>>>PartyTime: The former SIMers, as a group, are not suing Zulu-tek for anything.
BlueFox: No, but they are suing as a result of the sale to ZULU-Tek, which they allege transferred the SIM "into the hands of a company that proceeded to mismanage the business and misappropriate its assets, all to plaintiffs' and SIM's severe financial detriment."<<<
You're missing it, BlueFox. You see, how could the former SIMers even know such a thing? If you look at the date of the sale and the date of the lawsuit, there wasn't even enough time for the SIMers to even make a determination of this kind, never mind a fullscale judgment.
Isn't it more likely that they're complaining that Zulu wouldn't give them what they wanted, which was a free reign to run the company? And instead of getting what they wanted, they had their dream taken away from them? Hence all the anger and anguish?
Now, one doesn't buy a company and then expect to be told what to do by the employees who work at the place you bought. Moreover, if what you are saying they are alleging is true, then why did this lawsuit not also include Zulu-tek, as well as SHCJ and Ziff-Davis?
Sorry, BlueFox, you're out of bounds on this one.
>>>BlueFox: Today's release would confirm that to some extent if last years revenues were 39MM and this years are estimated at 15-18MM (assuming July to be a typical month).
The truth is, Party, the story you so badly want linked to the today's Softbank story does not shed a very positive light on ZULU. Why would you want it linked again?<<<
First off, the story should have been about Softbank Holding Company and Ziff-Davis, not Zulu. As I recall, the entire second half of the story is devoted toward bashing Zulu and has little to do with the lawsuit. Why weren't they bashing SHCJ and Ziff-Davis? The lawsuit is against them, not Zulu!
On the revenue matter, look, if Zulu did 1.5 to two million in monthly revenues, in what can only be considered a very bad year, logistically speaking, then that adds up to 18-24 million. That's not half bad, is it?
Regarding Wired, I'm pointing an example of selective journalism: Wired has unfairly pinned the SIMer $200 lawsuit onto Zulu when, in reality, this suit is exclusively directed towards Softbank Holding Company and Ziff-Davis.
I don't want "so badly" anything except a level playing field and for criticism to be objective and not bashing and heaping in nature. Is this such a terrible thing to want, BlueFox?
Wired certainly would have mentioned the the $200 Softbank Holding Company/Ziff-Davis lawsuit if writing about Zulu. Why can't it mention it when writing about Softbank Holding, especially since the suit is directed towards it, and not Zulu? |
