ready for the cherry
I already got the two scoops.
Sticks of Fire is quickly becoming THEE place for news in and about Tampa. Thanks to the helpful readers and contributors here, we were able to scoop both dailies twice within a week.
We first mentioned the Tampa Towers last Friday, and the St. Pete Times picked up on the story Tuesday. TBO read about it in the Times on Tuesday, but got more in the Trib Wednesday. In the process, we outed the developer, who did not want his site publicized. Sorry ‘bout that!
We also got news of Jim Davis’ new campaign website before it was officially launched. Because of our ability to post things immediately, we had the newspapers beat again, but this time by only a day.
But it has been noticed. Even though the Times did not mention “a blog site in Tampa” by name, plenty of googlers found there way here anyway. Tuesday’s traffic was triple that of a typical weekday.
But even better than that is in today’s St. Pete Times. SPTimes reporter Curtis Krueger contacted me Tuesday to talk about scooping the papers, and blogging in Tampa Bay and blogs in general. Go read it, and check out the rerun of the “superhero” photo.
By the way, I’d like to personally welcome all new readers here. You are encouraged to leave your comments, even if just to say hello!
Tags: newspapers, online, SoF - the site, tampa
Loading ...
December 8th, 2005 at 10:23 am
WAY TO GO TOMMY! I saw the love in the St. Pete Times today. Love the pic. Isn’t it great to know that somewhere at the Times there is a Tommy Duncan file photo? I’ll bet they’ll be whipping it out again in no time.
I’m getting some love myself in the City Times section tomorrow.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:28 am
As soon as I saw that story this a.m. in the biz section, I thought, “Oh, Man, Tommy will be all over this on the blog!” .. Yep, sho ’nuff.
But I’m not so sure about “whipping it out.” Yoiks.
chase
December 8th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Wow, cool… Chase Squires is a Sticks reader! a’right!
And for posterity… The source thread that started all these shenanigans — from skyscrapercity.com, is right smack dab here: — bottom of the thread, posted by “Dale” and followed up by yours truly.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Way to go! I’m glad to see you getting some much-deserved attention.
December 8th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Scoops Duncan!
Now you just need a cape and a phonebooth:
http://www.superherosupplies.com/
“fully serviced capery”
; )
t
December 8th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Nice job, bud.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
STICKS ON FIRE!
Huzzah for Tommy at Sticks of Fire for getting some well-deserved St. Pete Times recognition over his publicizing of Amon’s Tampa Towers project, ahead of schedule.
It’s amazing how often people and companies will throw the switch on for …
December 8th, 2005 at 11:15 pm
Tommy congrats and congrats to your staff of helpers too. I am proud to link your blog! Keep up the terrific work!
December 9th, 2005 at 6:02 am
I also love that it is the SAME photo. They have a stock “Tommy Duncan” pic now.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
[...] [...]
December 16th, 2005 at 8:42 am
[...] The main advantage of online media is immediacy. And slow-moving companies are accustomed to taking their sweet time. Those two attributes don’t play well together. My desire for another scoop is getting the best of me… [...]
January 10th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Wanna be developer Amon has trouble in other business areas as well. Read on:
Aviace vs. Eclipse: Court Backs Eclipse (Part I)
By Karen Di Piazza
[11-14-2006] On Nov. 9, M. Christina Armijo, U.S. district judge, denied Swiss-based PA Aviace Ltd. its request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against Albuquerque, N.M.-based Eclipse Aviation Corp. Aviace filed a lawsuit against Eclipse, manufacturer of the Eclipse 500 very light jet, claiming the company breached its contract for new aircraft.
However, Judge Armijo ruled that Eclipse was justified to cancel an aircraft order placed by Aviace for nonpayment. Aviace AG was formed under Swiss law between March 2002 and April 2002; it later changed its name to PA Aviace Ltd. During this time, Aviace has had three CEOs.
Originally Aviace ordered 200 aircraft; the order was reduced to 112. Aviace paid Eclipse an initial deposit of $2,010,000 for 12 500s known as the “Early Aircraft,†priced each at a base price of $837,500. The Swiss company claimed it would use the 12 500s as demo aircraft only, to promote its “jet club†or “jet-taxi†service, later dubbed a fractional-share concept.
The court said it was clear Aviace would have to a pay a “six-month production deposit†of 60 percent of the purchase price six months before the scheduled delivery, plus the remaining 40 percent of the purchase price at the time of delivery. Aviace refused to pay.
Aviace claimed that Eclipse invoiced them in August for $634,305, a production deposit for the first aircraft priced at $1.04 million. Eclipse said its VLJ would cost about $1.5 million and claimed Aviace planned to sell the 500s to others for more than $1.6 million.
The judge confirmed on Aug. 23, 2006, Eclipse did invoice Aviace for $634,305.95. She said Eclipse’s stated rationale for requesting this additional deposit was that Eclipse anticipated delivering the first aircraft to Aviace in January 2007. And under the terms of the parties’ agreement, Aviace was required to bring its deposit up to 60 percent of the “final delivery price for that aircraft,†six months before the scheduled delivery date.
As for Aviace being denied its preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against Eclipse, the court document read: “In its request for a temporary restraining order, Aviace did not ask for limited relief, such as an order requiring the parties to conduct non-binding arbitration as provided in the March 2002 agreement or an order directed at the payment or delivery terms for one particular aircraft. Rather, Aviace requested that the court enforce Aviace’s interpretation of the March 2002 agreement in its entirety with respect to all 112 aircraft and the full term of the three-year delivery schedule.â€
The judge said, as of Sept. 29, 2006, when Aviace filed the action, the company hadn’t paid the additional deposit that was due to Eclipse.
Further, the court document reads: “As of the date this action was filed, Eclipse has not cancelled the March 2002 agreement in its entirety or threatened to withhold Aviace’s entire initial deposit payment; rather, Eclipse only invoked the cancellation provisions with respect to the “six month production deposit†on the first aircraft delivery and indicated it was retaining the initial deposit payment of $167,500 as liquidated damages for the cancellation of the first aircraft.â€
The judge said that Aviace remains current on its deposit payments for the remaining 111 aircraft under the delivery schedule contemplated in the March 2002 agreement. “Eclipse doesn’t have any outstanding or past-due invoices for any additional deposit payments on these 111 aircraft,†the judge said.
The 52-page ruling noted Aviace misinterpreted the terms of a 2002 agreement between the companies. During the parties’ contract negotiations leading up to the signing of the March 2002 agreement, Eclipse flatly rejected Aviace’s proposals to become a distributor or to be able to resell the Eclipse aircraft in Europe. It was noted that Aviace understood from the start it wasn’t allowed to purchase the six-place, twin-turbofan 500s to resell them.
Did Aviace try to sell Eclipse jets outside of its agreement? Exactly who is behind Aviace and its so-called “jet club� Is Aviace more than a piece of paper?
*Read part two of this story in tomorrow’s edition of CharterX headline industry news.
To send a news tip or feedback, email CharterX news editor Karen@CharterX.com.
ProductsResourcesAbout usContact usHome
Keep reading:
Aviace vs. Eclipse: Court Backs Eclipse (Part II)
By Karen Di Piazza
[11-15-2006] In the 52-page ruling by Judge M. Christina Armijo, denying Aviace’s request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against Eclipse, she described Aviace, essentially, a paper corporation with no full-time employees or established customer base. Aviace has no facilities beyond the minimum amount of resources needed to administer the corporation on paper, she said.
Photo by Eclipse AviationAviace, at the time of its formation, began marketing on its website advertising the company as “a Switzerland-based, international private jet club.†The court record noted: Aviace changed its business plan from a “jet-club†concept to a distributorship or resale concept–before receiving notice of Eclipse’s plans for an engine change [from Williams International to Pratt & Whitney Canada].
When Eclipse was served with the compliant during the first week of October 2006, Aviace’s publicly available website had changed dramatically from its 2002 version. It identified itself as “Aviace Aviation,†claiming to be “the leading Eclipse 500 sales firm‖ offering “the most diverse and lowest priced inventory of Eclipse 500 early delivery positions in the industry,†described in the court document.
Aviace’s website listed a purchase price of $1,650,000.00 for an Eclipse 500 aircraft, plus various payment terms, including a deposit of at least 65 percent of the purchase price be made seven months before delivery of the aircraft. The judge noted: most of the information about the Eclipse 500 jet posted on Aviace’s October 2006 website was “copied verbatim from Eclipse’s website.â€
Heinz Peier, Aviace’s current [and third] CEO, along with Felix Amon [CEO of Amon Investments], “currently own or have a right to control the majority of the company’s shares,†described in the court document. Judge Armijo said that Amon only recently [October 2006] initiated the process of acquiring shares in Aviace; he didn’t have any involvement in negotiating the March 2002 agreement with Aviace.
Both Peier and Amon testified Aviace’s [October 2006] website was merely a “draft‖ not meant to be seen by the public. They said the mistake was due to outsourcing the site to developers, whom they described as “computer geeks.†Currently, the website is not available.
The court document said both Peier and Amon are personally involved in the real estate business and in the business of selling general aviation aircraft; however, there’s no evidence that Aviace, as a company, has any prior track record or an established customer base in the area of real estate, aircraft sales, “jet clubs,†“jet taxis,†or similar fractional-ownership businesses. The judge said while Eclipse’s 500 model occupies a relatively unique position in the marketplace for small, lightweight jet aircraft, Aviace hasn’t shown that it has a unique right to resell or distribute the Eclipse 500 in any particular segment of that marketplace.
Eclipse stated that Aviace has been trying to sell its aircraft outside the boundaries of its contract.
A source wishing to remain anonymous provided a copy of a September 2006 contract, allegedly from Aviace, offering to sell an Eclipse 500 for $1,650,000.00. The contract named Wells Fargo Bank Northwest, National Association as owner trustee for the benefit of PA Aviace, Ltd [owner participant]. The contract calls for a deposit amount of $330,000.00 paid to the owner participant’s agent, Aviace, LLC. The contract demands an interim payment of $660,000.00, plus 10 percent of optional equipment, due seven months prior to an estimated mid-2007 delivery date. The contract stipulates payments are to be made via wire transfer, to owner participant’s agent, Aviace, LLC, or escrow agent, or such other account or accounts, as the seller may designate by written notice to the buyer prior to the closing date.
On Nov. 10, contact was made with a person identifying himself as Aviace’s CEO, where an Eclipse 500 was quoted for sale priced at $1.775 million; delivery was estimated in mid-2007.
The judge said that Eclipse, as of the court ruling, hadn’t yet filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses or counterclaims in this action. She said “the issue of whether Aviace breached the contract by, among other things, changing its business plan from a ‘jet club’ concept to a distribution or resale concept,†wasn’t before the court at this juncture.
To send a news tip or feedback, email CharterX news editor Karen@CharterX.com