| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Amused Observer
Joined: 24 Feb 2003
Posts: 164
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:01 pm |
|
|
Anyone have thoughts on them?
I find it interesting that (in Statement #1) SPJA "at this current time does not have plans to seek legal action against Mr. Tatsugawa". I guess he dodged a bullet.
In addition, I should note that (in Statement #2) SPJA admits that its board of directors include members with affiliation with the anime industry. But there is no mention of the names of the directors, nor numbers involved. If the majority of the board has affiliation with the anime industry, then you'll have to question the board's independence from the industry.
Also, these statements seem like they were prepared by attorneys, to tell you the truth.
The second statement "SPJA Management MYTHS and FACTS" should have been the INITIAL response to Mr. Tatsugawa's post. But I guess it's better to be late than never.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
GATSU
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 16424
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Since the SPJA isn't putting up sources for their counter-arguments, it's basically their word against Mike's.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 1356
Location: Birdsboro, PA
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 7:04 pm |
|
|
| GATSU wrote: | | Since the SPJA isn't putting up sources for their counter-arguments, it's basically their word against Mike's. |
That's what I was thinking. There isn't anything to back up either side's statements.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Amused Observer
Joined: 24 Feb 2003
Posts: 164
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 7:17 pm |
|
|
| Cassandra wrote: | | GATSU wrote: | | Since the SPJA isn't putting up sources for their counter-arguments, it's basically their word against Mike's. |
That's what I was thinking. There isn't anything to back up either side's statements. |
I'm with you on that.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Ramen
Joined: 15 Feb 2002
Posts: 346
Location: San Jose
|
Posted: Tue May 06, 2003 7:36 pm |
|
|
|
It's definitely more in line with what I think their response should have been. Now we'll have to see if they can settle their differences without resorting to lawsuits.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
hakootoko
Joined: 06 Dec 2002
Posts: 74
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2003 7:40 am |
|
|
|
It still seems fishy to pay the Chair a $30,000 salary after admitting you lost money during the 2 previous years, and that is one of the few actual numbers in the response.
Of course, they also said that they paid Mike $25,000 the year before.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Amused Observer
Joined: 24 Feb 2003
Posts: 164
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2003 3:15 pm |
|
|
| hakootoko wrote: | | It still seems fishy to pay the Chair a $30,000 salary after admitting you lost money during the 2 previous years, and that is one of the few actual numbers in the response.
Of course, they also said that they paid Mike $25,000 the year before. |
Losing money is beside the point, in my view. The question is whether the person who got the $30k performed services worth that amount. 30k is practically an annual salary for full time employment.
Secondly, Mike and his unnamed partner got 50k through Animedia. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 50-50 split. Furthermore, I view the release of this particular piece of information as an attempt to undercut the credibility of the accuser--i.e. the accuser took a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else.
These figures being thrown out actually raised more questions than they answered, in my opinion. But SPJA is under no legal obligation to release financial information on its operations.
The next move is Mike's.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Tempest
 I Run this place.
ANN Publisher
Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10539
Location: Do not message me for support.
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2003 4:22 pm |
|
|
| Amused Observer wrote: | | These figures being thrown out actually raised more questions than they answered, in my opinion. But SPJA is under no legal obligation to release financial information on its operations. |
Actually, as a registered NPO, they are.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Amused Observer
Joined: 24 Feb 2003
Posts: 164
|
Posted: Wed May 07, 2003 8:08 pm |
|
|
| Tempest wrote: | | Amused Observer wrote: | | These figures being thrown out actually raised more questions than they answered, in my opinion. But SPJA is under no legal obligation to release financial information on its operations. |
Actually, as a registered NPO, they are. |
*blink*
*blink*
ARE they non-profit???
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|