Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 2665581, member: 1969"]
#1.  I agree it is a material inducement for the consumer to show they care, and it is necessary... but my point was when money is the prime inducement it loses lustre.  Hatred between the players would have worked, but it really does not seem to exist anymore.

#2.  I honestly do not know enough about the law, so I assume you are correct about fraud.   Could a company owned by Phil Mickelson and a company owned by Tiger Woods be the primary backers of the event (ultimately having to cover the losses or gains)   So Phil or Tiger ultimately get paid $9 million, but the losses on the event are picked up by the companies.  That would actually be more interesting to me since one man could actually lose money out of this contest.

I am having a hard time seeing the value proposition for someone to "own" the event, which I suppose is why I am coming up with these schemes.  If there are limited eyeballs at the event and PPV, its not like sponsors will pay that much for the event.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?