Comments on: Diamond Throws IN with the Save SAGGers (fixed) http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/ Observing the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:49:15 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Steve Diamond http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20328 Steve Diamond Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:13:52 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20328 Vallywood replies to its critics at http://02ce1ab.netsolhost.com/KingHarvest/?p=1674 Vallywood replies to its critics at http://02ce1ab.netsolhost.com/KingHarvest/?p=1674

]]> By: geo http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20317 geo Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:50:25 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20317 If I do the math of one year from now and compare it to certain other agreements. . . no way. If SAG extends DW 18 months from now, I am incredibly happy for SAG and DW gets what he manifestly deserves. But no breath-holding here for that timeline. If I do the math of one year from now and compare it to certain other agreements. . . no way. If SAG extends DW 18 months from now, I am incredibly happy for SAG and DW gets what he manifestly deserves. But no breath-holding here for that timeline.

]]> By: marisa redanty http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20316 marisa redanty Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:50:16 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20316 Thanks vested. All this speculation about a 2 year contract meaning something dark is just a bunch of smoke created by fire throwers. The Board can extend it anytime they want. They want to have him negotiate the next deal and he's already worked a year already. Steve Diamond has it wrong. The early negotiations are not going to hurt SAG but rather help us. I don't see his point at all. Thanks vested. All this speculation about a 2 year contract meaning something dark is just a bunch of smoke created by fire throwers. The Board can extend it anytime they want. They want to have him negotiate the next deal and he’s already worked a year already.

Steve Diamond has it wrong. The early negotiations are not going to hurt SAG but rather help us. I don’t see his point at all.

]]> By: vested http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20312 vested Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:33:33 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20312 Marisa - No, there is nothing preventing the national directors from doing this. It could be the two year deal was the maker's way of softening the "blow" of not having a search committee ... a process which in itself would have taken at least a year. V. Marisa –
No, there is nothing preventing the national directors from doing this.
It could be the two year deal was the maker’s way of softening the “blow” of not having a search committee … a process which in itself would have taken at least a year.

V.

]]> By: marisa redanty http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20269 marisa redanty Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:13:30 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20269 Steve, What's going on with you? Your recent writings are surprisingly uncharacteristic. Whad up? Steve,

What’s going on with you? Your recent writings are surprisingly uncharacteristic. Whad up?

]]> By: marisa redanty http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20268 marisa redanty Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:12:13 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20268 Is there anything preventing the National Board from revisiting White's contract in say a year or so to extend it to a full 3 years? Is there anything preventing the National Board from revisiting White’s contract in say a year or so to extend it to a full 3 years?

]]> By: Dave Bachman http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20250 Dave Bachman Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:47:01 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20250 The thing that's remarkable, considering the member's choices when it comes to elected offices around the country so recently is David White having any other position than right now doing his job at the Screen Actors Guild only. Big "O" with the "only" there. As a union we have indeed shrouded ourselves so much in controversy it's become a mis-appliance to our real strategy for the next two years that somehow anybody, at all, who serves as a director is wondering about some battle among titans for who will control the kingdom. Uhm...what? The work of both unions in the face of the FINAL frontier, digital, preempts spurious and just...vacuous commentary about, ya know "ok who would win-Ditka with just the '86 D, or Ditka without the Fridge AND Singletary, but he has Willie Gault." What? Who cares? Who gives a darn? It's so useless right now to place that thing at point when it comes to getting our business in synch. Talk about it three years from now, considering it's for entertainment purposes only. The thing that’s remarkable, considering the member’s choices when it comes to elected offices around the country so recently is David White having any other position than right now doing his job at the Screen Actors Guild only. Big “O” with the “only” there.
As a union we have indeed shrouded ourselves so much in controversy it’s become a mis-appliance to our real strategy for the next two years that somehow anybody, at all, who serves as a director is wondering about some battle among titans for who will control the kingdom.

Uhm…what?

The work of both unions in the face of the FINAL frontier, digital, preempts spurious and just…vacuous commentary about, ya know “ok who would win-Ditka with just the ‘86 D,
or Ditka without the Fridge AND Singletary, but he has Willie Gault.” What?

Who cares? Who gives a darn?

It’s so useless right now to place that thing at point when it comes to getting our business in synch. Talk about it three years from now, considering it’s for entertainment purposes only.

]]> By: geo http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20233 geo Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:28:51 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20233 Ack, horrible typo --I meant to write "(and probably believe)" and left the "believe" out. Ack, horrible typo –I meant to write “(and probably believe)” and left the “believe” out.

]]> By: geo http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20232 geo Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:27:42 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20232 It also occurs to me to wonder if the 2 year term was the price of a few M1st votes, and the thinking may have been less about making White himself an issue next time so much as avoiding an issue they sincerely hope (and probably) they would otherwise have --it's never popular with the membership to fire senior staff that have a contract that must be eaten. A hypothetical M1st president/board would be spared that controversy next time around --that condition might have brought a few votes on board, with even tacit approval from M1st leadership. It also occurs to me to wonder if the 2 year term was the price of a few M1st votes, and the thinking may have been less about making White himself an issue next time so much as avoiding an issue they sincerely hope (and probably) they would otherwise have –it’s never popular with the membership to fire senior staff that have a contract that must be eaten. A hypothetical M1st president/board would be spared that controversy next time around –that condition might have brought a few votes on board, with even tacit approval from M1st leadership.

]]> By: geo http://www.sagwatch.net/2009/10/diamond-throws-down-with-the-save-saggers/comment-page-1/#comment-20229 geo Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:13:26 +0000 http://www.sagwatch.net/?p=3104#comment-20229 SAG being "gone in two years" is perhaps an unfortunate choice of phrase by Mr. Diamond, but mostly so because it so easily lends itself to being quoted sensationalistically out of context as is done in this news post. I punched thru to Diamond's article thinking I might have to toss him over the fence to Arlin Miller-land, and found that what he actually said/meant wasn't nearly what one would have thought on that point from the article here. If you're going to have a merged SAG/AFTRA, then you don't need two NEDs, and keeping your powder dry on which way to go on the "long-term NED" of the continuing merged organization (by whatever name it is known) seems a pretty rational piece of speculation by Diamond to me. I myself thought two years seemed a little short as such things go for a contract, but perhaps there are other reasons for that than the one Diamond offers. But any rate, his speculation on that point isn't the tin-hattery I was expecting to find from the piece here. SAG being “gone in two years” is perhaps an unfortunate choice of phrase by Mr. Diamond, but mostly so because it so easily lends itself to being quoted sensationalistically out of context as is done in this news post. I punched thru to Diamond’s article thinking I might have to toss him over the fence to Arlin Miller-land, and found that what he actually said/meant wasn’t nearly what one would have thought on that point from the article here.

If you’re going to have a merged SAG/AFTRA, then you don’t need two NEDs, and keeping your powder dry on which way to go on the “long-term NED” of the continuing merged organization (by whatever name it is known) seems a pretty rational piece of speculation by Diamond to me. I myself thought two years seemed a little short as such things go for a contract, but perhaps there are other reasons for that than the one Diamond offers. But any rate, his speculation on that point isn’t the tin-hattery I was expecting to find from the piece here.

]]>