Hauser makes himself look ******...

[GTTofAK]

This guy is strange and ****** at the same time.

First he gets quotes from Waddell & Reed reps via Bill King stating that they GAVE Haymon 3X as much as Haymon asked for to start PBC knowing that it would be 5 years before a potential recoup could even be discussed.

Then Hauser later states that PBC is "hemorrhaging" money even though its clear that W&R already expected big losses for the first 5 years.

Then he purposely forgets to leave out the fact that W&R are tieing in Haymon's percentage as collateral for the funding.

Is this guy an idiot or what?

Hey another moron.

Okay lets get some basic terms down.

Recoup means your break even point.

Hemorrhaging money means significantly negative cash flow.

Are you following so far?

Saying that you have a 5 year break even point does not mean that you expect negative cash flow for 5 years. Stop and think for a second. How can you be losing money for 5 years and break even in 5 years? That's not possible. Your cash flow has to go into the black during the 5 year break even period. In most 5 year business models that would be year 3 at the most. You are generally expecting 1 to 2 years of sink.

I hate to say it you are just ****ing wrong. Dont try and talk about finance, you dont know ****. I'm willing to bet you couldn't even get a ****ing home loan.

[bballchump11]

Hey another moron.

Okay lets get some basic terms down.

Recoup means your break even point.

Hemorrhaging money means significantly negative cash flow.

Are you following so far?

Saying that you have a 5 year break even point does not mean that you expect negative cash flow for 5 years. Stop and think for a second. How can you be losing money for 5 years and break even in 5 years? That's not possible. Your cash flow has to go into the black during the 5 year break even period. In most 5 year business models that would be year 3 at the most. You are generally expecting 1 to 2 years of sink.

I hate to say it you are just ****ing wrong. Dont try and talk about finance, you dont know ****. I'm willing to bet you couldn't even get a ****ing home loan.

It is real easy to frame something the way you want. "The PBC hemorrhaged a lot of money last year."

can easily be rewritten as "The PBC made a heavy investment their first year of production".

[GTTofAK]

Hauser gets the point of a view from an expert and then he makes an assumption completely opposite of what that expert said. The PBC "hemorrhaging" $150 million isn't a big deal since they were financed to be able to survive for at least 3-5 years without a profit.

Even on this forum bballchump is still an idiot. No they are not built to survive for 3-5 years without a profit. They were built to recoup in 5.

[PKing]

Hey another moron.

Okay lets get some basic terms down.

Recoup means your break even point.

Hemorrhaging money means significantly negative cash flow.

Are you following so far?

Saying that you have a 5 year break even point does not mean that you expect negative cash flow for 5 years. Stop and think for a second. How can you be losing money for 5 years and break even in 5 years? That's not possible. Your cash flow has to go into the black during the 5 year break even period. In most 5 year business models that would be year 3 at the most. You are generally expecting 1 to 2 years of sink.

I hate to say it you are just ****ing wrong. Dont try and talk about finance, you dont know ****. I'm willing to bet you couldn't even get a ****ing home loan.

Let me make this real simple...

2 year time buy.

Once that is over, they expect networks to begin paying X amount in the 3rd year.

PBC expects to continue garnering new sponsors in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years.

Maybe they are looking at international TV contracts to continue growing.

So... instead of losing $100 million annually like the year 1 & 2, the third year they lose $40 million. 4th year they lose $20 million. 5th year they lose 0 and are self sustainable without an additional cash infusion.

SMH you guys are dumb.

[GTTofAK]

It is real easy to frame something the way you want.

I'm not framing anything. I'm giving you a basic understanding of basic finance terms. Given the structure of PBC I seriously doubt their models expected negative cash flow after initial sink.

[GTTofAK]

Let me make this real simple...

2 year time buy.

Once that is over, they expect networks to begin paying X amount in the 3rd year.

PBC expects to continue garnering new sponsors in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years.

Maybe they are looking at international TV contracts to continue growing.

So... instead of losing $100 million annually like the year 1 & 2, the third year they lose $40 million. 4th year they lose $20 million. 5th year they lose 0 and are self sustainable without an additional cash infusion.

SMH you guys are dumb.

Moron that is not recoup. That is years of sink. The time it takes you to have a positive cash flow is not that time it takes to recoup. You cant begin to pay back until you make a profit.

You are simply ******. This is a very simple concept but you will never understand it because your life should have ended in a tissue.

[PKing]

Moron that is not recoup. That is years of sink. The time it takes you to have a positive cash flow is not that time it takes to recoup.

You are simply ******. This is a very simple concept but you will never understand it.

Ahahahah you STILL dont get it.

In 5 years they will have multi-year contracts with 7 different US networks plus the other revenue streams. Then just like the Fertitas did, W&R will sell 20% of PBC to an another investor for $250 million.

In 7 years they sell another 10% at an even higher valuation. This goes on until they make their $500 million+ back as well as retain a significant stake as pure winnings.

Like I said... you are DUMB.

[OnePunch]

Ahahahah you STILL dont get it.

In 5 years they will have multi-year contracts with 7 different US networks plus the other revenue streams. Then just like the Fertitas did, W&R will sell 20% of PBC to an another investor for $250 million.

In 7 years they sell another 10% at an even higher valuation. This goes on until they make their $500 million+ back as well as retain a significant stake as pure winnings.

Like I said... you are DUMB.

that is a pipe dream.

[GTTofAK]

In 7 years they sell another 10% at an even higher valuation. This goes on until they make their $500 million+ back as well as retain a significant stake as pure winnings.

Spinning like a washing machine I see. So now its not 5 year recoup so you ****ed up in your OP then?

[El-blanco]

Ahahahah you STILL dont get it.

In 5 years they will have multi-year contracts with 7 different US networks plus the other revenue streams. Then just like the Fertitas did, W&R will sell 20% of PBC to an another investor for $250 million.

In 7 years they sell another 10% at an even higher valuation. This goes on until they make their $500 million+ back as well as retain a significant stake as pure winnings.

Like I said... you are DUMB.

You are speaking in absolutes and you have no evidence to support it. The consistent decrease in ratings actually paints a different picture than the idea you hope for. Which again, Is Based on nothing.