Pick your side

[lovehamr]

Come on Buzz; just a little smoking hole in Ol' Shell's foot. Just a little one. You wouldn't hardly be able to see it.

Steve

[Nedsel]

If we are to accept the reasoning of Turnpike Boy, it would seem that any car club - organized for any reason - if they make a small profit, should give some of it back to the manufacturer of the car. I wonder how many car clubs realize this? Maybe we better check with the various Corvette clubs, for example, and see how much they pay General Motors for their hard work in growing their local organizations.

[turnpike boy]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

If we are to accept the reasoning of Turnpike Boy, it would seem that any car club - organized for any reason - if they make a small profit, should give some of it back to the manufacturer of the car. I wonder how many car clubs realize this? Maybe we better check with the various Corvette clubs, for example, and see how much they pay General Motors for their hard work in growing their local organizations.

Hmm....nothing like over-generalizing the intent. I haven't seen where GM has sued any Corvette club, as of yet - in marked contrast to CS vs. SAAC. Do you think, maybe, that distinction might have some bearing?

And do not put words in my mouth, sir. Nowhere in the post was there any support for CS, as you tacitly infer; it might be distasteful to acknowledge the realities here, but the thought that this will be adjudicated 100% in favor of EITHER party is naive and puerile. You DID have a handshake licensing agreement, did you not? Do you truly believe that SAAC is made of whole cloth, and will be given absolution by any court?

This fight is for the continued existance of SAAC - an appropriate and desireable outcome. The extensive work done by the club is, beyond any doubt, of incredible value, tangible and otherwise. You have the obligation - to yourselves and those who depend on you - to ensure the continued viability of the club. If your assets are so large that you can simply choose to draw a hard line in the sand, congratulations. On the other hand, you might choose to consider the alternatives, and prepare for same.

-Roger

[Nedsel]

Roger, much as I might like to, I have no involvement with SAAC's decisions as they involve the current legal feud. Whatever course is determined will be chosen by Rick and Ken.

What I disagreed with earlier were three specific comments you made: the first suggested we go through SAAC's ledgers, see how much money the club made, and reach an agreement on how much of that Shelby is due. Why? Their is no language to that effect in any of the club's organizational papers. SAAC already pays royalties on the sales of things with his trade-named images. Do you think Shelby should receive some kind of cash reward because SAAC works hard to promote his brands and image? I can't think of a rational reason why.

Secondly, you commented that "Shelby has said that the fruits of SAAC's labors have risen from his accomplishments. thereby making what's theirs, more than equally his." He may believe the first part, but I can't possibly see how anyone could agree with the second. The 18-hour days Kopec spends running the club, and the organizational and financial effort Eber provides to handle day-to-day business, print the magazines and newsletters, pull off conventions, and the like - do you actually believe that Shelby should get a greater share of the return for those? Be honest.

Finally, you state that SAAC is "entitled to some $$ for their clerical skills, but what they derived could not and would not exist if he had not made it possible to begin with." OK, then, if SAAC is to pay Shelby for all the work its officers, contributors, registrars, and other people perform, can you help us determine how much we should also pay to AC Cars and Ford Motor Company? After all, what he derived could not have existed either if they had not made it possible to begin with. For some reason, however, I don't see either knocking on the door and requesting a cash reward for the labor of others.

[turnpike boy]

You've taken my comments totally out of context.

NO - I do NOT agree that CS is automatically entitled to a percentage of the club's revenues - and never did. Further, it was not made clear, to me at least, that SAAC ever paid ANYTHING, license notwithstanding, on what they sold, nor that they had any obligation to do so. If those obligations did in fact exist and have been met thru the years, then NO, CS is not entitled to anything beyond that agreement. My comments were based on the understanding that, if money were the issue, then resolve of this should be fairly straightforward and quick.

You are absolutely assured that I do not think CS is entitled to profit from the efforts to the club - beyond what they already apparently agreed to. Anything else he sees he deserves is exclusively subject to negotiation and/or agreement. I never said I agreed with his perspectives - never. What I said was it was clear how HE saw things, and thereby manifested his beliefs in the form of a lawsuit. Please read what I wrote.

Finally, with regard to SAAC's "clerical skills", on my own review it is apparent that I did not convey what I intended. First of all, my sincere apologies to SAAC and its' officers if my words appear condescending - what was written was intended to convey the attitude and perspective that CS has pretty clearly taken with SAAC, and written in that format as a response to Tony's posting. At no level do I ascribe to the views CS maintains; in my book his contentions and conclusions are vapid, malicious, and essentially without merit. The relativity of Ford, AC, etc. is as stated before - they haven't sued - unfortunately, CS has.

-Roger

[Nedsel]

Roger, your clarifications are appreciated, as they better explain where you really stand.

[turnpike boy]

Ned, I'm rigidly in SAAC's corner. No exceptions.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by turnpike boy

Hmm....nothing like over-generalizing the intent. I haven't seen where GM has sued any Corvette club, as of yet - in marked contrast to CS vs. SAAC. Do you think, maybe, that distinction might have some bearing?

And do not put words in my mouth, sir. Nowhere in the post was there any support for CS, as you tacitly infer; it might be distasteful to acknowledge the realities here, but the thought that this will be adjudicated 100% in favor of EITHER party is naive and puerile. You DID have a handshake licensing agreement, did you not? Do you truly believe that SAAC is made of whole cloth, and will be given absolution by any court?

This fight is for the continued existance of SAAC - an appropriate and desireable outcome. The extensive work done by the club is, beyond any doubt, of incredible value, tangible and otherwise. You have the obligation - to yourselves and those who depend on you - to ensure the continued viability of the club. If your assets are so large that you can simply choose to draw a hard line in the sand, congratulations. On the other hand, you might choose to consider the alternatives, and prepare for same.

-Roger

Roger,

Ford did go after the Mustang clubs, then backed down. GM has a strong hold on the Corvette Club, but at the same time they realize without the Corvette club, their profit margin will suffer. Ford also realized that without the MCA and it's loyal members, their bottom line would suffer too. A case in point was a certain Randolph based Ford dealership who left a certain north Jersey Mustang related club hanging in the wind for $1,500 in funds for their car show. 14 months later the club and it's small membership of less than 120 caused a drop in sales and service of over 38%. Two year later, what was once a prosperous dealership is now struggling for sales and service business.

Bill S.

[Paul F]

Originally Posted by lovehamr

Come on Buzz; just a little smoking hole in Ol' Shell's foot. Just a little one. You wouldn't hardly be able to see it.

Steve

Artists want their art to be theirs. If he changes it with your suggestion, it becomes partly your art. Suggestions can be very irritating, frustrating, insulting; I can't find the right word for it. Don't expect Buzz to change his art.

[Buzz]

Lol! Actually, I like the hole-in-the-foot idea, I wish I had thought of it myself! It's especially relevant since it would be an accurate depiction of the way most enthusiasts feel about Shelby's chosen course of action. Most concerned parties feel that whatever short term gains he hopes to realize will be eclipsed by the damage he does to his public image, reputation and the value of the products that bear his name. Paul, I know what you mean about these artists; they're a petty, sensitive bunch. I'm not one of them, I'm just an ordinary guy who happens to be able to draw.

[lovehamr]

Originally Posted by Paul F

Artists want their art to be theirs. If he changes it with your suggestion, it becomes partly your art. Suggestions can be very irritating, frustrating, insulting; I can't find the right word for it. Don't expect Buzz to change his art.

???????????????????????

I hope no one took my tounge in cheek quip as "irritating, frustrating, insulting".

Buzz, if that's the way you see it, know that it wasn't meant that way.

Paul...uh......whatever.

Steve (with no art quips)