[BCrago66]

These idiots were running into financial trouble, yet they forgot they were sitting on a valuable asset: a long-term lease in the expensive San Francisco market. They could have sub-let the headquarters and moved into cheaper quarters in a less prime area - because you don't need prime real estate to run a dot.com business - and thereby turn the lease into a financial asset.

Even if the sub-let could not equal their rent, they would probably still be better off paying the difference to thier old landlord while renting at a cheaper place.

Instead, they do the worst possible thing: stay in the San Francisco property and pay top dollar while thier crappy lefty dot.com is losing money.

[ClearCase_guy]

They could have sub-let the headquarters and moved into cheaper quarters in a less prime area

Are you mad? Could they get good lattes in a less prime area? Would their volvos be safe in a less prime area? Do you expect them to rub shoulders with rabble? We're talking about the cultural elite here! Have some respect!

[wideawake]

eeman, I know you were joking, but the guys who saved them last time were given a tranche of convertible preferred stock.

Any attempt to buy Salon.com on the open market would probably run up against a trigger of some kind ensconced in the terms of that offering.

In other words, we go out and spend $250K on the stock (and it would of course run up as we were buying it) and all of a sudden Salon.com issues 20 million new shares struck at 0.001 cents to the convertible holders.

BCrago66, I'm sure they thought of subletting, but probably one of the few things that is keeping their skeleton crew working for peanuts is the relatively tony address and central location.

Right now they are just an expensive hobby for their investors.