Buyout or bailout?

A friend of mine managed to severely damage his knee playing ice hockey... He's also a full-time pro, and he's been busy offloading his booked weddings onto other photogs that he feels can do as good or better as he can, and we have worked out that there are 7 dates I can relieve him of....

And then we are disagreeing...

He feels that he should be getting a fee of some sort... A finder's fee, for me to take on the contracts he figures he won't be able to fulfill. He has tossed a per-signed contract number, and I'm not sure I agree with his thinking or numbers... The total income from those 7 is slightly less than what I'd bring in for my typical 7 bookings...

Is it standard practice to ask for a finder's fee for this?
If we are to agree, I'd still have to follow up with each of those couples to make sure they and I are good with one another, etc... And then I'd suspect a new contract (them to me) to replace their old contract, so these pre-contracted couples aren't saving me any time, etc...

I would think no. You would be doing him a favor by taking over the whole job along with all the stress. There should be no "finders fee", IMO that is just crazy to even think he is entitled to that.

So i kinda have experience with this. I had a complete rupture of my achilles tendon in the middle of the season in 2011. So i had to find people to take over some weddings as well as come along as a main shooter that i would assist on so i could still make some money.

I see where he's coming from as 7 weddings is a ton of money for him. He's just trying to pay his bills any way he can. There's no workers comp when you own your own business. If you can't work, you're hosed.

Depending on how much of a friend he is, I'd have no problem giving him a finders fee to help him stay on his feet. If he's not really a friend then forget it.

A finders fee is normal, but not for this situation. If his job was to be a booking agent for photographers, then it would make sense. If he were a photographer who shot weddings, and had previously made arrangements to give his overflow leads to other photographers, for a fee, that would be "standard practice".

But he cannot shoot these weddings because of an unforeseen accident, and he is coming to you, asking if you can shoot them in his place. I don't think a finders fee is standard practice in this situation, because, well, it is not a standard situation.

I can understand him wanting to salvage some income from these bookings, but I don't know of any way he can do that if his prices, minus the finders fee, are less than your standard prices.

Technically, if he were just handing those over as I suggest, he keeps the original deposits for these... But he also wants $$ from my own pockets...

An alternate proposal he has is me shooting, he doing the edits... He keeps the contracts, and just pays me for the data... Told him i have no interest in booking those 7 dates for a lower rate through him - I suspect I'll fill 4 of those on my own, and accepting such a low deal is basically shooting myself in the foot...

To make it worse (for him)... When I responded with the dates I could do, he already went ahead and contacted 2 couples for April to let them know he's out of commission and that I'd be contacting them shortly...

So he wants you to pay him for doing him a favor?
That's ass backwards in my book.

oh if he's keeping the deposits then all bets are off.

also if you're going to book those dates on your own anyways then it doesn't make any sense for you to take his dates at a cut.

I'd walk.

nicksan wrote in post #15755329
So he wants you to pay him for doing him a favor?
That's ass backwards in my book.

Yup... Basically offering me a job - if I'm willing to pay for it...

He sprained an ankle pretty badly a couple years back, during an eshoot, a couple days before a wedding... I did the ceremony for him then, and he did the rest, and we didn't have any issues...

Being self-employed doesn't mean you can't protect your income... I'd be surprised if he isn't covered in some way, otherwise taking part in tough physical sports such as hockey is pretty stupid (I quit hockey when I started this too...)

Tell me more about protecting your income. When i ruptured my achilles, i was lucky that i had a desk job that i was working at the time. Now that I'm full time, i worry about that stuff way more.

You are not what his contract with the wedding couple stipulates. You might be doing him a favor...but you BOTH might get screwed if the couple decides that YOU aren't who they contracted for.

In THIS situation...in my opinion...he is unable to fulfill his contract...therefore, the couple has the CHOICE of allowing him to replace himself...OR...they can find another photographer on their own.

Tread lightly...you need to find out what his contract states...if he can actually put a "replacement photographer" at THEIR event.

awad wrote in post #15755356
Tell me more about protecting your income. When i ruptured my achilles, i was lucky that i had a desk job that i was working at the time. Now that I'm full time, i worry about that stuff way more.

I'm in Canada, so maybe things are different... But in these parts, there's no shortage of stuff like this:
https://www.intactinsu​rance.com …ed-insurance-ontario.html

SMP_Homer wrote in post #15755376
I'm in Canada, so maybe things are different... But in these parts, there's no shortage of stuff like this:
https://www.intactinsu​rance.com …ed-insurance-ontario.html

i'll research this more. thanks man.

I would only pay a finder's fee to him if they're premium couples buying premium packages at rates I normally couldn't get. That's what finder's fees are for - getting work that you normally wouldn't get.

Taking less than you normally make, and then giving him a percentage of that yet = hell no. It's his stupid fault for screwing around in a game of hockey, not yours. Now, if it was something like he was diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo, I might be willing to do a favor. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

sophies-mom wrote in post #15755369
=sophie's-mom;15755369]You are not what his contract with the wedding couple stipulates. You might be doing him a favor...but you BOTH might get screwed if the couple decides that YOU aren't who they contracted for.

In THIS situation...in my opinion...he is unable to fulfill his contract...therefore, the couple has the CHOICE of allowing him to replace himself...OR...they can find another photographer on their own.

Tread lightly...you need to find out what his contract states...if he can actually put a "replacement photographer" at THEIR event.

He does have a clause that if he's unable to fulfil, he can find someone to take his place, etc... Of course I'd still get I touch with the couple, make sure I'm familiar with them, and their ideas/requests/etc... And make sure we click... And then make sure I sign them to my contract, which would be more to protect all involved...

I'm not going to shoot a wedding under someone else's terms... So not really an issue...

cdifoto wrote in post #15755383
I would only pay a finder's fee to him if they're premium couples buying premium packages at rates I normally couldn't get. That's what finder's fees are for - getting work that you normally wouldn't get.

Taking less than you normally make, and then giving him a percentage of that yet = hell no. It's his stupid fault for screwing around in a game of hockey, not yours. Now, if it was something like he was diagnosed with cancer and needs chemo, I might be willing to do a favor. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

He and I are pretty much in the same range for 1-shooter options.. The main difference is that May through October I only accept 2-shooter weddings, and a few of these aren't, and was debating on approaching the couples and offering them this option... Or not do that...

I was pretty much ok with taking these on minus the deposits... Booking 7 Saturdays in 1 swoop did sound appealing, until he mentioned us needing to come to an agreement on his finders fee...