Jay C said:
As to Shrink opening up a competing site, if there was a non-compete clause, how long would it have been? It has been two years since he sold the site. I can't imagine any non-compete clause would be longer than two years in this case. It's funny how you quote the "letter of the law" when it comes to honoring past debts of a company but in this matter you believe in the honor of one's word. What about the word of BOS/NASA to pay their players? You can't have it both ways.
The "honorable Brits" either didn't do their due diligence or didn't care since according to you they are now somehow indemnified against past claims. But you admit the player's claim is still against BOS and they are the ones who need to make it against Gary in English court.
How dare you call it an "alleged debt?" You admitted yourself in an earlier thread you weren't around when the incident went down. The facts and the sequence of events are really not disputed.
But now you too are taking the position that a company can sell its assets and strip out its debts, and that that is what has transpired here. I'll ask again, did they buy the "years in business" as well? How come it says they have been offshore for 14 years when they moved from Brooklyn in the summer of '97?
You may be right legally, the "honorable Brits" may have bought this thing clean, but until they square up they have a problem in the court of public opinion. If they want to take it to Gary or British court that's their decision. But in the meantime BOS is a stiff book that didn't pay a player and should be treated as such.
As for you and Millenium, I know in the past you have denied you are part of BOS, and I know you really believed that in your head. I really believe you operated with full autonomy. But at the end of the day whether you believe it or not, you are owned by BOS.
As for Shrink taking you off his original list, I believe he was responding to public pressure more than me. Someone, I think JohnBuzz, said he had a unique oppoortunity to make a fresh start and only take the best books. If he had listenned to me you wouldn't have been up there in the first place. For that matter, either would a couple of others, but that's his decision. It's his site.
I think Shrink made a mistake sending you that email. I personally couldn't disagree more with what he has offered you. But I think he sent it as a way to appease you in response to the raging email you had sent him.
Marty admitted to me personally last week that he "trusted" the Shrink so much that he never asked for a non-compete clause, in fact, he thought that the Shrink was keeping his end of the bargain by his continued participation within the RX forum. He never conceived that he was using it as a platform to propel himself into a new site. Marty, who is a good person, was used....period.
Secondly, I think it is unfair for you to have a personal agenda against BOS. I consider you a true competitor. I spent one year going through all of your legal documents and transcripts. You were sentenced, and fined a mere $5,000. No where did you agree to give up your ownership in WSEX. I assume that's where you'll be heading next May. You're supposed to be a pretty smart guy but you fail to get the point. I know for a fact that GK warranted BOS when he sold, and that warranty was about 6 pages long. New ownership.....yes NEW OWNERSHIP, is NOT responsible for what has happened in the past, albeit they bought the reputation of BOS, whether it is good or bad. They did their due dilligence (it took about a year). This debt never surfaced at that time. Your man simply has to lodge a complaint to the new ownership, and most certainly they WILL try to resolve it. GK stills owns some stock in BOS, although he cashed out most of it a month ago, because the directors didn't want him to have significant share holdings in the company. They do have recourse in the stock that he still owns to apply against any past claims. But as the warranty states it would have to be resolved in front of an arbitrator in a British court of law.
Talk about solvency....the BOS company has legitimate licenses in the UK, Antigua, Dominican Republic, limited licenses in certain countries in both South and Central America, a license in China where they just acquired one of the largest Chinese sports shops in the world, and Mexico, where they have walk up shops as well. The company doesn't have a US citizen on the board of directors, or disguised in the background like alot of these offshore companies have. None of the people in ownership, managerial position etc can be indicted. I consider this to be a little more safe of a place to play than many shops around the world that are owned by US citizens, such as yours. The DOJ is looking daily for US citizens who are running these offshore operations, even from afar, hidden by a foreign corporation.
Thirdly, it doesn't matter what claims GK made about his company in the past, or if it started in Brooklyn, or JIppee....it matters what claims the company makes right now. Just like in the US, these guys can go to prison for making false claims, or fraudulent financial documents, which again now makes the BOS family the safest place to play in the world. Look where all of the Enron and Worldcom guys are now. There's probably only 5 or 6 shops worldwide who can claim to be bigger right now.
Lastly, so you saw the email that I sent to Ken? I guess my email is for public review as well!