It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ATS Issues Thread

page: 39
126
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 

You're missing the point daystrom. W needed the kind of capital you typically only get in the venture capital market. There were no grants and certainly not enough donors to get the deal done.

We are businessmen not charity directors, we hope to create the first real "crowd sourced" and ethical media company that hopefully makes piles of money we can expand even more with and PROVE that the people do "get it" and the MSM is all wrong.

We seek to prove that you can have a very successful media company without outside corporate ownership and control. That's the biggest part of why we declined the offers in the past, the companies wanted control, we aren't relinquishing control.

To be honest, I wouldn't have the patience to deal with donations, and I couldn't stand the thought of something not being allowed to profit on its own merits, it just goes against my nature I guess.

Springer...




posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by daystrom
Investors do not "buy into" a Non Profit Organization. Why would they? There is no return on their investment. You are too intelligent and too business savvy to not be aware of that, so for the time being I will grant you a "slip of the tongue".


while I don't want to speak on behalf of SO, I think this is the point he was making - that you won't find very many investment groups looking to fund a non-profit organization.



Originally posted by daystrom
This would still be ATS as decreed by the Amigos, and not the William Morris Agency show.


The WMA doesn't have any control over what happens on our site. As we are in the process of negotiating deals that will help us bring ATS to several offline media outlets, we were advised of certain things that might make things more difficult in our negotiations. Since the goal is to provide offline content, such as tv, radio etc to our members (and the world), we felt that it would be prudent to follow their advice.


Originally posted by daystrom
There was a time when the Amigos could do anything they desired with their network.


They still can


Originally posted by daystrom
It was theirs and theirs alone.


it still is


Originally posted by daystrom
Now there are investors.


yes, there are. do you know the terms of the investment? do you know if they purchased a stake in the entity? do you know if they lent money to the entity? do you know if the deal was made with the condition that the amigos do things their way? perhaps the terms indicate that they must continue to run the company, and they must continue to act as they have prior to the deal.



Originally posted by daystrom
Some we are aware of, some we are not.


and who are we aware of?



Originally posted by daystrom
This recent event clearly illustrates that the investors have a great deal of control over this network and the content it is allowed to present.

the investment group consists of people who have little or no tech experience. they saw potential for something huge. they want nothing to do with the content on the site other than to ensure that the site continues to do what it has for ten plus years, provide a place where people can go to get their fix of items that won't be found in the main stream.

out of the group, one is a member, it would be pretty obvious to assume which one that is. the others aren't members or, they are for the purpose of reading the site (not really sure if anyone actually joined). they don't post. they probably couldn't figure it out if they wanted to post.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I still don't know why members don't want this site to grow and succeed! It's odd to me. I love this site and I would want nothing more than to see this site grow beyond the relm of the Internet into other media outlets.

The Amigos for the last few pages (And for so long before, that it's become redundant) that they want and continue to want the Membership of this site to control site content.

I just don't understand why members would be aghast by the site owners wanting that business venture to succeed. I mean isn't that just a little rude? The site owners here have provided a place for Members to post and put media on the web with a lot of quality content and the members are actually pissed cause they do this for free to the membership but want to turn a profit for themselves?

Then we have this other member that had a dedicated forum for his show hosted here for free get all pissey about something. I don't quite understand what went down there, and I really don't want to know cause it's none of my business. But again the Amigos have to defend themselves for a failed business relationship? Thats just sad.


[edit on 9/20/2008 by whatukno]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by daystrom
 

We are businessmen not charity directors, we hope to create the first real "crowd sourced" and ethical media company that hopefully makes piles of money we can expand even more with and PROVE that the people do "get it" and the MSM is all wrong.

We seek to prove that you can have a very successful media company without outside corporate ownership and control. That's the biggest part of why we declined the offers in the past, the companies wanted control, we aren't relinquishing control.


Not to be a thorn in your side - for I fully understand where you are coming from - but I wonder...

Suppose, just suppose, that there is some scandal with one of your investors... The investor would likely want it hushed up, I would imagine. What happens should a poster come across the scandal and post about it?

How ethical will ATS be?

I ask because very often that is why the MSM doesn't report issues - because the companies involved are investors or advertisers.

So what would ATS do? Delete the post? Or allow it to carry on?

This is the dilemma one has a potential of when releasing one's company to investors, and one is in the "market" of truth.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
do you know the terms of the investment? do you know if they purchased a stake in the entity? do you know if they lent money to the entity? do you know if the deal was made with the condition that the amigos do things their way? perhaps the terms indicate that they must continue to run the company, and they must continue to act as they have prior to the deal.


With utmost respect, I wish to point out that the suggestion that the "deal," the terms of which you are making suggestions about, cannot require that "they must continue to act as they have prior to the deal," else nomadrush/Ross would never have been ousted from his then position with respect to the board, except in the event that he began behaving poorly.

Rather than ask about knowledge and suggest things that might be, would it not be better to have the details there to be examined?

Or just let it go?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Hi amaterasu,
There are many pretty standard clauses in most investors' contracts that deny any minority , and sometimes majority, investor any control on the daily operations of the businesses in which they invest.

This, as I said, is standard MO and a part of any due diligence work which I'm sure has been undertaken on behalf of ATS.

It is hard for me to believe that after working so hard for so many years to make ATS what it is today, that the powers that be would allow anyone anywhere near operations just because they have invested. In fact I am sure that they will not.

Any potential investor walking in the room would be told of this condition before he sat down. We can call it: Deal breaker No. 1






posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I wish to point out that the suggestion that the "deal," the terms of which you are making suggestions about, cannot require that "they must continue to act as they have prior to the deal," else nomadrush/Ross would never have been ousted from his then position with respect to the board, except in the event that he began behaving poorly.

I believe Crakeur was referring to the investment deal, not the recent television deal.

And in any event, as I previously mentioned (and seems to be constantly overlooked), Ross has no position in The Above Network, LLC and would not have factored into any deal of any type unless it was between us and him... which this was not.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Then we have this other member that had a dedicated forum for his show hosted here for free get all pissey about something. I don't quite understand what went down there, and I really don't want to know cause it's none of my business. But again the Amigos have to defend themselves for a failed business relationship? Thats just sad.


While I appreciate where you are coming from, and agree that "this other member" is choosing less than optimal behavior, I might suggest that if your don't understand the situation, that it is best to leave it alone.

I am not judging you, but, having taken the time to review both sides, calling things a "failed business relationship" and sad without knowledge seems...presumptuous, I think.

Also, I do want to point out that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. ATS got free advertisement and so did "this other member."



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Also, I do want to point out that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. ATS got free advertisement and so did "this other member."

I'd like to point out, again, that we neither never asked for "advertising," nor did we expect anything other than for Ross to use his forum as a place to converse with listeners of his show.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I believe Crakeur was referring to the investment deal, not the recent television deal.


Yes. [smile] As was I.


And in any event, as I previously mentioned (and seems to be constantly overlooked), Ross has no position in The Above Network, LLC and would not have factored into any deal of any type unless it was between us and him... which this was not.


While I can see this point, and understand that on any legal level this surely would hold in court, I strongly get the impression that Ross felt there was a "Gentlemen's Agreement" here. Maybe his view was all in his head - but the general evidence suggests that he might have had a good basis for believing this.

And I am just saying that I understand why he feels betrayed (and thus his anger) - especially given the less than personal approach by which he was informed of the change in the agreement he believed was there.

Given that an apology was offered to him and he rejected it, I'm guessing it's too late to make amends - or... Too early. In time he may spend his anger and be willing to view things more rationally.

I am just regretful that this site, which I love and consider my "home on the web," has gotten itself into this ugliness. I am sure no one on either side MEANT to make poor choices. But made they have been and we must move on.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


well, let's see, if, say one of the amigos decided to split, for all you know the terms of the deal could dictate that, should one leave, the deal is off. as I said, you don't know the deal. was it a purchase, a merger, a loan?

and yes, the terms of a deal, when drawn up by attorneys, can dictate anything. if the investors demanded that whenever they log into the site, it must be bright orange, that would have to be done if the deal was agreed upon so, if the investors had specific rules written into the contract, then the amigos are bound to honor those rules, however ridiculous they might be. not saying the investment group did anything of the sort, just saying they could have if they wanted to.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Also, I do want to point out that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. ATS got free advertisement and so did "this other member."

I'd like to point out, again, that we neither never asked for "advertising," nor did we expect anything other than for Ross to use his forum as a place to converse with listeners of his show.


[smile] I understand that no specific expectations were placed. But I am led to believe that Ross nonetheless DID promote ATS. I did not mean to imply that there was a quid pro quo agreement, but that it worked out to the benefit of both sides of this current issue.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Wow. I just gotta say I am amazed at the patience SO and others show here sometimes. Going round and round with some of these members like this. You are better men than I in this respect, as I'm sure I would have told some here (that use this site for free, and have NO business questioning decisions you make in regards to YOUR site that you provide free of charge for US and our little community) to take a flying you know what. Guess that's why I don't run a site like this.


Anyway, in businesses there are conflicts of interest. If the member in question was not asked to leave altogether, or did not make any business deals that were broken by the site owners, get over it. Or don't, and stop visiting the site, nobody is forced to log in here.

I love this place, and appreciate it. Thanks to all who provide it.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


well, let's see, if, say one of the amigos decided to split, for all you know the terms of the deal could dictate that, should one leave, the deal is off. as I said, you don't know the deal. was it a purchase, a merger, a loan?

and yes, the terms of a deal, when drawn up by attorneys, can dictate anything. if the investors demanded that whenever they log into the site, it must be bright orange, that would have to be done if the deal was agreed upon so, if the investors had specific rules written into the contract, then the amigos are bound to honor those rules, however ridiculous they might be. not saying the investment group did anything of the sort, just saying they could have if they wanted to.


I guess I'm missing your point here. I am fully aware of the fact that agreements can be made involving most anything. I'm fully aware of the fact that *I* don't have the details of this specific arrangement. My point was merely that one detail that could NOT be part of the deal - because things changed - was for nothing to change.

That is all. [shrug]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


You fail to remember that the community are the life blood of this website. Without the members, ATS wouldn't be here.

Anyway, I'm satisfied that the ATS team have given their side of the story so I won't be pursuing it any further (not that anything I say matters anyway)

Thanks

[edit on 20-9-2008 by dodgygeeza]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


your mixing up two points. one, WMA made a suggestion, which was taken and followed, based on a consensus of the managing team.

two, the investors might have inserted requirements that dictate that the management team follow the same pattern as before they got involved, taking a certain path, following certain guidelines etc.

I wasn't saying the second was the case, merely stating that it might have been.

in any event, the issue with nomadrush boiled down to factors that, apparently, weren't to his liking and, instead of discussing things with one of the amigos, he opted for the break the t&c method of dealing.

then he went and badmouthed the site (and me) and that's pointless and immature. truth is, the u2u exchange between Nomadrush and myself is quite the opposite of what he claims. His response to the automated u2u one gets from an offtopic tag was childish and rude and I responded with a single line offering to return his points since the offtopic post was then deleted by a higher up. his response was more of the same and then I explained the issue regarding his offtopic post and told him I was going to overlook the snide remarks in the previous u2u's.

that was it.

the issue he had after this exchange was other staffers and I am sure they were no more rude than I was.

He was angry over something. He let it get the best of him and the end result is that he left in a huff when he could have still been here.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Wow
You gotta give it the site owners for even discussing business topics with the members of their site. Go to any other site and see if you see any site owners explaining their business deals with members of their site. You wouldn't see ohh lets say Rupert Murdoch explaining his business deals with a myspace user
Thats why I love this site. How can anyone question what the owners are doing??? They are wide open about things! I think the amigos are doing a great job and ATS is proof positive of it



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dodgygeeza
 


Right, and I don't see any decline in the number of members here. I am a member, and have been for quite a while. Not all members are angry because your friend feels like he/she got a raw deal. Like ANY community, there are going to be clashes and conflicts of interest. I guess it's my fault for reading the drama thread, but I'm annoyed reading this back and forth, even though it's really none of your business, your questions have been answered graciously. Yet, you continue to ask the same sarcastic questions in different ways. It's obvious you're not going to be happy until SO is groveling for your forgiveness, until then you're going to search your mind for all the ways you can think of to spin the answers given into some underhanded deception, and re-ask the question relentlessly like some paranoid, morbidly jealous person trying to catch their spouse cheating. Whatever though, as you were. I forget this thread is set up for drama, so thanks at least for keeping it here.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


your mixing up two points. one, WMA made a suggestion, which was taken and followed, based on a consensus of the managing team.

two, the investors might have inserted requirements that dictate that the management team follow the same pattern as before they got involved, taking a certain path, following certain guidelines etc.

I wasn't saying the second was the case, merely stating that it might have been.


And I was saying that bringing up what "might have been" is a rather moot exercise. But you're free to do so. [smile]


in any event, the issue with nomadrush boiled down to factors that, apparently, weren't to his liking and, instead of discussing things with one of the amigos, he opted for the break the t&c method of dealing.


I agree that his choice of behavior was poor. But I also think that in boiling it down, one must also include the fact that ATS failed to act on a personal level, terminating the arrangement with nomadrush abruptly and with no sensitivity for his point of view.

Both sides chose poorly.


then he went and badmouthed the site (and me) and that's pointless and immature.


Agreed, but when one feels hurt by what appears to be cavalier dismissal, this is not an unexpected behavior. Poor choice, yes. Unexpected, no.


truth is, the u2u exchange between Nomadrush and myself is quite the opposite of what he claims. His response to the automated u2u one gets from an offtopic tag was childish and rude and I responded with a single line offering to return his points since the offtopic post was then deleted by a higher up. his response was more of the same and then I explained the issue regarding his offtopic post and told him I was going to overlook the snide remarks in the previous u2u's.


Was all this before or after the "legalese" U2U he posted on his blog that informed him of a deal that precluded the continuation of the then present arrangement?

I suspect it was after... And I can assure you that from the moment that original U2U was received, all behavior was driven by pain and, though poor, as I have said, still understandable.


the issue he had after this exchange was other staffers and I am sure they were no more rude than I was.


I do not doubt that the staff comported themselves well at that point.


He was angry over something. He let it get the best of him and the end result is that he left in a huff when he could have still been here.


Agreed.

I could "woulda, coulda, shoulda" about how that initial information was delivered and how this whole affair might have gone better.

At this point, though, I recommend letting the anger run its course. And to keep in mind for the future that it is always best to break bad news with a personal and gentle touch.

[edit on 9/20/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
reply to post by 27jd
 


You fail to remember that the community is the life blood of this website. Without the members, ATS wouldn't be here.



The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

And what you seem to be missing is that 27jd is also a member here, expressing exactly what many other members are alluding to.

I would prefer to see a preponderance of members focussed on the real issues facing the population of the world during these tumultuous times rather than naval gazing on what promises to be a viable alternative to the main stream media which, by all acounts, has been slowly subverted by corporate and political interests.

What ATS brings to the world which is so different is the voice of the people... you, me and everyone else that is capable of logging on and expressing what is important to us.

That this site is based completely on what humans, regardless of where they live or what they believe, have to say is (imo) the first opportunity for us all to come together from around the globe. What may eventually emerge from these discussions boggles my mind and consider it on a par with the invention of the printing press and all that entailed. Pray that we are given the chance to make a success out of this venture.

While I'd never dispute any member the right to criticize whatever may arise out of the evolution of ATS, let us not forget the big picture here.

Where else can Russians, Chinese, Americans and Australians debate issues of global importance with Malaysians, Irish, Scots and English, Canadians and Norwegians (just to name a few examples of the melting pot here)?

To put my thoughts quite succintly... if I dropped off the face of this earth tomorrow, it wouldn't change ATS much in relation to the membership as a whole. No individual member is more important than the collective minds of the membership. We matter, individually, for what we bring to the table, to be discussed and thought about, but the real value is what the rest of us learn from these revelations. My ego is just not that focussed on the 'self' that I consider MY input all that important.

I've changed a lot over the past 4 years because of ALL OF YOU. I could not, however, point to any one particular member and say the same, even though I have met some amazing minds through their postings here.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
126
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join