Paying in equity isn't some super sneaky, shitty way of not paying someone, it's a way of saying "hey we're all in this together and if things do well you'll get a portion of the value of the company", which hardly seems like being a cheapskate when the company is valued at $310 million. It's literally how technology start-ups bring talent on. They don't always have liquid cash flow that they can throw around, and even if they did they're generally incentivized to keep it on hand (cash flow issues can sink even thriving businesses). This is how relatively young businesses in relatively unproven markets often work. Paying players in equity so they didn’t have to spend actual money. Just trying to show how it COULD go down from either side, not saying that this is how it went. Usually its a base salary+equity that wont be taxed until its vested, but the issue with it being used in a competitive environment is an extremely obvious one. Now with the business side, RSU's actually are extremely common for start-ups going all the way up to established companies. He was not a hot commodity when they signed him and honestly I dont think they expected to pick him since they were most likely going to keep Contractz. With Sven's case, I would have to imagine he had a low salary and RSU's that were apart of the initial contract and then some gifted the next year. Again, I'm not trying to shift blame onto players, but if they are going into these negotiations representing themselves, the orgs are not going to be their best friend and will try to nickel and dime as best as they can.
I know they are young, but these orgs are trying to become profitable in this industry that, at the moment, is probably fucking impossible to make a profit in and they are going to have to do more reasonable contracts than what outlandish spending we are seeing in articles. Not trying to take a side cause I'm not a fan of contracts with just RSU's and no salary, but these players have to get lawyers.
0 kommentar(er)
