2002-03-06 SvsG Emails

From HypertWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Staddon vs. Griever: SvsG Messages: 2002

2002 Messages

2001
2002 Overview
2002-01-02
2002-01-04
2002-01-05
2002-01-07
2002-01-19
2002-01-23
2002-01-29
2002-02-01
2002-02-03
2002-02-10
2002-02-13
2002-03-06
2002-03-09
2002-03-11
2002-03-19
2002-03-25
2002-04-08
2002-04-11
2002-04-12
2002-04-25
2002-05-08
2002-05-09
2002-05-11
2002-05-17
2002-05-18
2002-05-22
2002-06-13
2002-06-14
2002-06-29
2002-07-01
2002-07-06
2002-07-07
2002-07-10
2002-07-11
2002-07-15
2002-07-18
2002-08-07
2002-08-08
2002-08-10
2002-08-11
2002-08-12
2002-08-13
2002-08-14
2002-08-18
2002-08-21
2002-08-27
2002-08-29
2002-08-30
2002-08-31
2002-09-05
2002-09-06
2002-09-13
2002-09-15
2002-09-16
2002-09-17
2002-09-20
2002-09-21
2002-09-23
2002-09-24
2002-09-26
2002-09-27
2002-09-28
2002-09-29
2002-09-30
2002-10-01
2002-10-02
2002-10-06
2002-10-07
2002-10-11
2002-10-12
2002-10-24
2002-10-25
2002-10-26
2002-10-29
2002-10-30
2002-10-31
2002-11-02
2002-11-08
2002-11-11
2002-11-12
2002-11-13
2002-11-14
2002-11-15
2002-11-16
2002-11-17
2002-11-22
2002-11-26
2002-11-28
2002-12-01
2002-12-02
2002-12-09
2002-12-11
2002-12-14
2002-12-17
2002-12-23
2003

19:00 from Nick

Nick Notes

I seem to recall that Lynne responded verbally to this email with great indignation along the lines of "How can you suggest that Bubba is just working for himself after all the work he has done for you??" Unfortunately, I haven't yet encountered any emails to this effect, so I am not sure if I am accurately representing the substance of her disagreement.

I am pretty sure that my response to her, verbally, was to emphasize that it was just a suggestion because I still didn't know what the working arrangement was and as far as I knew we were still trying to work one out, and since they (Grievers) hadn't put forth anything specific that maybe they would appreciate my offering a suggestion, and that they were of course free to suggest corrections to my suggestion (this being more or less how negotiation often works).

As far as I know, neither of them ever made any counter-suggestions.

Text

BCC: Sandy Hall <slungry_hoopla-2020-09-30-14:23-spam@yahoospam.com>
Message-ID: <3C86AD86.FA8AB276spam@spamredhousespam.spamcom>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:00:06 -0500
From: "N. Staddon" <nspam@spamredhousespam.spamcom>
To: lynne-2020-09-30-14:23-spam@redhousespam.com
Subject: business arrangements

We were exchanging emails about a month ago on the subject of who gets what when and how and all that... This is some further thoughts on the subject (this is a second-take at describing the situation, not a definitive statement of terms from me -- though it does reflect terms that I would find acceptable):

1. Bubba is working for himself, in the hopes that the arrangements he (or The Bubblynn Bazaar, to give this particular enterprise of his a name) has made with vbz.net will soon become profitable. The arrangements can be detailed thusly:

(1a) There is an ongoing loan between vbz.net and BB (Bubblynn Bazaar) where vbz fronts the money to wholesale-purchase merchandise which is then sold retail piecemeal thru vbz.net. Vbz receives a set percentage of each sale, and the remainder of each sale is deducted from the loan balance.
(1b) There was/is an existing loan from Red House (which for the time being is considered the same entity as vbz) to the RDA (which for the time being is considered the same entity as BB) where RH covered certain RDA expenses at various times (phone bills, internet hosting, and other items). Any profits from the arrangement in (a) were to be applied towards this loan.
(1c) The set percentage in (a) was originally set at 20%, with the understanding that this was to be renegotiated when the loans in (a) and (b) were both paid off.
(1d) No interest was being charged on the loans in (a) or (b).
(1e) We do not yet know what the net balance is of the (a) loan. The (b) loan is almost certainly still owed, but the (a) loan may have become sufficiently profitable by now to counteract it.

One significant upshot of these arrangements is that vbz does _not_ owe BB compensation for effort towards sales described in (a) beyond the profits mentioned in (b). (This answers a question posed in the previous email on this subject.)

2. Arrangements between RDA and RH, part one -- The Benz:

(2a) The RDA is renting the Mercedes from Nick at a cost of $100/week, soon to be changed to (I think it was) 25 cents per mile, plus $10/week as long as the vehicle is not stored on-site at Red House.
(2b) The RDA has not been able to keep up with payments on this. Since this arrangement was to be paid up regardless of the balance (positive or negative) of the loans in (1a) and (1b), and since it was originally a business service which was supposed to be paid regularly (once a month would have been fine) rather than a loan, it seems fair to me that there should be a late fee and interest applied. I'm willing to hold off applying those until April 1. I would like to impose interest at 1.5% per month on any existing balance, plus a 15% late fee for each month (starting April 1, i.e. not retroactive) the minimum payment is not received by the first of the month. The minimum payment would be the amount due for that month's vehicle usage plus 10% of the prior balance.

3. Arrangements between RDA and RH part two -- office space:

(3a) For several years now, RH has been providing RDA with varying amounts of office space (power, heat, and water included; bathroom and kitchen shared by one other tenant; cable TV recently installed) and usage of varying quantities of office, computing, and entertainment equipment (Internet, LAN, tech support, and a wide variety of software included) at considerable cost to RH and essentially no cost to RDA.
(3b) RDA has occasionally donated/loaned equipment (the stove and the fridge come to mind most readily) for installation in Red House. Lynne has also on occasion spent notable amounts of time straightening out phone tangles and banking tangles, but this was nearly always when such was of mutual benefit (i.e. RDA needed to use the phones, or RDA needed access to RH funds) and should probably not be counted as work done for RH/vbz.
(3c) Recently, RH has been unable to maintain the machines needed for RDA to do its work for several weeks at a time. This was due in large part to absence of funds needed to purchase replacement parts. The lack of funds for this purpose alone has resulted in Nick having to spend extra time servicing the machines used by RDA, i.e. pulled him away from vbz work, costing vbz further.
(3d) Given all the ways in which RDA's use of RH equipment and services (utilities, maintenance, rent, etc.) costs RH/vbz, it seems only fair that RH should charge RDA for these services.
(3e) What remains to be negotiated is (1) how much and (2) whether this should be treated as a separate business deal (as in the Mercedes rental) or whether it should be assessed against any positive balance RDA might have accumulated through t-shirt sales. Obviously part of the point of doing this is so that RH will be able to set aside adequate funds for dealing with repair issues, so any arrangement that does not result in RH actually getting paid somewhat regularly is probably not a good solution.
(3f) I recognize that RDA does not necessarily have access to funds to pay RH adequately for the services provided. Computer rental alone would normally run in the $100s per month. However, it seems to me that at the very least, RDA should be able to bill its main employer -- GA Task force -- _something_ for rental of office space, equipment, and services. The presence of an actual business arrangement between RDA and a provider of those items should legitimize this request considerably, and thus bring in additional funds -- from which we would all benefit. As long as _some_ money was coming in for expenses, the remainder could probably be assessed against t-shirt sales.
(3g) If the vbz loans to RDA have in fact been paid off by t-shirt sales, then I think the office rental charges should be retroactive to the date the balance went positive (or perhaps to the date they went positive enough to cover one month's worth of services). If not, then I think they should begin in the very near future.

I think that's everything... Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

N.