[blueliner]

Tommy,
You make some interesting points. Let's take a look at them:

Originally Posted by tommybr

...this problem was brought about by poor management in Tarboro. There are those who believe it was also dishonesty. I believe it is possibly a "blend"...... I don't know.

I'll probably catch heat for responding ... but, oh well ... 12 articles later ... it's a bit late for impunity? The late Fred Shero talked of contribution vs commitment with the classic "chicken vs pig" breakfast example.

"It's like eggs and ham. Sure, the chicken makes contribution, but the pig ... now he makes a commitment."

Consider me a flat-snout ... and it is to the ground, grinding for clues.

More importantly, a fact is: the public needed to know the truth -- and still does. Some would say that's Zionistic, others like English scientist Thomas Huxley would see it as "... in the long run, it [the truth] is only common sense clarified."

Therefore, allow me to clarify a few things...
The truth is that a multitude of actions created the presently existing dynamic ... and that there's plenty of blame to go around.

a) Poor management decisions by FNA management in Tarboro.
b) Absence of *ethical* business actions FNA management in Tarboro.
c) Sloppy/lackadaisical 'fiscal health evaluations' of FNA by suppliers and creditors.
d) Bumbling decisions by the aforementioned parties to extend credit lines to a company that according to court documents had continued to be an irresponsible creditor.
e) A conspiracy[1] patchwork with FNA leaders to frantically create legal leverage and find a more favorable debtor.
f) Absence of *ethical* business actions by some TMs participation in scam(s).

I'm sure there's more... but that's a good start.

For item E, please review the footnote.

[1] CONSPIRACY; defn.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

An applicable definition? Ya betcha!

Originally Posted by tommybr

... it was not a problem with the product. These were and still are good tractors.

Never disputed.
Matter of fact, many of the dealers mourned losing the chance to offer comprehensive FNA sales and support due to the company's lack of solvency. Many truly like the product.

Originally Posted by tommybr

All of the dealers know good and well what we were promised. We had no reason to believe anything was wrong in Tarboro. We had no access to knowledge of Farmtrac's financial condition. But we all know who did and kept lending them money anyway. No names mentioned, of course ... there are many creditors of Farmtrac. Draw your own conclusions.

Unfortunately, it takes integrity by both (or more) parties to hold up word-of-mouth agreements. When new parties and less scrupulous persons enter the picture, those arrangements quickly dissolve.

But there must be enough to keep the oversized legal vultures from swooping down, or they'd otherwise have already picked apart the retailers' remains? Or is the corporate machine flexing its bullying muscles, slowly and systematically plowing them under? With the meek and weak to quickly surrender or perish?

It may be just another biz account to some corp suits, but it is a livelihood and "my good name" to dealers, and a support center for customers. For many reasons, its easy to root for dealer success.

Originally Posted by tommybr

My hope is that justice will prevail.

That would be an ideal case scenario.

Justice in its purest sense is very different than the type only aristocrats can afford.

The statue of the blindfolded person holding the scales of justice may have been more accurately depicted if it had included wads of bundled bills bulging from its pockets.

--b