporated AGA,Inc.) face
> to face, and then discuss it face to face with Gomberg. This will also give
> Gomberg the chance to tell us, which I think he will, that if AGA does not
> come to his rescue he is folding PAM. We would also have some time to get
> the real numbers of AGA members, PAM subscribers, the overlap and thus any
> increased revenues.

I would like to have a full proposal worked out by this point.  I am also
starting to think that if it passes the board, this may be something voted
on by the entire membership as well.

  - Erik

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".