![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
"Like a poster previously mentioned, I find it funny how so many bitch and moan about CEO's of multi- billion dollar companies making a few million a year, but have no issue with some asshat who runs up and down a field getting 6 year $100 million dollar contracts, or cookie cutter no tallent pop stars making millions for lip synching their shows. Pure freaking comedy."
Where? And that's an entirely different equation, star athletes actually deliver the product for a sports team. They don't set the vision and work with suppliers, or please stockholders, they are the crucial employees, with middle managers/coaches, and the general manager plus staff above that, and then the owner or top executives. There are billions of revenue dollars coming and it shouldn't mostly go to the owner. Probably the most criticized recent situation is the Pittsburgh Pirates, basically with enough layoffs/salary dumping and revenue-sharing despite poor performance that they turn profits. It's like Madoff, but they will just keep getting money for doing almost nothing. But if they were traded and paid dividends with their profits, they would be encouraged just to tank more.
Artists usually get less than the major labels, really. Funneled to the executives, recording, promotions, and outside the labels (ostensibly) the agents' cut. The top artists like U2 and Springsteen are making the most money off of touring. And I assume Lady Gaga as well, who always sells out the same venues.
Most of the true hate is for CEOs deploying the golden parachute before or during the decline brought on with short-sightedness, or them getting the NEXT plum job after torching another company. When they start low and get the company strong while staying there, i.e. Jobs, the compensation is still enormous but more commensurate and logical.
It would be nice if Boeing did some more of its government contracts at cost, especially rendition work or when they went into Iraq for disaster capitalism. I'm not sure if the for-profit air travel model is sustainable, we'll see if the mergers and fee storm can keep their flight revenues above costs and let them deal with maintenance.
Where? And that's an entirely different equation, star athletes actually deliver the product for a sports team. They don't set the vision and work with suppliers, or please stockholders, they are the crucial employees, with middle managers/coaches, and the general manager plus staff above that, and then the owner or top executives. There are billions of revenue dollars coming and it shouldn't mostly go to the owner. Probably the most criticized recent situation is the Pittsburgh Pirates, basically with enough layoffs/salary dumping and revenue-sharing despite poor performance that they turn profits. It's like Madoff, but they will just keep getting money for doing almost nothing. But if they were traded and paid dividends with their profits, they would be encouraged just to tank more.
Artists usually get less than the major labels, really. Funneled to the executives, recording, promotions, and outside the labels (ostensibly) the agents' cut. The top artists like U2 and Springsteen are making the most money off of touring. And I assume Lady Gaga as well, who always sells out the same venues.
Most of the true hate is for CEOs deploying the golden parachute before or during the decline brought on with short-sightedness, or them getting the NEXT plum job after torching another company. When they start low and get the company strong while staying there, i.e. Jobs, the compensation is still enormous but more commensurate and logical.
It would be nice if Boeing did some more of its government contracts at cost, especially rendition work or when they went into Iraq for disaster capitalism. I'm not sure if the for-profit air travel model is sustainable, we'll see if the mergers and fee storm can keep their flight revenues above costs and let them deal with maintenance.
