Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
Ben Kercheval wrote:Each player is on a three-year, non-guaranteed $250,000 contract. However, there are still two ways AAF players can earn bonuses: team-based, performance incentives and individual, fan engagement incentives. The team bonuses are achieved whenever one side of the ball does something significant, like score touchdowns. If, say, the Orlando Apollos have the highest scoring offense in the alliance, every offensive player gets an equal amount of "coins." Similarly, if San Antonio's defense leads the league in scoring defense, the defense gets a bonus. On an individual level, players can earn bonuses through their work in their local communities and social media outreach for good causes because that builds the goodwill between teams and fanbases.
"If you're a person that really gives back to your local community, and goes above and beyond, you're gonna earn more in the way of bonuses," Polian said. "If you happen to play on a team that has a great defense, because it's a team game, you'll earn money there. Whether you're the marquee corner or the backup nose tackle, everybody will get the same, so you're incentivized to play great as a team, not as an individual."
Ben Kercheval wrote:Grammar peeve: Something is either unique or it isn't. There are no varying degrees of one-of-a-kind.The story of Birmingham Iron quarterback Luis Perez is among the most unique examples of determination and perseverance in professional football. Yet, few people know the full scope of it.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Apparently, the brand-new alliance had already run out of cash in its second week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/r ... story.html
JustAnEngineer wrote:Apparently, the brand-new alliance had already run out of cash in its second week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/r ... story.html
Charile Ebersol wrote:We spent less than $30 million getting to kickoff. We didn't overspend and run out of money. We were not able to get access to the capital. We weren't going to spend $200 million on Feb. 9 [when the season began]. We were going to spend $200 million over the course of two-and-a-half years. What happened was -- really in the weeks leading up to the first game -- we started getting nervous about issues that were popping up with access to the capital. There were draw-down issues, a variety of different things that started happening that were preventing us from getting access to the capital. The money was on an as-needed basis so we could draw down. When that started happening we weren't in immediate trouble, but we knew we were going to have to find another protective source.
Our business plan called for an investment of $200 million over three years to establish enterprise value at which point there were a couple of exit scenarios where investors would get their money back. That $200 million initially came from our initial investors and primary investor. And then Tom replaced that investor and bought a majority of the company, took over the board, and took over the liabilities of the company as the majority owner of the company. So he became the control owner at which point in time he made decisions about how the company was financed moving forward. Our original business plan of $200 million to be investment in the cost of running a business for three years. My business model was single-entity football league where all the operations saved the league long enough to establish its partnerships. And then there were a bunch of exit scenarios that could occur at that point in time.
Our expenses fell almost exactly in line, within a couple of million dollars, of our original business plan. We had no real surprises in expenses. Our surprise was in financing. Which, again, I cannot emphasize this enough: We had signed contracts -- not just investors, but with banks, that were vetted by multiple parties. We had legally tendered documents to give us access to capital. That's the whole purpose of having contracts, vetting them and running them through banks.
Usacomp2k3 wrote:That paints Tom Dundon in a very bad light; the main reason it failed. Good information overall though.