And the horse was called Bob? ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Larry:
That’s a good point, and one I tried to address when I wrote that the agreed upon work should be finished up “in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work”.
It is possible, for instance, that the new owners told AG that (from now on) everything that appears in the WA is the sole property of WA, and Antonio would have to reliquish any claims of ownership to the material. If that were the case, and if those terms were different from the terms in place when Antonio originally agreed to do the piece, then all bets are off. He is under no obligation, neither legal nor ethical nor professional, to provide anything to WA.
Or so I would think.
Bruce, I’m trying to not form a negative opinion based on anything that requires speculation on my part. This is a quote from the original WSJ article where Lisa Perrotti-Brown announced the changes at TWA:
Ms. Perrotti-Brown said the company is discussing terms with its correspondents, who include lead critic Antonio Galloni, as well as David Schildknecht, Mark Squires and Neal Martin, whom she and Mr. Parker hope will sign on as employees. If they decline? “There is a plethora of good wine writers out there. It’s a buyer’s market,” she said.
That’s a matter of public record, and not only states outright that they intended to change the terms of Antonio’s employment, but includes a threat directed at him if he doesn’t comply.
It sounds like you agree with my take on this, given you tried to address this issue earlier. However, I just don’t see how one can jump from there, to later calling Antonio “unprofessional” and saying he screwed TWA subscribers. To do so requires a number of specific assumptions about Antonio’s agreements with TWA which we’re not party to, as well as ignoring these public statements by Perrotti-Brown.
- you don’t know “the terms that existed”, but persist in acting like you do
- he offered the work product to WA and it was turned down
- despite the WA refusal, his work product will still be available to WA subscribers at not cost
- you continued accusations, based on zero evidence, are base and irresponsible
You seem to be deriving a perverse pleasure in proclaiming Galloni guilty of, something. You have written several times that you don’t know the facts at hand - why don’t you just leave it at that?
What do facts have to do with opinion? 
No offense to any particular poster. But reading the posts on this thread reinforces my belief that (1) it is very difficult to have a nuanced “conversation” via post/email and (2) one shouldn’t jump to conclusions before all material facts are known. Just my two cents.
Larry:
Your take on this may be true, but it relies on as many suppositions as mine.
You assume that the sale of WA triggered an immediate voiding of previous contractual agreements as prelude to negotiating new terms.
You assume further that the new management demanded total capitulation, and wouldn’t even allow existing employment agreements to expire gracefully.
This could all be true. But if that is what transpired it seems odd that Antonio wouldn’t make note of that in his blog post about the matter. I know… again, a supposition on my part that he would include comments to that effect if they had played out this way.
In this case, apparently nothing.
I’m pretty confident that those terms didn’t include “releasing the info exclusively through a competing website”. That’s the only part that’s germane here.
- he offered the work product to WA and it was turned down
This is news to me. My understand is that he “offered to make the Sonoma reviews available to TWA readers for free, on my [his] new platform, once the article had been written and posted”. But maybe there is more info out there on this matter, and I just haven’t seen it.
- despite the WA refusal, his work product will still be available to WA subscribers at not cost
But not as per usual. Almost undoubtedly not as per the terms originally discussed with WA.
- you continued accusations, based on zero evidence, are base and irresponsible
There is a lot of evidence out there, very little of it conclusive. There is a lot of supposition as well.
I freely admit this.
If facts should come to light that I was in error in calling Galloni’s conduct (horror of horrors) unprofessional then I will be among the first to apologize.
Live with it.
People need to understand the difference between being an employee and being an independent contractor. It’s not a technicality. It’s everything, down to who owns any work produced and who is liable if and when something goes wrong. There are even differences in the notion of professionalism with respect to these situations.
You cannot say Galloni was an employee of TWA. He was not employed by TWA (nor it’s readers). Using the word employ confuses the situation, as if you we’re calling your husband or wife a boyfriend or girlfriend. You’re either one or the other. It’s not a trivial distinction. Using husband or boyfriend, employee or contractor, interchangeably is ignorant.
It is especially important here given that RP deflected claims about his writers’ alleged unprofessionalism a few years ago by claiming they were contractors, not employees, when there were questions about ethics of one writer taking gifts from a significant importer of wines from a region the writer covered. The chickens are coming home to roost now, no?
What we don’t know is the exact nature of the contractural arrangement between Galloni and TWA. I suspect it was either a handshake or, if more formal, something pretty standard. Meaning, Galloni owes th nothing, not even professionally (much less contractually), for unfinished work that he apparently would retain copyright on we’re it finished and published in TWA as originally planned.
One might still feel like Galloni’s post linked here is sour grapes and not professional. Based on what I’ve read from LPB and RP, I think it is perfectly fair for Galloni to post what he did to set the facts straight. LPB has appeared to publicly denigrate him. RP has falsely stated things about the editorial calendar for 2013. And things like Galloni still being listed on the calendar to this day only further show how sloppy things are at TWA.
Based on my reading of things, Galloni has been hung out to dry and I’d have done the same thing as he has in response, I hope in as measured and professional a manner. People are fine to disagree, but this seems pretty easy to call. And things are especially rich given RP’s own distinction between employee and contractor in the past.
I’m sure if Antonio was violating a contract then the WA would make sure he doesn’t publish those notes independently. So unless we see that happen I’m going to assume he’s free to do as he pleases.
I agree with the line of reasoning that Bruce Gutlove has posted in this thread. I posted a few days ago (in the other thread) that I felt his exit strategy/startup strategy was unprofessional regarding the Sonoma coverage. BTW, I believe AG claiming that Sonoma coverage was not planned for TWA’s current issue is utter bullshit. AG is playing some weird word games there. Per his own statement on his own website, he started work on the assignment, then contacted LP-B to say he couldn’t meet the deadline for the February issue. What an odd thing to say, if the article didn’t even exist in TWA’s publishing plans.
I posted the following a short while ago on eBob… it was written in response to a lot of people up in arms over this latest news from Antonio, but it may have some relevance to this discusssion too:
I don’t see why anyone needs to get too irked over this issue. I think the players here in general had good intentions, and in some cases, simply did what they had to do.
I believe Robert Parker wanted to hand over TWA to Antonio Galloni someday. Understandably, Antonio probably expected at some level that that would happen someday as well.
It seems Robert Parker got an offer for TWA that was too good to turn down, even though it meant that TWA would not go to AG. RP did what he had to do.
AG, seeing that he was no longer the TWA heir apparent, must have been disappointed. Add on top of this that he would be asked to give up ownership of his own work to stay at TWA, AG understandably decided to leave. Whether or not he visited the Sonoma wineries on the assumption that he was creating work that would someday appear in TWA, it seems clear from what we know of the record that he has always been working on an arrangement where he owns his own work. Given all that has happened, it seems fair that he gets to keep all of his own work, including this set of Sonoma reviews. Forced to strike out on his own, AG will not have an easy road - he’ll need the benefit of all his work. If he has to take a certain tack to draw people over to his new venture, it still seems like a fair outcome to me. In my view, he has only responded in kind to how he has been treated. Like RP, he has done what he had to do.
I do hope all involved find success; there should be room enough in the wine world for all of them.
That’s probably true. There should be room for all.
I have zero axe to grind and no interest in finding anyone guilty of anything at all. But I did find this line kind of interesting:
“Not surprisingly, when Bob wanted to host a gala charity lunch this past October he turned to my company for our expertise.”
I know Antonio has to build his rep and all, but really? There are many companies that put together events, and charity events, and I think Bob could have found any number of them to help out, for a fee or the publicity. I like Antonio and wish him well but that was kind of Suckling-like.
As far as the Sonoma reviews go, I don’t know. If he went out there on the WA dime, he kind of owes them. If he went out there on his own, I guess it’s different.
But what’s the real point? The monetary value of the Sonoma notes doesn’t seem worth nearly as much as the non-monetary value.
If you’re trying to sort out the legal duties, you might as well try to strain piss from milk. We don’t have enough information about 1) the contract, if any, between the WA and AG; 2) the course of dealing between AG and the WA in the past; and 3) what State’s law applies to the relationship.
But if the facts are as some have speculated, you should not forget he concept of anticipatory breach.
Thanks very much for the excellent summary and clarification Vincent!
I meant to add some innuendo, conjecture and vague gossip here, plus some amateur legal posturing. Then I realized that this was the wine world’s equivalent of TMZ, and stopped myself. Barely.
Yes, I know, I don’t have to read this thread. Thanks in advance for pointing it out. Or, as they say, TIA…
+1