Galloni backhands Parker

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Nate Simon
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: September 17th 2009, 8:41pm

Galloni backhands Parker

Post #1  Postby Nate Simon » March 5th 2013, 3:54pm

Advertisement

User avatar
Russ Williams
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: January 30th 2009, 10:58am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #2  Postby Russ Williams » March 5th 2013, 4:14pm

Priceless indeed!!! Absolutely love it!!!
"That said, if you prefer the Russian River pinots, you probably have the palate of a yak."
-Bob Wood R.I.P.
User avatar
kylemittskus
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: January 27th 2012, 8:38am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #3  Postby kylemittskus » March 5th 2013, 4:17pm

Points are stupid. The merits of professional reviews can be debated forever. But man, I like AG.
User avatar
Mark Y
SubscriberSubscriber
Go Hawks!
 
Posts: 2843
Joined: May 1st 2009, 11:19am
Location: Woodinville, WA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #4  Postby Mark Y » March 5th 2013, 4:25pm

I'm guessing the WA declined to use the Sonoma review b/c they are worried about supporters crossing over to AG?
Y.e.
User avatar
Chris Blum
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3472
Joined: October 10th 2009, 1:40pm
Location: Home of the Mayo Clinic

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #5  Postby Chris Blum » March 5th 2013, 4:38pm

Out of my deep respect for Bob, our joint readers, and in the spirit of collaboration, on February 15 I offered to make the Sonoma reviews available to TWA readers for free, on my new platform, once the article had been written and posted. TWA declined.


Well played, sir. Well played. [cheers.gif]
"Well, wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit" -- Lucille Bluth
"The Packers f'n suck" -- Todd French
Peter Tryba need a kidney...
User avatar
Russ Williams
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3301
Joined: January 30th 2009, 10:58am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #6  Postby Russ Williams » March 5th 2013, 4:54pm

markye wrote:I'm guessing the WA declined to use the Sonoma review b/c they are worried about supporters crossing over to AG?


Sort of like Squires displaying ******** anytime someone typed Berserkers? Lot of good that did. This pathetic attempt will have the same effect.
"That said, if you prefer the Russian River pinots, you probably have the palate of a yak."
-Bob Wood R.I.P.
User avatar
Chris Seiber
SubscriberSubscriber
Omnivinovore
 
Posts: 3966
Joined: April 28th 2010, 3:22pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #7  Postby Chris Seiber » March 5th 2013, 4:58pm

I'm not a partisan as between AG and RP, so I ask innocently if I understand this correctly: these are reviews some of most of which AG made while employed by TWA, and now he's going to publish them on his new website, and he offered to let RP's customers come view them for free on AG's new website, but RP declined.

I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.

But maybe there are details outside of this story that give it some context (because I don't care too much about taking sides as between critics, I didn't follow the long thread about AG's departure from TWA).
"Appreciating old wine is like making love to a very old lady. It is possible. It can even be enjoyable. But it requires a bit of imagination." - Andre Tchelistcheff
WvanGorp
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: April 19th 2009, 9:37am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #8  Postby WvanGorp » March 5th 2013, 5:06pm

Wow. GO ANTONIO! He's not afraid to speak out. Bravo.
Wilfred van Gorp
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Todd's Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #9  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:11pm

Chris, for sure one detail wrong is that AG was not an employee of TWA (he was an independent contractor.)

Other than that, I agree this is a move to get TWA subscribers to look at his site, which RMP understandably declined. AG's making them available for free to anyone accomplishes this anyway and makes TWA look like they're willing to deny their subscribers something in the name of holding market share, which is where this make RMP/TWA look bad.

I'm neutral on the theory that anybody did anything wrong. It seems like everybody is technically fine ethically but TWA was outmaneuvered again.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #10  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:12pm

Chris Seiber wrote:I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.


Has it been confirmed that AG was paid in any way for this?
I don't know the terms of his agreement with WA, but it wouldn't be unusual for an IC to get paid (and re-imbursed for expenses) after the job is completed.

Not that it would matter much to me... I think Galloni has behaved pretty unprofessionally here, and the mere fact that he hasn't been paid yet wouldn't change my opinion.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
WvanGorp
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: April 19th 2009, 9:37am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #11  Postby WvanGorp » March 5th 2013, 5:16pm

Galloni makes it clear the reviews aren't completed. Given he left TWA last month and the reviews are not yet completed, he could not have been paid for a product since it isn't completed yet.
Wilfred van Gorp
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10875
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #12  Postby Eric LeVine » March 5th 2013, 5:16pm

Only Bob, Antonio, and Lisa really know how things went down. They did. Done.

Regardless, now Antonio is willing to make content freely available that otherwise people would have had to pay WA or AG to see. Of course there is some self-interest on his part, but it is my personal belief that his core motivation is trying to do right by the consumer. I find it hard to criticize him for that. Some folks seem to disagree and only see self interest in his actions. OK, that's your call.
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
Charlie Fu
SubscriberSubscriber
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 15105
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #13  Postby Charlie Fu » March 5th 2013, 5:17pm

Bruce G wrote:
Chris Seiber wrote:I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.


Has it been confirmed that AG was paid in any way for this?
I don't know the terms of his agreement with WA, but it wouldn't be unusual for an IC to get paid (and re-imbursed for expenses) after the job is completed.

Not that it would matter much to me... I think Galloni has behaved pretty unprofessionally here, and the mere fact that he hasn't been paid yet wouldn't change my opinion.

depends.

If it's a typical work for hire, it's the WA's property... anything he was done while being contracted by WA is their property. Otherwise every single independent contractor doing a work of art, would complete 90% of their work, quit and then say they don't owe jack. I would think this falls into it as well, but who knows what their contract says.

User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Todd's Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #14  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:22pm

Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #15  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:24pm

Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
Jane Crabill
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 847
Joined: March 28th 2011, 12:34pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #16  Postby Jane Crabill » March 5th 2013, 5:29pm

I'm most likely going to read the published reviews since Sonoma is one of my favorite wine regions. I'm less likely to subscribe for future articles.
Fayetteville, NC
User avatar
Poppy Davis
Missing Bob
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:51pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #17  Postby Poppy Davis » March 5th 2013, 5:30pm

Seeing how WA has been doing business, I wouldn't be shocked at all if there is no actual written contract and this was all done on a handshake. It's still unbelievable to me that someone would buy this company without assurances in place that something like this couldn't happen.
Poppy Davis, ITB -
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Todd's Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #18  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:30pm

Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.


With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Ian Dorin
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #19  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 5:36pm

Larry P wrote:Chris, for sure one detail wrong is that AG was not an employee of TWA (he was an independent contractor.)

Other than that, I agree this is a move to get TWA subscribers to look at his site, which RMP understandably declined. AG's making them available for free to anyone accomplishes this anyway and makes TWA look like they're willing to deny their subscribers something in the name of holding market share, which is where this make RMP/TWA look bad.

I'm neutral on the theory that anybody did anything wrong. It seems like everybody is technically fine ethically but TWA was outmaneuvered again.


It seems as though outmaneuvering TWA is like playing tackle football with the Venus De Milo.
ITB, Wine Library in NJ.

“I spe
User avatar
Ian Dorin
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #20  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 5:39pm

Larry P wrote:
Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.


With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).


+1 to Larry's comment. This was open arms all the way to subscribers.
ITB, Wine Library in NJ.

“I spe
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #21  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:40pm

Larry P wrote:With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).


I disagree.
WA subscribers have to visit another site, The reviews won't be integrated into searchable database that they have paid for. God only knows how long free access to the reviews will be allowed.
The best thing for a WA subscriber would unquestionably be that Galloni finish up the report and hand it over to WA as per usual.

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).


It may well be that Galloni was treated so poorly that he decided that this was his only option.
Short of him being fired, though, I don't see how that lessens his obligations to his readership.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Todd's Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #22  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:45pm

It's clear that TWA demanded a change AG's employment agreement, that's public record. At that point does his responsibility to TWA (and the subscribers) end? I'd say it ends once his agreement with TWA is terminated, which has passed already.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #23  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:54pm

If he was terminated then he holds no obligations.
If he decided to quit then he is obliged to finish up any work that was promised and pending at the time he tendered his resignation. Unless, of course, WA told him it wasn't necessary to do so.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Todd's Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 4674
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #24  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 6:00pm

This, however, gets into details we don't know. If we have to speculate on unknown scenarios to say AG screwed anybody, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Particularly given the obviously antagonistic original statement by LP-B about writers being "a dime a dozen" and that AG is making the reviews available to everybody.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 28040
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #25  Postby Ken V » March 5th 2013, 6:06pm

Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.

You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.

Note that the WA editorial calendar for 2013 still includes articles by Antonio in every issue:

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/WineA ... lendar.asp

It has not been changed. He left the WA on 2/12 and delivered his one scheduled contribution to the February issue (Central & Southern Italy).
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 28040
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #26  Postby Ken V » March 5th 2013, 6:10pm

Charlie Fu wrote:If it's a typical work for hire, it's the WA's property... anything he was done while being contracted by WA is their property. ....

This is not so in this case. I know that from the beginning Antonio would not join the WA without retaining all of his intellectual property.
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #27  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:15pm

What you say is, I guess, plausible. I don't know that it is likely, though.

Galloni has already stated that this was a resignation, not a termination of employment.
I can't imagine why the WA would turn down an offer from him to finish up his pending projects as per the previous working arrangement.
I guess that he might have suggested that to WA and been told that he'd have to agree to have these unfinished projects covered by the new WA terms. Seems to me that he would have taken the opportunity to mention that in his summary of this incident. All we have there (and according to him) is that he proposed new terms to cover these unfinished matters. He makes no mention of WA doing the same.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
User avatar
Ian Dorin
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #28  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 6:23pm

Bruce G wrote:What you say is, I guess, plausible. I don't know that it is likely, though.

Galloni has already stated that this was a resignation, not a termination of employment.
I can't imagine why the WA would turn down an offer from him to finish up his pending projects as per the previous working arrangement.
I guess that he might have suggested that to WA and been told that he'd have to agree to have these unfinished projects covered by the new WA terms. Seems to me that he would have taken the opportunity to mention that in his summary of this incident. All we have there (and according to him) is that he proposed new terms to cover these unfinished matters. He makes no mention of WA doing the same.


Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair. I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.
ITB, Wine Library in NJ.

“I spe
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #29  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:26pm

Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 10875
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #30  Postby Eric LeVine » March 5th 2013, 6:32pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).

He is tying it up, and he has told you where you will be able to read it for free...
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
Daniel H
 
Posts: 188
Joined: February 3rd 2010, 10:01pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #31  Postby Daniel H » March 5th 2013, 6:39pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).



I don't understand your extreme reaction. Galloni's report will be available free for everyone, including WA subscribers. He isn't depriving them of anything. Are you arguing that he should only let WA subscribers read it? What's the point? The days of getting a great deal on the "best" wines as a subscriber are long gone. Retailers usually update their prices within minutes of a singificant new critic report...
H.e n.n e.s s.y
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #32  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:42pm

Ian Dorin wrote:Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.


Again, I don't see the relevance of this.
If he agreed to take on the project for WA and started it, then he should finish it up. I don't think he needs to continue tasting wines (he mentions having more wines to taste), but a report on what he tasted and learned from producers up through the day he tendered his resignation is in order.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair.


The claim of unprofessionalism is not thrown about lightly.
It's true that we don't know the terms of his contract. But a number of people, including Galloni, have spoken about the matter publically. I use those pronouncements (discounting those that seem to be in dispute) to make the claim.

I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.


I empathize with Galloni over the fact that things didn't work out well for him.
Again, though, I fail to see the relevance with regard to his obligations to the WA subscribership.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.


Not sure what you mean by "fair play". I have no knowledge that his actions are an abrogation of a legally binding contract, and certainly have made no claims to that effect.
From a professional standpoint I think he could have handled things better.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
Bruce G
 
Posts: 562
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #33  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:52pm

Daniel Hennessy wrote:I don't understand your extreme reaction.


And I don't understand why you view my reaction as extreme.

-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I'm in error.
If the two statements above are correct, though, then I think that a sense of professionalism requires that he tie things up in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work.
Bruce Gutlove
Hokkaido, Japan
User avatar
Ian Dorin
 
Posts: 2333
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #34  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 6:53pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ian Dorin wrote:Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.


Again, I don't see the relevance of this.
If he agreed to take on the project for WA and started it, then he should finish it up. I don't think he needs to continue tasting wines (he mentions having more wines to taste), but a report on what he tasted and learned from producers up through the day he tendered his resignation is in order.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair.


The claim of unprofessionalism is not thrown about lightly.
It's true that we don't know the terms of his contract. But a number of people, including Galloni, have spoken about the matter publically. I use those pronouncements (discounting those that seem to be in dispute) to make the claim.

I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.


I empathize with Galloni over the fact that things didn't work out well for him.
Again, though, I fail to see the relevance with regard to his obligations to the WA subscribership.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.


Not sure what you mean by "fair play". I have no knowledge that his actions are an abrogation of a legally binding contract, and certainly have made no claims to that effect.
From a professional standpoint I think he could have handled things better.


Bruce, I'm getting the impression you are steadfast in your opinion b/c you are a guy that will play things out even if they were going your way, and I greatly applaud you for that.
ITB, Wine Library in NJ.

“I spe
User avatar
Jim Brennan
(Online)
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #35  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 6:56pm

Bruce G wrote:Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).


The only obligations he has are those that are contractually specified. Whether he started work or not on the Sonoma report is irrelevant if he had not yet been compensated for that work, and was not otherwise contractually committed to it. And no obligation can even be inferred since it was not on the editorial calendar.
Last edited by Jim Brennan on March 5th 2013, 6:59pm, edited 1 time in total.

Return to Wine Talk