[turnpike boy]

You've taken my comments totally out of context.

NO - I do NOT agree that CS is automatically entitled to a percentage of the club's revenues - and never did. Further, it was not made clear, to me at least, that SAAC ever paid ANYTHING, license notwithstanding, on what they sold, nor that they had any obligation to do so. If those obligations did in fact exist and have been met thru the years, then NO, CS is not entitled to anything beyond that agreement. My comments were based on the understanding that, if money were the issue, then resolve of this should be fairly straightforward and quick.

You are absolutely assured that I do not think CS is entitled to profit from the efforts to the club - beyond what they already apparently agreed to. Anything else he sees he deserves is exclusively subject to negotiation and/or agreement. I never said I agreed with his perspectives - never. What I said was it was clear how HE saw things, and thereby manifested his beliefs in the form of a lawsuit. Please read what I wrote.

Finally, with regard to SAAC's "clerical skills", on my own review it is apparent that I did not convey what I intended. First of all, my sincere apologies to SAAC and its' officers if my words appear condescending - what was written was intended to convey the attitude and perspective that CS has pretty clearly taken with SAAC, and written in that format as a response to Tony's posting. At no level do I ascribe to the views CS maintains; in my book his contentions and conclusions are vapid, malicious, and essentially without merit. The relativity of Ford, AC, etc. is as stated before - they haven't sued - unfortunately, CS has.

-Roger