UFO Seekers Looks at Tom DeLonge’s New Company • Page 2

fackin tom. You made so much money from blink. why?

 

This really was an incredibly dumb comment.

 

Whatever you say. I’ve invested in multiple early rounds for a variety of companies. Never have the founders done this. Ever. His company is also not going public. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

 

What are you even saying? No founder has ever taken a salary? This article explains it well from the perspective of venture capitalists.

This Is How Much Startup Founders Pay Themselves (And It's Less Than You Think)

Also, wow. I'm not sure if you even realize how smarmy and condescending you come off online. I guess I'd be similar if I spent 8 hours a day in forums for twenty years.

 

I'm not literally comparing the two people and what they've done. It's an analogy. I'm basically saying that we've learned more information about both people that has tarnished their legacy.

We don't like Tom because he almost single-handedly destroyed blink-182 multiple times (Tom. Is. Out.). He didn't give two shits about that band or the fans until he got kicked out, and if it weren't for Mark and Travis taking the reins and kicking him out, we would still be sitting here with no new music, no touring, etc. for an indefinite amount of time. Remember the Angels and Airwaves paid fan club and how well that worked out for fans? One of the guys who left the band actually apologized to the fans about how badly that turned out.

Tom doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself, so we shouldn't honor him or relish in the "glory days"?

 

That’s not what I said. Read it again.

 

All you said was "Never have the founders done this. Ever."

I still have no idea what you're talking about. You seemed to take issue with the CEO/Founder drawing a salary so I assumed that's what you were referring to.

 

That's definitely not all I said. I see no reason to continue a conversation where you can't follow the basics from the start. It's a waste of my time to say the same things over and over again and argue against things I never said.

 

Wow, more condescension, big surprise there.

You typed like 50 words before my initial post so I'm not sure what masterful argument you're referring to. You commented vaguely on the dilution of the shares on offer and how we was drawing a salary. What am I missing?

Probably easier to continue to be vague and evasive though.

 

I've already written it out a bunch of times already, so have other people. I've linked to lots of them. Feel free to read those posts. Feel free to learn what the terms mean if you don't understand.

I haven't been vague at all, I'm just not going to keep repeating myself or re-explaining something because you don't get it and don't wanna use Google.

 

This is obviously going no where. None of these posts you're referring to are in this thread and from what I've seen you've "explained" exactly nothing. So in future rather than assuming every user spends as much time in the forums as you do and dismissively insulting them, it might just be easier to send a link.

 

I didn't assume anything beside that you could use a search box on this website, or Google, if you wanted more information. I've already explained multiple times the issues I have with the "company" and you argued a point I didn't make here the first time I brought something up, so, given that, I am very dismissive of any chance that I'm going to enjoy a prolonged conversation with you. So, do your own research at this point. I linked this video because it's an easy way to break down some of the really shitty parts in this offering. Because, bottom line: this company is a horrific "investment."

 

Lol. This is legitimately not an investment. No one buying shares in this company has any chance of gaining wealth as a result of their share ownership. In the miraculous event that this company does generate wealth, the initial investor’s shares will be immediately diluted to the point of being worthless.

There is a reason that Tom brought this to his fan base and not to the VC world. They wouldn’t touch something this predatory. And that is saying something.

This is, in the purest sense, a scam designed to let Tom live out a fantasy. And, in the unlikely event that something comes from this, he has ensured that the wealth will be concentrated amongst himself and perhaps a few others.

People are obviously volunteering their money. Tom hasn’t put a gun to their heads or anything. But this behavior is disgusting. And sadly, is the culmination of several years worth of bilking fans to fund his flights of fancy.

 

You're completely missing the point and I'm done arguing. Please continue vaguely referencing other posts you've made that are presumably more intelligent.

 

Imagine defending Tom and his shitty scam this feverishly

Like, maybe take a second and do the actual research and then you'll realize why you're looking like an idiot.

 

Hell, the video itself, linked in this very news post, explains the stock valuation (Tom's 60m at less than a cent vs selling it for $5 to "investors"). It's clear someone just wants to argue and not do any research into what it is they're arguing about.

(Just reading the offering circular is enough for anyone to immediately see the giant red flags. It's really bad.)

 

Who's defending Tom or this shitty investment? I read the circular and it's nonsense. A child could understand the share dilution and loss recycling going on here. Literally all I said is that everyone seems to be harping on the fact that he's drawing a salary when that's common practice. Love all the armchair bankers in here though.

 

"armchair bankers"

otherwise known as "common sense"

honestly fuck off with this. He's "drawing a salary" from a company that is pretty much just stealing money from "investors". Like he needs a fucking 100k salary for that.

 

He's not drawing a salary, he's being paid a guaranteed license fee for his name and image and being paid back for a loan regardless of the financial viability of the company itself, from this crowdfunding. That's not common practice. Did you really read it if you don't get the basics right? That's why I'm condescending and dismissive.

 

You're right. I'm sure this is all a ploy for Tom to make $100K a year on his $80 million net worth. It has nothing to do with the optics of showing demonstrating to institutions down the line that the company can generate income while paying fair salaries (royalties, whatever) to its employees or setting a baseline for executive compensation.

People in this thread should stick to giving first impressions on the new 1975 album.

 

At the crux of this, it shouldn't be considered an investment, it's a donation, and it's outrageous to suggest any "investor" has a hope in hell of ever seeing a dollar of profit from it. That Tom has set it up so as to ensure he draws even a cent of guaranteed revenue from a venture that's never to produce money for its investors is simply a scam.

You can say that they should all know better, but it doesn't change that Tom knows that he's taking advantage of people in even offering the opportunity for people to hand over their money to him. It's so obvious why he went for crowdfunding rather than legitimate (traditional) investor sources, because he knew that's the crowd he can milk for money and not be held properly accountable.

 

“We were really skeptical about investing in your company due to the share dilution and your sizable interest in telepathy as a revenue generator. But I’ve noticed your CEO is guaranteed an income stream regardless of the company’s financial health. So, I’m intrigued.”

 

This company is a long way from generating income, and I think the rest of the document does more to harm the optics than whether he's guaranteed himself the 100k fee.

 

You're right, you're so much wiser than all of us, how can we be as smart as you??

This company is not doing any of what you're saying, but okay, keep pretending this is an ethical practice.