| re: Takers? |
|
Posted by:
 |
pidunk 02:19 am UTC 05/10/07 |
| In reply to: |
re: Takers? - tealcyfre 01:01 am UTC 05/10/07 |
|
> If Jim and Meat indicate to their reps they want it to
> happen it will happen. I'm inclined to think they'll do
> so. It isn't complicated. Details are only details –
> they're the province of attorneys, accounts, and managers.
> Those details are consequential, but if the relevant folks
> are told to work a deal they'll work the deal – that's
> what they do.
What deal would they work, that isn't already a standard established in the industry without representatives? What if the deal is that the parties need to agree they can get along? Can attorneys do that? Are those details that can be dealt with outside of the individuals themselves?
Its atypical in the world they live in. It has its problematic constructs. Tom Petty does not have to ring up the lawyers of The Heartbreakers.
|
|
|
|
reply |
|
|
| Previous: |
re: Takers? - tealcyfre 01:01 am UTC 05/10/07 |
| Next: |
re: Takers? - tealcyfre 02:48 am UTC 05/10/07 |
|
| Thread: |
|