EPTKeSPA's official stance regarding negotiations - Page 2
| Forum Index > Community News and Headlines |
|
Jeez
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:10 Jeez wrote: I know a lot of people are following this. But it's getting kind of silly. "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" "Kespa's response." "Blizzard's response to Kespa's response." "Gretech's response" "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" etc. etc. etc. Yea definitely not something that could happen in real life. I mean normally all negotiations succeed immediately. | ||
|
mrdx
Vietnam1555 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:10 Jeez wrote: I know a lot of people are following this. But it's getting kind of silly. "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" "Kespa's response." "Blizzard's response to Kespa's response." "Gretech's response" "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" etc. etc. etc. Yeah when will all these be over???  Also this is probably the most desperately-sounded announcement from KeSPA that I ever read in the last 4 years. They suddenly sounded like the shorter-end-of-the-stick side in this battle (if you remember their first reactions before Blizzard gave the rights to Gretech). Hope that KeSPA is being honest, and thus Blizzard realizes their honesty and shows some sympathy/understanding. | ||
|
aru
183 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:01 OTIX wrote: But then they mention broadcasting fees and board membership fees as if they were not included. I wouldn't read too deeply into the specific wordings of this article, since this is after all an unofficial translation. The other translation says, "While the proleague has accumulated a deficit of 670 million won over the 3 seasons, it is operated by broadcasting license fees and the organization fee." | ||
|
w1kk
Germany17 Posts
I also do not trust blizzard anymore. two childs fighting for the swing on the playground. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:10 Jeez wrote: I know a lot of people are following this. But it's getting kind of silly. "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" "Kespa's response." "Blizzard's response to Kespa's response." "Gretech's response" "Negotiations resumed." "Negotiations failed, Lawsuits!" etc. etc. etc. so true, reminds me of Politics in my country. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
god, with this announcement, i really hope gretech can be less anal about this entire issue. | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
This situation is so blur, just with official stances from both part we have no idea who's the bad guy ! | ||
|
aru
183 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:32 battarro wrote: Didn't Kespa reject the option of being audited as part of the negotiation? I will take anything they claim financially with a grain of salt. One of the supposed terms was to be audited, yes, but you shouldn't really separate them from the rest of the terms. Maybe they were willing to be audited but disagreed with the other terms. | ||
|
Seiniyta
Belgium1815 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:31 Nizaris wrote: so true, reminds me of Politics in my country. Naww, even this doesn't compare to the mess that is Belgium :p Honestly, I just hope they get over with it, so at least the fans/players know what the future will hold. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
One of the supposed terms was to be audited, yes, but you shouldn't really separate them from the rest of the terms. Maybe they were willing to be audited but disagreed with the other terms. I doubt it. When you claim to be poor, but refuse to show your bank accounts, or other financial statements. It does not looks good. They could agreed to the audit, have them audited while negotiating the other terms. If they were as poor as they claim to be, the action of being audited and found to be poor/insolvent, would have given them a lot of leverage in terms of public opinion. But they didn't went that route, and now they claim insolvency. As a blizzard fan, as much as i respect their IP rights, i don't want them to bankrupt an already bankrupt business. I would side with Kespa in an instant if they can show with auditing that the salaries they pay management/sponsors/players and operational amounts are reasonable. But they have kept so much secrecy that I suspect someone is getting filthy rich while treating B players like crap and not paying Blizzard anything. | ||
|
ffreakk
Singapore2155 Posts
No matter what kind of organisation you are, even the Government needs a DAMN good reason to audit ur finances at any time.. So giving another firm the rights to audit your finances anytime is as ridiculous a condition as it gets.. I do not know, but i firmly believe that never before has such a condition been agreed upon outside of parent-child companies. That said, other conditions of Blizz were about as ridiculous too, so there =/ | ||
|
AcOrP
Bulgaria148 Posts
I want to give all those people that are against kespa 1 thing to think about: Let's compare it with the music industry. Group make a song. It is IP and is protected as it is. People buy it like it and so on. If someone else sing this song is it breaking the IP rights ? I don't say publish it release it sell it or something. Just singing it. | ||
|
battarro
United States59 Posts
But if you become successful that you play to sold out arenas every other week, you can guarantee the owner of the Beatles music rights ( Michael Jackson' Family oddly enough ) will come after you asking for money. Post edit On October 28 2010 23:50 ffreakk wrote: It seems that many people are taking condition of Blizz "Rights to audit Kespa" lightly.. No matter what kind of organisation you are, even the Government needs a DAMN good reason to audit ur finances at any time.. So giving another firm the rights to audit your finances anytime is as ridiculous a condition as it gets.. I do not know, but i firmly believe that never before has such a condition been agreed upon outside of parent-child companies. That said, other conditions of Blizz were about as ridiculous too, so there =/ Auditing a company is common in negotiations when companies wanting to become partners in a specif business venture. Specially if there is a lack of trust among the players. Kespa had every right to say no to the audit. But it does not looks good, when they say "No, you can not look at our books", but then come around ans say. "we are broke and we are operating at a loss every year" The phrase, "we reinvest all profits into the operating costs" is what brings a red flag. Like someone already pointed out, salaries are operating costs. Someone could have bought a very nice house under their name, then rent it to the team as a team practice/ storage room and then it would be covered under operating costs. | ||
|
Furycrab
Canada456 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:50 ffreakk wrote: It seems that many people are taking condition of Blizz "Rights to audit Kespa" lightly.. No matter what kind of organisation you are, even the Government needs a DAMN good reason to audit ur finances at any time.. So giving another firm the rights to audit your finances anytime is as ridiculous a condition as it gets.. I do not know, but i firmly believe that never before has such a condition been agreed upon outside of parent-child companies. That said, other conditions of Blizz were about as ridiculous too, so there =/ They want the right to audit, so that when they claim the fees are too high, it's not a huge puff of wind, and some control over the growth to keep the fees appropriate since Esports and starcraft is still very much the wild west. Claiming insolvability though... They are going to pay lawyers over the next couple of months more than the fees per tournament that was suggested. The money if they are willing to fight is there... Just like anything else in this world, no one wants somebody elses hand in their cookie jar. Feel like I need to repeat, personal opinion only. | ||
|
ostarasang
98 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:51 AcOrP wrote: Things will be bad for blizzard/greetech if what KeSPA say is true. IP rights should be paid but they are paid buying the game copy... If KeSPA doesn't make profits or they just reinvest them for the cause, and they prove it in the court this mean that IP right pretender is wrong. Yes blizzard has IP rights over the game, if kespa redistribute the game or something else I will understand Blizz/gre. If they win against KeSPA guess what will be the next big hit ? They will go after streamers casters, they will go after ESL/Zotac/CraftCup and every other mini tournament, that provide replays streams and so on. They wont go after the ESL at least since they r supporting the ESL. About Zotac/CraftCup .. no idea. But i doubt it, since they r advertising their currently hyped game, not a game that blizz wants to vanish from sight so be replaced by their new game. | ||
|
Sanchez_
Australia40 Posts
More like if I designed a new product like a new type of yo yo which allows people to do cool tricks. Then some people started running successful tournaments with my yo yos. At first I think its great since its free advertising for me and heaps more people are buying my yo yos because of it. A few years later I release version 2 of my yo yo and want to start being involved in running leagues with it. The old yo yo tournaments are competition for my new yo yo so I demand money from them since they are making money out of showing my yo yos being used on TV. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On October 28 2010 23:35 Marou wrote: thanks for bringing some light with your translation...as a lot of people i'm surprised KeSPA is claiming that their bizness is broken and they are the good guy throwing out a lot of money from their pocket. This situation is so blur, just with official stances from both part we have no idea who's the bad guy ! If they are not the good guy throwing money from their pocket then where is the money that they are taking in? There's a lot of suspicious people around assuming some kind of KeSPA secret income we are not aware of as if eSports is actually financially profitable in the first place. | ||
| ||
