Originally Posted by Anonymous
Have any of you considered perhaps there was a breach of contract by the entity not getting paid leading to the current situation??? Hmmmm.


Have you considered reading the complaint and answer? If you had, you would have also seen the consulting agreement which is basically a fancy way for fl$ to pay Jahelka in monthly increments. The agreement, which was for 10 years/$1MM is pretty specific - you pay whether or not Pioneer renders any services.

If there was a breach of contract, that most certainly would have been brought up in fl$'s answer to the complaint. Instead, fl$ claims that both parties were represented by the same law firm and that Winkoff had no idea what he was signing because Winkoff claims he had no idea Pioneer had to be paid no matter what.

All of this was addressed in the September 7th filings, complete with supporting emails and documents, showing that Winkoff was well aware of what he was signing and knew that the law firm was representing fl$, not Jahelka nor Winkoff.

My comments have and always will be based on the documents filed with the court, not supposition.

And for those following at home, this case has the potential to provide great insight into the financial operations of a club/organizer. If you've ever wondered how these clubs make money, this case is not to be missed.