CGL Speculation #7 Options

[Fuchs]

But you forget that it's not just the ability to pay that counts, it's also the willingness to be honest and to pay that plays a factor. If you have to possible offers, one from a company without a record of financial mismanagement and alleged withholding of royalities, and one that has such a record, you weigh that in. If you cannot trust your partner and have to exert more control over them that's costing you money and manpower.

[Fuchs]

Another thing is "payment history". In Switzerland we have an official "debtor" databank of sorts, which allows people to check if a prospective business partner has outstanding debts that people want collected by the government for them, or defaulted on debts and such. It also lists those "suits" who were not pursued to court, but paid off. Generally, it allows you to check if you are about to do business with someone broke or unwilling to pay his debts without being forced to. The idea is that you know you too may have trouble getting paid, and may reconsider doing business with them.

Freelancers having to withhold copyright to get paid, and others going to court does not look well for CGL/IMR from that point of view.

[Dread Moores]

Freelancers having to withhold copyright to get paid, and others going to court does not look well for CGL/IMR from that point of view.

Now, in terms of not paying Topps (or future inability to pay), yeah, Topps will probably factor that in heavily. Honest book-keeping, yeah, definitely that as well. Not paying freelancers? Doubtful it'll have much impact on the decision making process at Topps. To be honest, it's just too small of an issue. I know that sounds harsh to freelancers, and it isn't meant to be. But you're effectively talking about sub-contractors here, and not a sub-contractor of the "other huge company" variety. License Holder doesn't much care what Licensee is doing with their sub-contractors, so long as they are getting their checks.

[Catadmin]

License Holder doesn't much care what Licensee is doing with their sub-contractors, so long as they are getting their checks.

I have to take issue with that comment. Mostly with the generalized and ambiguous nature of it.

In general terms, this statement is not true. License Holder can get in a lot of legal hot water for what Licensee does with or to sub-contractors if it violates a country's (or even a city's) laws. For instance, if MTP LLC subcontracts out people to put a hit on a rival publishing company and there's any sign that the License Holder knew or approved of it, even circumstantial evidence, License Holder will be in deep do-do. Better yet, let's apply that to money laundering which is a more realistic example.

Though in this case, the case of Topps & CGL, you're probably correct.

[emouse]

Now, in terms of not paying Topps (or future inability to pay), yeah, Topps will probably factor that in heavily. Honest book-keeping, yeah, definitely that as well. Not paying freelancers? Doubtful it'll have much impact on the decision making process at Topps. To be honest, it's just too small of an issue. I know that sounds harsh to freelancers, and it isn't meant to be. But you're effectively talking about sub-contractors here, and not a sub-contractor of the "other huge company" variety. License Holder doesn't much care what Licensee is doing with their sub-contractors, so long as they are getting their checks.

It does give some sort of gauge for the partner to judge their chances of being paid off though. If the partner can't pay small debts, then the chances of them paying off the larger ones is lower.

It'd also be more of an issue for Topps because whether those payments are made ties into copyright on the content, which Topps is supposed to own. Topps could demand that IMR pay off freelancers first because ultimately the content might be considered more valuable than any licensing fees. The last thing Topps would want is to have another company take over the license, print material that IMR did not properly secure or pay for, and start some sort of legal wrangle.

I suppose that's another possible outcome. Topps could demand oversight to make sure the freelancers are paid and once the existing content is secured, pull the license in favor of another company.

I do think that if IMR manages to keep one or both licenses, it will not be an X year contract, and will have options for Topps to intervene or pull the contract.

[Dread Moores]

I have to take issue with that comment. Mostly with the generalized and ambiguous nature of it.

Well, I was going for brief, not defending in front of the court. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) But you're right. It's definitely overly generalized. I still think it applies in this particular case, but that's only opinion.

[Dread Moores]

It does give some sort of gauge for the partner to judge their chances of being paid off though. If the partner can't pay small debts, then the chances of them paying off the larger ones is lower.

Possibly. Or it could simply be that they are choosing not to pay smaller debts, so they can actually pay the bigger "more important" ones, ala royalties/license fees. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best decision to be made, but I really wouldn't know. I don't have all the facts there, in terms of which debt is outstanding longer, higher balance, which has the greater direct impact, etc.

[Dread Moores]

But you forget that it's not just the ability to pay that counts, it's also the willingness to be honest and to pay that plays a factor. If you have to possible offers, one from a company without a record of financial mismanagement and alleged withholding of royalities, and one that has such a record, you weigh that in. If you cannot trust your partner and have to exert more control over them that's costing you money and manpower.

This is definitely a good point. It's going to vary company to company a great deal, but the point still stands. I don't know enough about Topps to guess, but I can certainly think of some companies out there who focus more on the money side than the honesty side, and vice versa. I think it's fair to say that there are also companies on the other end though, that focus more on the fact that "Yeah, they didn't pay us what they should, but they are now. And this other group has never made any money for us. These folks have made us money. Stick with them." Whether that's a wise way to focus things or not, I'll leave up to the business-minded folks to discuss. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[otakusensei]

From the perspective of the bidders, pointing out the problems at IMR would be calling Topps buff if they were treating IMR as a viable bidder. At least, it would if all cards were on the table (to stretch a metaphor).

The issues at IMR are, I'm sure, well known to Topps; and most likely well known to any other bidder because of the insular nature of the industry. However they aren't yet a matter of public record outside of the attempt to push them into Chapter 7. That might be the only wedge a bidder has to come in with low ball offer. Unless Topps really thinks that IMR will right itself, or they are willing to chip in to help, a bidder has a much better chance engaging Topps on a level that maintains IMR as a solvent bidder. It would be foolish to assume that Topps will be willing to hand the license off for a song just to replace IMR.

Not unless IMR completely collapses in the next week or two. Like; Coleman and Bills incommunicado and all management functions shut down, collapsed. So sort of like now, but even more so.

[kzt]

Another thing is "payment history". In Switzerland we have an official "debtor" databank of sorts, which allows people to check if a prospective business partner has outstanding debts that people want collected by the government for them, or defaulted on debts and such. It also lists those "suits" who were not pursued to court, but paid off. Generally, it allows you to check if you are about to do business with someone broke or unwilling to pay his debts without being forced to. The idea is that you know you too may have trouble getting paid, and may reconsider doing business with them.

Freelancers having to withhold copyright to get paid, and others going to court does not look well for CGL/IMR from that point of view.

Here D&B do that. You query their DUNS.

[knasser]

Presumably it will last as long as Topps is willing to let it last.

Conceivably they could give Catalyst a short 3 month licence to get it's shit together and pay Topps what they are owed and then re-assess the situation.

I don't think I'd like to see that. CGL will know before anyone else does whether they are viable or not. If they have a three month window then what would be their (Loren's) motivation? They are in financial trouble so their aim is to make as much revenue as fast as possible. We know that they're having to re-do upcoming books. If they've got a three month window in which to operate their course is to push this stuff out as fast as possible whilst they're still allowed in order to make money / prove profitability. End result of a company in trouble with three month reprieve: rushed, probably inferior work.

Management companies can be replaced, but a bit of stupid metaplot or bad stupid inconsistent setting material, is with us for a long time.

K.

[Kid Chameleon]

Management companies can be replaced, but a bit of stupid metaplot or bad stupid inconsistent setting material, is with us for a long time.

What, you don't want Lone Star cops riding unicorns in your books?

[Tsuul]

Quick question: What books were supposed to be pulled from the market but still ended up in in some stores?

[knasser]

What, you don't want Lone Star cops riding unicorns in your books?

Is.

Not.

Funny.

*grinds teeth*

K.

[CollateralDynamo]

@Tsuul: To the best of my knowledge, only a few books had already been released and had payment issues. I believe these to be the 2 SOTA modules, Vice, and Running Wild. Supposedly, all of the writers have since been paid and the selling freeze on them will be removed presently. All of these books will be maintaining their current form. (According to JM Hardy, who seems like he's pretty on the ball)

If I'm wrong on that list, or something is actually changing, feel free to correct me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[JM Hardy]

@Tsuul: To the best of my knowledge, only a few books had already been released and had payment issues. I believe these to be the 2 SOTA modules, Vice, and Running Wild. Supposedly, all of the writers have since been paid and the selling freeze on them will be removed presently. All of these books will be maintaining their current form. (According to JM Hardy, who seems like he's pretty on the ball)

If I'm wrong on that list, or something is actually changing, feel free to correct me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Seattle 2072 was also on that list (and it's the DotA books--no SOTA books at the moment!). And yes, those books should be moving soon (I know I've said that before, but some checks had a long way to travel, and we have to wait for them to clear, etc.), and nothing had to be rewritten for them.

Jason H.

[Adam]

Now, in terms of not paying Topps (or future inability to pay), yeah, Topps will probably factor that in heavily. Honest book-keeping, yeah, definitely that as well. Not paying freelancers? Doubtful it'll have much impact on the decision making process at Topps. To be honest, it's just too small of an issue. I know that sounds harsh to freelancers, and it isn't meant to be. But you're effectively talking about sub-contractors here, and not a sub-contractor of the "other huge company" variety. License Holder doesn't much care what Licensee is doing with their sub-contractors, so long as they are getting their checks.

Actually -- if Licensee isn't paying the people creating the content, the copyright for that content is not the Licensees to transfer to the Licensor, and that creates a problem, both in terms of the Licensor knowing exactly what it owns, and in terms of a plain-and-simple contract violation between Licensee and Licensor.

Such an issue could create situations much like the "Unseen" in BattleTech, where some books/sections of books cannot be referenced as they aren't actually owned by the Licensor.

Does a generic Licensor specifically care about the freelancers? No, probably not, but they care about their property not becoming encumbered with loopholes and just-plain-holes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tsuul]

Thank you for the quick replies and updates CollateralDynamo and JM Hardy.

[Cheops]

Management companies can be replaced, but a bit of stupid metaplot or bad stupid inconsistent setting material, is with us for a long time.

K.

QFT. Talking about Barsaive at War is about the only way to start an edition war on Earthdawn.com.

[Prime Mover]

Got a notification my Dota Midnight is being prepped for shipping and should be here by 2nd or 3rd. Been waiting long, now for rest of the em! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[crizh]

I don't think I'd like to see that.

K.

Me neither, I merely postulated it as a possibility.

[knasser]

QFT. Talking about Barsaive at War is about the only way to start an edition war on Earthdawn.com.

I was going to use changelings as an example, but I figured there could theoretically be people around that liked their arrival in Shadowrun.

Maybe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

K.

[BlueMax]

I was going to use changelings as an example, but I figured there could theoretically be people around that liked their arrival in Shadowrun.

Maybe. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

K.

Lets not open the gateway for other flamewars. I say this because I was half tempted to list my complaints.

BlueMax
/only half tempted

[knasser]

Lets not open the gateway for other flamewars. I say this because I was half tempted to list my complaints.

BlueMax
/only half tempted

Well I did put in smilies to show humour. Perhaps we're better off sticking with the (hopefully) hypothetical unicorn-mounting Lone Star officer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Cheops]

Well I did put in smilies to show humour. Perhaps we're better off sticking with the (hopefully) hypothetical unicorn-mounting Lone Star officer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I still think that would be wicked if it was the blood drinking, flesh eating Pre-Scourge variant from Earthdawn. Nothing would scare the punks straighter than having a unicorn eat their friend's face off.