Re: [AGA-sc] Fwd: Re: [AGA-conheads] Updated AGA 2006 Program / Budget proposals

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

AGA assumed all net (losses or revenues) up to $2,000 in
net revenues. Above $2,000 in net revenues, AGA and DFWAPC
split 50/50.


But you personally still had to guarantee the hotel
deposit, iirc, because a credit card number was needed and
AGA didn't have one. But let's not quibble about who
mortgaged this and who had a lien on that -- everyone had a
good time and that's what was really, right?


sh

--- Larry Lampert <l_lampert@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't recall the exact terms of our DFWAPC/AGA
> agreement can you refresh my memory? 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Larry
> 
> --- "S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Should we suggest the arrangement we made with
> > DFWAPC for
> > the AGA to underwrite risks so SFBAAPS can inlcude
> > it in
> > their proposal?
> > 
> > We can probably do this convention with reasonably
> > small
> > risk. Low probability events (like no air travel,
> > earthquake, etc.) but one of those could zonk us for
> > whatever the maximum gurantee is to the hotel. So if
> > we
> > underwrite the risks, we should get something for
> > them.
> > 
> > sh
> > --- jiml1029@aol.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 13:50:37 -0500
> > > From: jiml1029@aol.com
> > > Subject: Re: [AGA-conheads] Updated AGA 2006
> > Program /
> > > Budget proposals
> > > To: aga-conheads@thekrib.com
> > > 
> > >  
> > >  
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: S. Hieber <shieber@yahoo.com>
> > > To: Convention Planning <aga-conheads@thekrib.com>
> > > Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:17:05 -0800 (PST)
> > > Subject: Re: Fwd: [AGA-conheads] Updated AGA 2006
> > Program
> > > / Budget proposals
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- jiml1029@aol.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >> Scott, 
> > > > >>I think your email brings up some critical
> > points ...
> > 
> > 
> > > > I guess we will find out pretty soom what kind
> > of
> > > > deposit the hotel will need. SFBAAPS group funds
> > are
> > > not
> > > > very significant, we will need to dicuss how
> > this would
> > > > get covered.
> > > 
> > > I guess then, we also need to discuss how the
> > risks of
> > > losses would be shared.
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > aga-conheads mailing list
> > aga-conheads@thekrib.com
> >
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-conheads
> > > _______________________________________________
> > AGA-sc mailing list
> > AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> > http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AGA-sc mailing list
> AGA-sc@thekrib.com
> http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc
> 

_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc