J
jcj
Well-known member
bonedarrell":sf7rrwxb said:jcj":sf7rrwxb said:bonedarrell":sf7rrwxb said:jcj":sf7rrwxb said:@ bonedarrell
My last try, then you can get an AMEN!!!!![]()
![]()
Brad's being a good guy comes into play with the administration, follow through, (and advocacy for) the guys who didn't get an amp being made whole; ie witholding payment from Mark until there is enough money that those people have a shot at getting an amp.
Here are some facts-
Licensing Mark's designs wasn't free.
Mark's share of any futiure profits are being held until those people are made whole (as was agreed).
If the amps sell enough, Mark's share of the money (not Brad's, Rob's, or Dave's) will be used to make whole the people that didn't receive their amps directly from Mark.
Enter Brad and Company's good will- They're willing to play middle man (or were, in some cases)....
If you've managed to piss off the guy who is willing to help you get an amp (btw...real fucking slick, OP), then your recourse is trying to get your money from Mark. Of course that would be when and if Cameron amplification is profitable, and he's receiving royalties or licensing fees, or whatever you'd like to term the compensation.
Mark's being there doesn't have any bearing on when or if those people will receive amps, sales and Brad and Company's willingness to play middle man do.
Hope that makes what I was trying to say really clear. If not, I give![]()
![]()
And as promised.....AMEN!!!!![]()
![]()
OK. I completely understand what your point and position is. Do you agree that if Mark's share of the profits are now eaten up by new circumstances unforeseen, then there is nothing Brad can do.....willing or not willing?? We just have to agree to disagree bro. You are assuming now that Mark is gone, there are extra profits laying around. I doubt that is the case. Regardless, we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. How about dropping this and we just go play our guitars?? Sound good??
I'd agree completey, if Mark's compensation were a flat fee; it's not, it's a percentage.
No assumption of "extra" profit. Profit is profit, and a percentage is a percentage.
Other than that, we agree completely![]()
![]()
BTW- You seem like a good guy..... and for the record, my position is the only person that should be responsible for paying for those amps is Mark.
Ok, this is my last time at the pulpit on this matter (I am already tired of me, so I am sure most are as well). A flat fee would "support" your position. Mark gets his money no matter how the COB or profits change. The fact that he gets a % supports my position. If the COB increases then 10% of $100 profit is now much different than 10% of $1000 profit. A business deal based on %'s can be zero or even negative. They are moving targets. Flat fees aren't. So now, if the COB has now increased for some reason, can you see you the % of "Mark's profit" could possibly be gone or even negative? The defense rests.
Btw, you seem like a good guy too. This is a healthy debate and you have conducted yourself like a gentleman....props!!
I'm tired of me too, so my last post on this...


We have to assume the viability of the business, otherwise the whole discussion is moot; if the business isn't turning a profit, the doors are closed.

All that aside, props to you, as well

I hate these threads...normally just shit storms...way to keep it spirited, but not shitty...nice work!
