Comment 45564

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 12, 2010 at 16:15:43

Sorry guys, what I was trying to say was this (not related to the Past. I have no reason to believe he hasen't lost 30 million) :

For Simplicity sake I will make up some round numbers.

Lets say Expenses = 4 million a year (at either location).
Lets say Revenue at EM = 12 million a year (5 million from Football, the rest from all the other great things BY was thinking of doing).
Lets say Revenue at WH = 5 million a year (5 million from Football, nothing else).

So...

Two ways to look at this :

Bob Young Profits $1 million a year at WH.
Bob Young LOSES 7$ million a year (yes, he makes $1, but he SHOULD have made 8 million).

It's an opportunity cost type approach. Why should I play at WH only making 1$, when I could make 8$ elsewhere. It really all depends on how you phrase it.

I am not suggesting he would absolutly profit at WH, what I am questioning is if his 7$ is straight loss, or does that include opportunity cost of what is believed to have been obtainable at EM.

It just seems everyone throws the number around, but without the analysis, it means very little.




Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds