Dr. Maserati said:
It's business??? I though it was a charity.
For the business that is brokering a deal with a charity... it's buisness. Charitable donations aren't about charity... they're about marketing.
You know this, I think you've moved to where you're trying to score points rather then actually discuss.
You say you're "sure" and you're "betting"...... pity you didn't read the IPO I linked earlier as it shows you are wrong.
Lance got an extra $1,000,000 from Demand Media for 'services' - this is on top of the issue of warrants which he personally received 42.5%.
I did miss your post of this. But I'm not sure why you think this is somehow different from what I stated. The LAF gets compensated for the brand. Lance gets compensated for marketing the product (which in the case of livestrong.com would include providing content).
They pretty much spell it out that way:
"In January 2008, the Company entered into a license agreement with the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Inc. (the "License Agreement") and an Endorsement and Spokesperson Agreement with Lance Armstrong (the "Endorsement Agreement"). "
License agreement = "livestrong.com" name
Endorsement agreement = marketing
I've stated many times before... this is how I believe Lance profits off of the LAF. He ties personal endorsement deals to the licensing of the "livestrong" brand. I don't think it's particularly noble... but it is what it is. I just don't believe he's going to jeopardize THAT cash cow for the conspiricay theory type stuff others suggest.
The yearly travel bill for the LAF is almost $2,000,000, this is 10 times other charities travel, and we know that LA traveled to all these Global events in his own aircraft.
Where does the exclusive content like videos or blogs go, the .com or the .org? Correct the for profit .com.
The travel bill for the LAF was a bit over a million in 2006. 900,000 for "program travel", 30,000 for administrative, 120,000 for fundraising.
The travel bill for the LAF in 2009 was 1.9 million, 1.65 million for program travel, 80,000 for administrative and 190,000 for fundraising.
Should they be spending as much as they are for travel to programs? I don't know. But to me, a 700K increase in program travel expenses when starting a global cancer initiative doesn't sound unreasonable... even if you aren't paying for Lance's private jet fuel. Wouldn't you expect some form of increase given that?
Look, I'm not claiming the choices they make are good... I just don't see the straight line connection between travel cost and Lance's travel that you do. I bet he DID get some travel compensation from the LAF... but I'm betting it's abot the same as it was in 2006. Essentially when he was being sent somewhere where he wasn't going to be already, the LAF paid for the travel. I'm betting he didn't get travel paid for in a case like Australia and Ireland... particularly to avoid legal complications.
And I know... I'm using words like "assume" and "betting"... but the fact is that's what you are doing to. You're assuming the travel budget went primarily to fund Lance's travel to bike races. We don't know either way.