Example: 4 hours after the US team’s loss to the Czechs in the World Cup, I searched for “Bruce Arena” on Google News.

They only had 1 story on him after that defeat (they did have several hits about him in stories leading up to that game).

So I tried pubsub.

The phrase “Bruce Arena” returned 0 matches — so you’re telling me that of the millions of sources pubsub is monitoring, not 1 had any mention of the US coach, even before the Czech match?

Ok, this is “monitoring the future” — the blogosphere was just getting ready to unload on Arena — so I put that url in my feed reader and waited.

And waited. And waited.

In each of the 5 days after that game, not 1 hit on “Bruce Arena” — are you kidding?

Another smart guy.

JeanHuguesRobert

Another smart guy.

Unfortunately an education on Shareholder Agreements typcially comes at a high price. And that education comes at the expense of a once “trusted” founder or partner.

This … and situations like it are simply sad. Reasonable people can always come to resolutions with positive dialogue. When you are dealing with people who are not reasonable or think they work on a different set of rules than you…UGH. I am with Peter above…you should be initiating things to do what is right - but sometimes you have to walk away and let Karma take care of the bad people .

In these days of ’sweat’ equity and rewarding ‘ideas’ with equity participation, when you own something like 39% or y% of a company there is big responsibilty to be fulfiled that must go beyond personalities. Here it seems some in the management have held the chaps who put up the money to ransom with their shenanigans and misplaced arrogance.

The affairs of the company must be thoroughly investigated in public interest since the matter has been purposelfully made public and whether the management has been unduly rewarding itself with high salaries and bonuses must be found out.

The big loser here is technology and therefore, public good and a situation has been conjured that is detrimental to both.

This story should serve as a unfolding reminder to all those who are in shareholder agreements.

The thing that i find weird is that these things usually happen when the walls are crumbling not when thier is rumour of buyouts and growth potential.

There are three sides to this story Bob’s, Salim’s and the truth which will fall somewhere inbetween.

I hope things can pull back togehter …for my own greedy use of the product ..

cheers

scott

Its both. If theres one thing they worked together on, it’s destroying pubsub. Both of them are idiots in my book.

some of the comments on this post and bob’s own reveal the extent of spite between ismail and wyman. interesting to see how much of this debt has piled up since the time ismail left the company & will indicate the truth.

difficult to believe that a few shareholders will lose their minds and raze their own investment to the ground. so they went berserk purely on a whim or it had something to do with the merger terms is not clear nor will be. and wyman owns 39% of pubsub and makes an accusatory public post that doesn’t really sound desperate nor emotional nor does he appear inclined to get the rebel shareholders on his side.. will be interesting to find out if ismail sold out his shares when left or is he still a shareholder? if he still has an equity how does he gain blocking this merger on a whim/anger. is he a rich guy who doesnt care about a few million.

if these guys concentrate their energies on rapproachment there something interesting might still happen to pubsub yet. right now they seem eager to let it all go to waste.