Nathan Latka

I'm like, guys, I want to make sure I'm not misspeaking.

It was something like that, right?

Yeah, it was right in that range.

And so I saw this as an opportunity.

I said, ah, the board doesn't necessarily, maybe the board wants to put in money, maybe they don't, or the investors.

I said, but FounderPath can align with management here and use our capital coming as a forcing function to get a board resolution done, to reestablish a new ESOP pool, and then reissue those shares however the board wants to the go forward management to increase their equity.

When we proposed that, Lonnie, Andy, what was the internal communication like at the board level and the management level?

What were you guys thinking?

Fresh is a good word.

Fresh is a good word.

Yeah, so just for you guys listening on the podcast, basically what we effectively said, and I'm sort of paraphrasing and summarizing here, but we basically said, hey, look, we'll fund the business with a million or a million and a half or whatever it is.

But at the funding date, we also need to see a board resolution that establishes a new 10, 15, whatever it was, ESOP pool.

And a chunk of that ESOP will immediately be reallocated sort of to management go forward.

And we were able to sort of bring all these things together and get it done.

Andy, Lonnie, one of the key pieces of story that we skipped over, but it happens to so many founders and you never read about it in the press because everyone is really shy and they're not sure how to talk about it in a positive way.

Anytime you have more than one co-founder and a company's been around for more than 10 years, you're going to have co-founder conflict, right?

It doesn't have to be bad conflict.

You're just going to have diverging interests and diverging priorities.

And eventually you're going to maybe have one co-founder that leaves the business.

So you have a big chunk of equity that we call non-operational, right?