Scott, thanks for the story and I sympathize that things did not work out as well as you would have hoped.
BUT having re-read your post a few times, and obviously not being involved at all, I am not sure that Tanner is the malicious con man you make him out to be.
ie being a douche != a con man && things not working out != being manipulated.
For example:
1. Additional cut to Zen Club
- Zen Club the company is separate to Tanner, the individual. If both are contributing to the App Company (eg you mention the brand, the photoshoot etc), then it seems reasonable to both to be part of the split. I agree that you should probably have negotiated both Tanner's and Zen Club's contributions together, but it seems irrelevant whether you split it as Tanner gets X% and Zen Club gets Y%, or Tanner gets (X + Y)% and Zen Club gets 0%.
2. "We started reporting to Tanner like a boss" and Ryan always agreeing with him.
- These seem to be interpersonal dynamics that doesn't necessarily point to Tanner being a con man. I assume there was no backroom deal where Tanner paid Ryan $X to always agree with him etc, in which case Ryan made his own decisions which simply happened to disagree with you. Similarly if there were no deals that forced you to start "reporting" to Tanner, then it seems like everybody simply fell into this dynamic.
3. Invisible Lawyer and Boilerplate Contract
- Did you ask to meet the lawyer?
- The lawyer is presumably busy, and you mentioned he wasn't being paid for his services, so the fact that you got a fairly generic first draft and the whole process took a long time doesn't mean anybody was being malicious. Even in the best circumstances contracts take some time and always with multiple revisions first.
4. If the runway ran out you would have no income while Tanner still had his gym.
- you not having an income if the runway runs out is a standard risk for founding a startup
- yes Tanner still has his gym. He presumably spent some separate time and investment to set up and keep running, so this also doesn't sound malicious.
5. After you quit, domain / email / ftp accounts were changed
- standard practice I would think
6. Ryan got 5%
- I agree it does seem low, but it is possible this is a fair deal. Think of it this way - the investor put in $250K, Ryan did not put in any money, was working part-time, and none of the apps got approved into the app store (is that a technical responsibility?).
7. Other 'grievances' (eg drives BMW, not using real names, acting career, charging you for an 'overpriced' gym membership and DVD series, alcohol, charging for $30 pillows, 'squatting' in the spare office, etc)
- apart from adding color to your story these details are irrelevant at best
- at worst it makes Tanner a douche, or wasteful with money, but does not necessarily make him a con man
Obviously I don't know the full story so take what I wrote as you will. It just seems a shame if you take the belief that you were conned (and more importantly, take an overly-sceptical / distrusting view into your next project where it could become self-fulfilling) based on only 1 of several possible interpretations of what happened.
You make a lot of great points and in some cases I will agree with you.
The cut to Zen club had little to nothing to do with its brand or the photoshoot. While it was "helping" - I will agree - he owned the gym and blurred the lines between what was his partnership and what was the gym - and wanted an equal share cut between him AND his gym.
2. Absolutely true.
3. I asked to meet the lawyer plenty of times. If he was the best partnership lawyer in town, I would think a google search would turn his name up. It didn't.
4. You make a good point and I realized those risks. That said I wasn't confident enough that I wouldn't get screwed as I had already set the precedent for how I could be pushed around. Plus, its not like HE was quitting his gym to go full time with us, he simply wanted it done faster and didn't care if it put us into harms way.
5. Yes, yes and yes. I was stupid for not getting my e-mails and records off the servers first, but its like at this point my friend didn't even trust me. This was an emotional response.
6. The investor did not put up $250,000, in fact, he barely even marketed the product to his own consumer base (so far, Nov 2009), which was the only reason I was playing along because I thought it would work (which is still a mistake).
7.I agree here too. There were other comments as well. He was taking a business coaching course run by the Joe Ansaldi and a couple of times said to us "There is a science to making money. Like you hear sometimes, step 1, 2, 3, profit. Works every time" There were similarly scammy things he said that rubbed me the wrong way.
You have a completely unique and valid take on the situation. My emotions blurred a lot what happened and while accurate from my perspective, wasn't necessarily everything.
Thanks for your input, as it is posts like these that help me get the full story and stop my inner-brooding on getting pounded in the rear by business partners (my failure was from a long series of my own mistakes).
BUT having re-read your post a few times, and obviously not being involved at all, I am not sure that Tanner is the malicious con man you make him out to be.
ie being a douche != a con man && things not working out != being manipulated.
For example: 1. Additional cut to Zen Club - Zen Club the company is separate to Tanner, the individual. If both are contributing to the App Company (eg you mention the brand, the photoshoot etc), then it seems reasonable to both to be part of the split. I agree that you should probably have negotiated both Tanner's and Zen Club's contributions together, but it seems irrelevant whether you split it as Tanner gets X% and Zen Club gets Y%, or Tanner gets (X + Y)% and Zen Club gets 0%.
2. "We started reporting to Tanner like a boss" and Ryan always agreeing with him. - These seem to be interpersonal dynamics that doesn't necessarily point to Tanner being a con man. I assume there was no backroom deal where Tanner paid Ryan $X to always agree with him etc, in which case Ryan made his own decisions which simply happened to disagree with you. Similarly if there were no deals that forced you to start "reporting" to Tanner, then it seems like everybody simply fell into this dynamic.
3. Invisible Lawyer and Boilerplate Contract - Did you ask to meet the lawyer? - The lawyer is presumably busy, and you mentioned he wasn't being paid for his services, so the fact that you got a fairly generic first draft and the whole process took a long time doesn't mean anybody was being malicious. Even in the best circumstances contracts take some time and always with multiple revisions first.
4. If the runway ran out you would have no income while Tanner still had his gym. - you not having an income if the runway runs out is a standard risk for founding a startup - yes Tanner still has his gym. He presumably spent some separate time and investment to set up and keep running, so this also doesn't sound malicious.
5. After you quit, domain / email / ftp accounts were changed - standard practice I would think
6. Ryan got 5% - I agree it does seem low, but it is possible this is a fair deal. Think of it this way - the investor put in $250K, Ryan did not put in any money, was working part-time, and none of the apps got approved into the app store (is that a technical responsibility?).
7. Other 'grievances' (eg drives BMW, not using real names, acting career, charging you for an 'overpriced' gym membership and DVD series, alcohol, charging for $30 pillows, 'squatting' in the spare office, etc) - apart from adding color to your story these details are irrelevant at best - at worst it makes Tanner a douche, or wasteful with money, but does not necessarily make him a con man
Obviously I don't know the full story so take what I wrote as you will. It just seems a shame if you take the belief that you were conned (and more importantly, take an overly-sceptical / distrusting view into your next project where it could become self-fulfilling) based on only 1 of several possible interpretations of what happened.