PDA

View Full Version : Structure




Minuteman
12-21-2007, 02:29 AM
Go ahead and toss out some ideas on a company structure.

FOr me at this time its hard to define the structure because I'm not sure what people want. I'm an accountant so I have the financial structure knowledge and can probably answer any questions about the benefits of LLC's. S-Corps, C-Corps, etc. But until we define what direction we want to go, company structure is kinda up in the air.

Pedro TT
12-21-2007, 03:26 AM
I'll chime in a little later with some ideas I have.

literatim
12-21-2007, 04:11 AM
We could do non-profit?

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-21-2007, 06:18 AM
nt

hawkeyenick
12-21-2007, 10:19 AM
Being a programmer I have few opinions on the actual entity because I am an inexperienced investor.

With regards to ownership I think only financial contributors should have an ownership stake. There are going to be a lot of volunteers necessary just to get this off the ground.

I think people like myself who can only volunteer time should not have an ownership stake.

I think what would be more appropriate is that once the project requires full time staff positions if a volunteer is hired by the board of financial risktakers they should be given a stock bonus at time of hire.

I think that bonus formula can be predetermined and that it does not have to be on par with financial risk takers.

I would not want to see control of the project monopolized by someone just because they are financially well off. That is counter productive to raising capital but I don't think this project will be successfull if one person has a decision controlling majority.

Using actual stock is a bad idea, stock owners have too much influence and it's too easy to be taken over by a larger entity. There should be a progressive voting system, but no actual ownership (or limited to an extent) to prevent the kind of things we don't want. There still has to be an incentive to invest in the company as well though. This would have to be a new system, something never done before.

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-21-2007, 02:33 PM
nt

atilla
12-21-2007, 02:48 PM
Using actual stock is a bad idea, stock owners have too much influence and it's too easy to be taken over by a larger entity. There should be a progressive voting system, but no actual ownership (or limited to an extent) to prevent the kind of things we don't want. There still has to be an incentive to invest in the company as well though. This would have to be a new system, something never done before.

if you don't trust free markets, i'm not sure what type of programing you intend to offer. a freedom/liberty TV network should be a profit making venture. it should have owners. that does not preclude taking voluntary donations from viewers, if the viewers would like commercial free TV and are willing to provide that free to air to moochers. the other choice would be an encrypted subscription based format. but, commercial sponsorship seems most practical. there are many commercial sponsors which find limited opportunity on regular TV networks, guns, porn, gun porn, phone sex, high times and cannabis culture magazines, non-gambling gambling promotion websites.

honestly, if you don't trust free markets (stock, private ownership), there is some very good programing on link tv and freespeech tv. (available on satellite) they have a leftest leaning but some interesting coverage of unconstitutional action by the government, reports by greg palast of the BBC on voting fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections (and the 2006 mexican elections), unfiltered news of countries george w labeled the axis of evil, multinational corporations colluding with third world governments to rip off their own people.

you should check out link tv and freespeech tv, they are non-profit (and there is no such thing as profit without owners.

hawkeyenick
12-21-2007, 05:00 PM
if you don't trust free markets, i'm not sure what type of programing you intend to offer. a freedom/liberty TV network should be a profit making venture. it should have owners. that does not preclude taking voluntary donations from viewers, if the viewers would like commercial free TV and are willing to provide that free to air to moochers. the other choice would be an encrypted subscription based format. but, commercial sponsorship seems most practical. there are many commercial sponsors which find limited opportunity on regular TV networks, guns, porn, gun porn, phone sex, high times and cannabis culture magazines, non-gambling gambling promotion websites.

honestly, if you don't trust free markets (stock, private ownership), there is some very good programing on link tv and freespeech tv. (available on satellite) they have a leftest leaning but some interesting coverage of unconstitutional action by the government, reports by greg palast of the BBC on voting fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections (and the 2006 mexican elections), unfiltered news of countries george w labeled the axis of evil, multinational corporations colluding with third world governments to rip off their own people.

you should check out link tv and freespeech tv, they are non-profit (and there is no such thing as profit without owners.

Free markets are fine, but what you aren't getting is that free markets don't take into account hostile take overs by people with ideas that conflict with ours.

Stop thinking 2d and think 3d. A malicious investor could easily take over and sell the place to fox or have it spread their own propaganda.

Unless you had founders with veto power of some sort on ownership, disaster is ahead.

A new kind of incentive for ownership will be needed.

Pedro TT
12-21-2007, 06:16 PM
I disagree with a non-profit status. This news network should embody the principles it was founded upon which is free choice and economic liberty. The viewers could be polled for feedback.

Remember this is going against the OLD media. This network will be a revolution from that in which we empower the individial viewers by letting THEM decide what they want to view. I'm still stuck at work but I will chime in later tonight with my full (and lengthy) write-up.

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-21-2007, 06:42 PM
nt

Pedro TT
12-21-2007, 09:15 PM
Is it even possible or feasable to sepearate content control from the rewards and risks of investment?

It happens all the time. Venture capitalists do it all the time.

tbarnett17
12-21-2007, 10:44 PM
If this is going to be like a REAL tv/news channel or station... then you need the following:

-Producer(s): Orginization, planning, producing.
-Legal/Accounts: People needed to make sure everything is legal and capable of being done with money/finances.
-Marketing: Person or peoples in charge of "getting it out there" and "getting some back"
-Staff (fron): This is reporters, news gatherers... anyone that is SEEN on video.
-Staff (back): This is editors, video operations, tech./maint., etc.... anyone NOT seen on video.
-Public Relations (PR): Deals with "other media" and or the public.
-Information Tech. (IT): Controls all internet pressence of media and all other "technical" aspects of productions soley involved with computers, servers/storage, internet, etc.


This is just basic stuff but it's important for laying the ground work! I hope you all are ready for WORK! -Tyler

Minuteman
12-21-2007, 10:51 PM
Of course im ready for work, or I wouldnt be discussing it. I would really like to see what everyone can bring to the table in terms of experience and fields of expertise.

Like I said, im an accountant so can help on that end.
-Setting up the books
-Financial Reporting
-Tax Recording and Compliance
-Analyse
-etc.

tbarnett17
12-21-2007, 10:56 PM
I'm a video editor and can:

-Compile and edit video/audio
-Create news segments, intros/outros, commercials, etc.
-Make sure video complies with any and all laws
-'Backlog' all video
-etc.


I am willing to help in ANY way I can! Let's get this going. -Tyler

AceNZ
12-22-2007, 12:05 AM
I think it should be an LLC.

A C-Corp would require issuing stock, which I think unnecessarily complicates things.

A non-profit is forbidden from supporting specific political candidates.

An LLC provides limited liability for the limited partners, while still providing a form of ownership.

We will also need a strong set of by-laws to help maintain the company's course -- things like never agreeing to be bought-out by a company that doesn't share our pro-liberty views, positions on how and when profits should be distributed, etc.

Minuteman
12-22-2007, 12:52 AM
I agree on an initial LLC for start up. If its successful and requires expansion into a C-Corp you can keep it privately maintained. Hopefully we will generate our revenue through advertisements and investing, we shouldnt have to issue common/prefered stock. The only reason I could see in issueing bonds would be for a quick capital bump for future developments that may arise.

Of course with an LLC we will need to develop operating procedures, bylaws, and profit distribution for starters. While I also see us having paid staff, I also see us buying articles from independent righters for web blog purposes.

AceNZ
12-22-2007, 01:03 AM
I agree on an initial LLC for start up. If its successful and requires expansion into a C-Corp you can keep it privately maintained. Hopefully we will generate our revenue through advertisements and investing, we shouldnt have to issue common/prefered stock. The only reason I could see in issueing bonds would be for a quick capital bump for future developments that may arise.

Of course with an LLC we will need to develop operating procedures, bylaws, and profit distribution for starters. While I also see us having paid staff, I also see us buying articles from independent righters for web blog purposes.


Yep, agreed.

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-22-2007, 09:58 AM
nt

Minuteman
12-22-2007, 10:49 AM
Yeah, Ill try to get a writeup done today sometimes. My wife is working today so i have the kids all to myself so I dont really have time right now to sit down and write an hours worth of stuff atm

literatim
12-22-2007, 10:54 AM
Outright supporting a specific candidate is just foolish. The idea is to get viewers and that can only happen if they believe they are getting a fair report. Thew media doesn't influence people by endorsing Giuliani.

AceNZ
12-22-2007, 10:08 PM
Outright supporting a specific candidate is just foolish. The idea is to get viewers and that can only happen if they believe they are getting a fair report. Thew media doesn't influence people by endorsing Giuliani.

There are two issues here. One is whether we should be an LLC or a non-profit. The other is whether we should endorse specific candidates or not. If we endorse candidates, we can't be a non-profit, but if we don't, either form would work.

Yes, I agree that the media doesn't influence people by endorsing candidates. What I was thinking is not so much coming out and announcing endorsements, but rather a more subtle approach, including perhaps financial contributions. I'm not convinced that we won't get viewers or that people won't think they're getting a fair report just because we make endorsements. MSM does it all the time. Newspapers are especially well-known for their endorsements, which have been going on forever.

On the issue of being a non-profit, my concern is that even if we don't make an explicit endorsement, the fact that we are planning (I hope) to be in the middle of political discussions could be viewed as a form of political endorsement whether we like it or not -- resulting in battles to retain our tax exempt status.

I know a couple of people have suggested trying to be an "unbiased" news source. Frankly, I think that's both impossible and undesirable. ALL news stories have a slant -- even the choice of which stories to air shows a bias! I would suggest a goal something along the lines of being an honest, objective news source. But we should admit to ourselves and our investors that a secondary goal is to promote political change in the direction of "traditional" conservatism, along the lines of what Ron Paul supports.

Live_Free_Or_Die
12-22-2007, 10:13 PM
nt

AceNZ
12-22-2007, 10:34 PM
There are many different forms of endorsement:

-- Make an announcement "we want you to vote for zzzz" (I agree we shouldn't need to do that)
-- Make donations to a relevant PACs or campaigns
-- Spend more time covering relevant candidates; more interviews, campaign news, etc.
-- Spend more time covering issues relevant to particular candidates (for example, talking about how it would be good to end the Federal Reserve is really endorsing Ron Paul, since he's the only candidate proposing that)
-- Frame issues in ways that are favorable to our preferred candidate's positions (for example, talk about abortion as a crime of violence, rather than as "women's reproductive rights")
-- Use on-air staff, co-hosts, etc, who are sympathetic to traditional conservative values (for example, we wouldn't hire Bill O'Reilly)

Along the lines of what Live_Free says, there may often only be one candidate running in a particular area who shares these views. If that's the case, it's likely that the IRS could argue that we're "supporting" that candidate, even if we never did so explicitly. Do we really want to give the IRS that kind of leverage over us?

Minuteman
12-22-2007, 10:43 PM
I think being a non-profit is pretty much out. I understand there was alot of discord around the blimp project for becoming an LLC instead of a PAC, but the two interprises have nothing in relation.

Being a news source, there is just to much news with a political slant. Being a non-profit, like others have said, would not allow us to support a candidate of any type. While we may not directly come out and "officially" support someone, we do have to report the news. I dont see a reason to hamstring ourselves right out of the gates.