Life In 19x19

shapenaji wrote:...we're talking about a service which was self-sufficient, and is now being sold out from under them...

Shapenaji, like others here, I know nothing about the legal details other than what was posted here in this thread.

So, who owns the SGC building? Does anyone know? This question has been asked a few times now in this thread,
and so far I don't see a definitive answer.

Whether or not the SGC is self-sufficient seems immaterial to me -- what's the relevance?

Again, my gut feeling for the SGC's honte reply in this case is "Thank you."
This lawsuit is extremely bad shape to me.

EdLee wrote: Again, my gut feeling for the SGC's honte reply in this case is "Thank you."
This lawsuit is extremely bad shape to me.

So you say you don't know the details, but you've made a decision already. I think you should be patient and do more reading before playing a move.

oren wrote:So you say you don't know the details, but you've made a decision already. I think you should be patient and do more reading before playing a move.

Yes, oren, it is my gut feeling, subject to change with the details.
So, do you know who owns the SGC building? I'd like to read your reply.

EdLee wrote:Shapenaji, like others here, I know nothing about the legal details other than what was posted here in this thread.

So, who owns the SGC building? Does anyone know? This question has been asked a few times now in this thread,
and so far I don't see a definitive answer.

Whether or not the SGC is self-sufficient seems immaterial to me -- what's the relevance?

Again, my gut feeling for the SGC's honte reply in this case is "Thank you."
This lawsuit is extremely bad shape to me.

I also don't know the answer to this, and this may be bad shape. But my gut feeling is that if the SGC had any recourse prior to the legal one, they would probably be using it.

I don't like the idea of a lawsuit here. If the SGC jumped to this conclusion without exhausting an appeals process, then I think it was hasty. But if the SGC closes, then I start wondering "What do we still owe to the Nihon Kiin?"

The reason why we owe them is for their contributions in creating a go scene in this country, if they are willing to take back those contributions, I don't see any reason why "Thanks" are in order.

shapenaji wrote:...if they are willing to take back those contributions...

Could you elaborate?

EdLee wrote: Yes, oren, it is my gut feeling, subject to change with the details.
So, do you know who owns the SGC building? I'd like to read your reply.

No, I know the Nihon Kiin owns the building, but I do not know what the contract details are. The bank owns my house, but I would certainly sue them if they kicked me out to claim ownership. A real estate company owns the building my company leases, and they will get sued if they breach the lease.

Ownership is only a single part of the issue. I know the people responsible, and they are not foolish and doing this without reason. I'm not making up my mind for the SGC management or for the part of Nihon Kiin that wants to sell the building. I will say the one thing is that I really do not believe there is any intent to use any proceeds to bring back New York Go Center.

Regardless of who is in the right legally, I think it is bad karma to sue your benefactors, even if you think they haven't done as much for you as they should have.

If Seattle can't support its own Go Center financially and pay rent on its own building, maybe it doesn't deserve a Go Center.

Suing the Nihon Ki'in strikes me as extremely poor form. Like biting the hand that feeds you. Or attacking your own family.

"He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

oren wrote:No, I know the Nihon Kiin owns the building, but I do not know what the contract details are.

Thank you, oren. Like you, I also don't know the contract details -- which may be relevant.

oren wrote:The bank owns my house, but I would certainly sue them if they kicked me out to claim ownership.
A real estate company owns the building my company leases, and they will get sued if they breach the lease.

Seems to me these two analogies are not good here.
The bank and the real estate company are not offering help to you --
they are trying to make a profit from you (a business transaction).
They did not "let" you stay in the house or the company building "for free" for SIXTEEN+ years.

The following are my feelings (oren, emphasis on "feelings"; I don't know the facts ):

Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin founded the NYGC and SGC --
Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin helped to promote Go all these years.
They asked for nothing in return. They just wanted to promote Go.
It is not a "business transaction". They did it entirely out of good will.
(As mentioned earlier, they did similar to help re-build Go in China in the 1980's.)
They donated/funded the NYGC and SGC (and many other Go centers around the world).
Without Iwamoto Sensei and the Nihon Kiin, there would not have been the NYGC and SGC.

The SGC should be thankful for their help all these years.
This is why their honte reply is "Thank you." This lawsuit is extremely bad form.

Let's see if more details emerge. My gut feelings stand.

SGC WAS self sufficient. NYGC could have been If not for some shady management at one point in its life. ( this is an over simplification, but I can't/don't want to go into details)

In any case japan maybe totally allowed to do what they are doing, I have no understanding of law, so I couldn't say, but perhaps if they were more transparent in their intentions and more open to communication, there wouldn't be talk of lawsuits. Again perhaps I am wrong.

shapenaji wrote:...then I start wondering "What do we still owe to the Nihon Kiin?"

How about the 16+ years (1995-2012) ?
The Nihon Kiin could have rented out the SGC building for all these years and made some profit.
Should the SGC pay something back to the Nihon Kiin in return?

NHK did not buy the centers it was Iwamotos personal money. NHK are taking back a gift they did not give.

Also you don't give a gift expecting something in return. That would be called a trade, not a gift.

wessanenoctupus wrote:NHK did not buy the centers it was Iwamotos personal money. NHK are taking back a gift they did not give.

Except Iwamoto Sensei did not give the ownership of this "gift" to the SGC, did he? He gave it to the Nihon Kiin? Is this correct?

wessanenoctupus wrote:Also you don't give a gift expecting something in return. That would be called a trade, not a gift.

And since when is it good form to "use" this "borrowed gift" (if it's owned by the NHK) for 16+ years and instead of saying "thank you," sue the gifter?

Again NHK is not the gifter, even though they own the building. I am not for suing but desperate times... I am sure if NHK waa more open to a dialogue things would be different.

In any case I have nothing more I can add, I understand your point ED, I share a certain aspect of your feelings, but I know what its like to lose your go club without someone to ask of " why". They say god giveth and taketh, I doubt many people will argue if I say he was a jerk to Job.

Obviously the best solution is if the SGC can find a rich Seattle-based patron like perhaps Bill Gates or Paul Allen to purchase the building and continue to let SGC use it rent free. Probably just wishful thinking though.