Actually, I did look at their financials. See the difference between the revenue budget vs the projected revenue for 2016. The eventual figure wasn’t far from that. It brings into question the USSF using “market realities” as a rationale during their prior negotiation.
As for investment, I would need more information. It’s as simple as that. The game revenue is only about 1/3 of their total revenue.
You didn’t need to look at their spread sheet for that, it was already quoted multiple times over, and I mentioned it multiple times in this thread.
So, you’re asking me for tv ratings to see if I understand about a sport I’ve been following and playing my entire life where you just decided to hop into the argument just cuz ? Uh huh, so now you’re an expert in sport entertainment, and specifically the sport of soccer and how the business models work worldwide.
Please, stfu.
you’re a bean counter, that’s cool. I also have a BS in Finance. It’s one of the most common degrees you can get. It’s a paper weight these days.
its relevant if you have all the information, they don’t give you that, so knowing whatever their cost to operate is isn’t going to give you that much of an insight on which team has the real growth potential here, you’d have to know a little bit about the market to know this, as in, you have to look at the ratings, broadcasting contracts, you’d have to research the level of engagement, etc, etc. you can’t just look at revenues and costs of operation, this isn’t a factory.
I’ll never forget the day my manager years ago said to a bean counter “plug the hole, I don’t give a fuck how you do it, just do it for now” the bean counter came back with "but with what , sir? " “with a fucking dildo, I don’t care, now get out”
I didn’t look at their financials for that.
what did you look for then? specifically? I’m still lost on what you’re even attempting to argue.
you haven’t given a single argument in favor of the women being correct in their lawsuit, we’re a few dozen posts in and you haven’t provided anything at all.
I can tell.
yeah, so help me out.
you reamed me for a few posts about giving you sources, I give you sources and you attack wording and a slight margin of error? I mean, that’s all you got? that is pretty thin bro.
being off by a few points on the ratings isn’t exactly a compelling argument for me not having my “facts” straight. 26.7m vs 25.2m isn’t a world of a difference, even these very numbers have a margin of error baked in. But I guess when you have no argument you have to pull at anything
so either come up with something or let’s end it here
Correct. So I guess it does:
Okay. Has anyone said otherwise? No one looks just at historic profitability when projecting growth.
You think factories don’t look at market conditions, competition, etc… when projecting growth?
He sounds like a real winner.
what’s the point of any of this?
I’m still waiting on someone to come up with something. stay focused. come up with an argument to the topic or end the thread.
Here’s where we see a repeat of the previous thread where greenboy peddles back and forth and does his usual routine when he realizes he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
no, what is happening here is that you have no argument, so you’ll attempt to poke holes on generalizations or nitpick numbers when those things themselves aren’t even fully accurate.
this is exactly what is happening. You have no argument, you never did so this is what you resort to.
I thought his argument was pretty clear. He’s pointed out the lawsuit has merit and isn’t frivolous.
I didn’t see a post where he stated the women are right (or wrong for that matter). @dt79 is that right?
Absolutely.
So how is it not? The women already get compensated well relative to the men, and in some instances they have a greater share of the revenues generated.
Their argument it seems is based on the fact that the men get USSF+MLS contracts that are better than theirs, which they think they should get because they’re more successful which doesn’t make sense, why are they bringing in the MLS into their argument?
It Is a bullshit lawsuit and this is why they went full steam PR warfare
I don’t engage in cheap tricks like that. Read what you wrote again.
How is it not what? Not frivolous? I’m not going to have the same discussion @dt79 already had with you. Personally, I couldn’t give less of a fuck about soccer let alone if their pay is fair.
I’m done wasting my time with you. I’ve given you enough space to create a compelling counter argument and you’ve got nothing. You know how I know you have nothing? because I’ve seen this very topic debated on soccer forums I frequent and people have come up with a decent reason on maybe why the women still deserve a better contract despite their lawsuit being nonsense
@usmccds423 their lawsuit is based on gender pay and compensation discrimination bro, he hasn’t mentioned why they deserve anymore money, let alone how their actually being discriminated against based on their sex.
but I agree this is a waste of time. I’m done.
Unless I missed something it’s because @dt79 hasn’t said he thinks they deserve more money or a greater percentage of total earnings/profitability.
Look, man, you’re not dumb. I don’t understand the disconnect. @dt79 listed several reasons why the lawsuit has enough merit to not be immediately dismissed. That’s it.
Well, this is not where I expected this thread to go.
I do have to admit I was rooting for England in the end. But mainly because I always root for the underdog.
if that’s all he’s arguing fine but I still don’t see any real compelling evidence for it. remind me what did he list as the reasons?
