Woozle: /* 18:58 from Nick */ more messages and context

2007-02-19T23:32:23Z

18:58 from Nick: more messages and context

Woozle: category

2007-02-17T21:33:49Z

Woozle at 21:32, 17 February 2007

2007-02-17T21:32:17Z

New page

{{SvsG Email|2002}}
==18:58 from Nick==
{{email header start}}
{{hdrline|BCC}} {{hdremail|[[Tigger]]|tigger|redhouse|com}}
{{hdrline|Message-ID}} {{msgid|3DA0C02E.5020001|redhouse|com}}
{{hdrline|Date|Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:58:54 -0400}}
{{hdrline|From}} {{hdremail|N. Staddon|n|redhouse|com}}
{{hdrline|User-Agent|Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en}}
{{hdrline|To}} {{hdremail||team|vbz|net}}
{{hdrline|Subject|hello, hornets...}}
{{email header stop}}
Well, nothing seems to be happening with the meeting, so I thought I'd try
waving a red cape or two and see what happens...

=== ---- ===
1) RH bank acccount balance is now -$146.75, on its way down further:

-$146.75 current balance
-$ 7.95 unknown
-$ 59.95 dedicated server hosting
-$ 60.00 NSFs (anticipated)
=======
-$274.65

=== ----- ===
2. Adding in only the NSFs (I'm assuming the $7.95 is a RH charge, though I'm
not sure what it would be), the RDA now owes RH:

July 1 Freeze:
: $ 89.88 if NSFs can be averted
: $149.88 if NSFs happen

June 1 Freeze:
: $816.01 if NSFs can be averted
: $876.01 if NSFs happen

I recommend at least $300-$350 to avert any further NSFs until the order
deposits start coming in (expected early this week). $350 would seem highly
appropriate (see #3).

=== ----- ===
3. A Stern Reminder: even if it turns out that RH did actually owe RDA the $350
which started this whole mess, there was no excuse taking it out when we had not
agreed that RH owed it, and _absolutely_ no excuse not putting it back (or at
least apologizing for not being able to put it back and working out a plan to
deal with the resulting mess) when I made it known that I believed the debt went
in the other direction.

This is not, I repeat not, a reasonable way to do business with someone.
Especially not a friend.

=== ----- ===
4. To further reduce the quantity of unknowns in our negotiations, I did some
quick'n'dirty figuring of what RDA's share of profits would be since June 1,
just based on deposits and debits from the RH account.

In order to avoid confusion about the figuring, here is a little background:

To reiterate the standard RH artist agreement (to which the terms I gave the RDA
were identical, with one significant enhancement):

For each order payment deposited:

* 20% of gross sale is retained by RH
* 80% of gross sale goes to client, i.e. in this case RDA
* client provides merchandise
* RH retains shipping charges and provides shipping

...where "gross sale" means the actual amount submitted for deposit -- e.g. if
we sell something for $10 but have to give a 10% discount for slow delivery, the
gross sale is $9. Refunds are treated as negative sales.

The deposits (upon which my q&d figuring is based) are, for credit card sales,
about 3% less than the gross amount. (They would be the actual amount for checks
& MOs.)

RDA was given a special deal wherein RH loaned RDA the money to buy the
merchandise as needed, with the hope that this would help the RDA to pay back
its then-existing Nick/RH loan of approximately $3k (itemization available). So
each wholesale purchase paid for by RH is an additional debt incurred by RDA on
this account (which I'm calling the "sales account"). (I'm not counting these as
part of the "freeze" figures; the "freeze" is just for money borrowed directly
by the RDA -- check card usages, checks written on RDA's behalf, etc. -- less
amounts paid back directly.)

Note: The merchandise still belonged (belongs) to RDA, and RDA was (is) still
responsible for its upkeep -- storage, security, taxes, etc. RH provided space
for storage at no cost (up to the point where we moved the merch to Hull Rd.
after the burglary). There were no specific terms covering the expense of this
storage, and no guarantees of security were made; it was a temporary arrangement.

We also agreed that no cash disbursals from sales could occur (even if RDA's
debt was entirely paid off) until RH had the cash to spare. I'm quite sure I
made a point of mentioning this, but in any case it should be obvious; can't get
water from dry well.

Anyway, what I found was that the RDA's sales account with RH has a net loss of
$206.36 since June 1. This means that RH spent $206.36 more, purchasing
merchandise for the RDA, than the RDA would have gained from its 80% of the
returns from sales.

In other words, even if you figure in sales since June 1, RDA *still* owes RH.
In fact, it owes $206.36 more, if we were to settle up for the merchandise.

(I'm not asking for that. I'm just asking the RDA to find a way to get the RH
bank account out of the trouble they got it into. We'll settle up later.)

I should add that there are probably some months where RDA's sales balance was
positive, and may have even posted some gains against their initial debt to RH;
this balance, if it (still) exists, can start being disbursed when RH has enough
money in its bank account to continue operating in a reasonable manner (as deter
mined by its financial officer(s)) once such disbursals are made. I look forward
to that happening. It certainly can't happen when RH's balance is negative.

Guess that's all for now... and that's the bulk of my agenda for this meeting, too.

For the record, I still don't have Lynne's figurings. I understood they would be
in here on my original ETA, Tuesday, since she couldn't email them to me.

TTY soon,

N.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 17 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{SvsG Email\|2002}}		[[category:2002-10-06]]{{SvsG Email\|2002}}
	==18:58 from Nick==		==18:58 from Nick==
	{{email header start}}		{{email header start}}

2002-10-06 SvsG emails - Revision history

Woozle: /* 18:58 from Nick */ more messages and context

Woozle: category

Woozle at 21:32, 17 February 2007