The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Fool Community Help Desk / Improve the Fool
|Subject: Re: Thank you for ten years and counting.||Date: 2/4/2002 7:02 AM|
|Author: badsin||Number: 24191 of 88792|
Lost:'Quite a leap there ....we have your assumption that, because they didn't factor subscriptions into the 2002 budget, it must be impossible for subs to make the boards profitable'
Not quite. What I wrote was - 'that doesn't sound like it's going to make the boards standalone profitable anytime soon'. Somewhat different, if you notice. Also I am referring to the boards 'standalone' - not Fooldom in general.
The leap is actually being made by David in the terminology he's using to describe his financial expectations from the boards.
In his original note of Jan 29, David repeatedly underplays the future role of fees in their financial plans :
'Do the math and you'll see that this move isn't about big revenues'
'this move won't rate as even a tenth of our 2002 revenues'
'since we haven't even counted these revenues into our 2002 projections'
Then, in his note of Feb 1, he suddenly introduces the word 'profitable'. I certainly am assuming David Gardner doesn't toss in such words loosely. Or at least I hope he doesn't. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, generating revenues from board fees is one thing, and making boards profitable thru such revenues is quite another. Can you justify the leap from 'revenue' to 'profit' for the boards based just on what David's written in these two notes?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|