American Athletic Conference

[mini-shock]

This!

It doesn't get anymore group think and biased than that.

[Play Angry]

My statement still stands, Koch pays a relatively small percentage of our coach's salary (although certainly that amount is still a bunch of bucks in absolute terms).

FIFY.

Charles donates a bunch of money to WSU athletics and everyone is grateful for that. It's also a gross mischaracterization to pretend he "pays our coach" and imply he is providing the bulk or all of that subsidy, instead of a relatively small percentage of the pie in the aggregate (although a bigger slice than most or all other individuals).

[mini-shock]

FIFY.

a relatively small percentage of the pie in the aggregate (although a bigger slice than most or all other individuals).

Prove it. Otherwise you don't know anymore than anyone else.

[Dave Stalwart]

To me, it is obvious that you would never put all your eggs in one basket. To me, it seems very unlikely that Charles Koch provides such a substantial piece of Gregg's salary that if Charles were to pull the plug, we would be up a creek. I really doubt we have leveraged his salary so hard towards Charles Koch that we couldn't come up with it through other donors. These are business people we are talking about here. I am pretty sure it is more well-thought-out than just "Charles writes a check for $3.3M each year."

[Cdizzle]

Prove it. Otherwise you don't know anymore than anyone else.

Right. So your assumption is that Koch pays Marshall, and WSU basketball wouldn't exist without that money.

The rest of us assume you are a giant delta bravo.

I guess we may never have the real answers, though some of us may continue to have real skin in the game.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

No where did I say that Chuck did it all...

My statement still stands, Koch pays our coach. People wanna get into a whine fest about it but his names on the building and it's in Gregg's Wallet.

You say it in the same post! "Koch pays our coach." Clearly the insinuation is Koch provides vast the majority of the money for Marshall's salary. And then you say "Fact."

Well, it's not fact, and that's what we're trying to explain to you to no avail. It's pretty obvious at this point you either believe what you want to believe and it's not changing, or you're just stirring the pot.

[Dave Stalwart]

In my experience, the people who say Charles Koch pays Gregg Marshall are actually saying "WSU and Gregg Marshall should be vilified because dirty, republican, shady, capitalist money is sustaining that whole situation."

It never feels like they are just objectively saying "oh, it would seem that Charles Koch helps pay Gregg Marshall and supports WSU programs. What a great guy."

[Play Angry]

Prove it. Otherwise you don't know anymore than anyone else.

Dumb response.

Charles had next to no participation in paying Gregg $750k to replace MT. The raises to more than a million and further up to $1.85 million were accomplished through conventional and diversified means, with high level donors carrying the most water. You won't find attribution to Charles for those raises.

The "pass the hat" meeting raised it from $1.85 million to $3 million. Let's pretend that you believe news sources lied and Charles actually fronted 100% of that bill, instead of helping to spearhead the effort. That is still only 30something percent of the base with an accusation that our local media manufactured a false narrative.

Let's hear your support for that theory.

[mini-shock]

Dumb response.

Charles had next to no participation in paying Gregg $750k to replace MT. The raises to more than a million and further up to $1.85 million were accomplished through conventional and diversified means, with high level donors carrying the most water. You won't find attribution to Charles for those raises.

The "pass the hat" meeting raised it from $1.85 million to $3 million. Let's pretend that you believe news sources lied and Charles actually fronted 100% of that bill, instead of helping to spearhead the effort. That is still only 30something percent of the base with an accusation that our local media manufactured a false narrative.

Let's hear your support for that theory.

Once again, you can't read. I never said Chuck fit the whole bill. You were supposed to prove your statement that it was only a small percentage, as if you know anymore than the rest of us. You deflected my question into your statement and instead rose an already clarified statement.

[mini-shock]

You say it in the same post! "Koch pays our coach." Clearly the insinuation is Koch provides vast the majority of the money for Marshall's salary. And then you say "Fact."

Well, it's not fact, and that's what we're trying to explain to you to no avail. It's pretty obvious at this point you either believe what you want to believe and it's not changing, or you're just stirring the pot.

Your insinuation is not mine. His contribution at least helped did it not. That was my entire statement. You assumed I meant all or a majority. Your fault.

[wufan]

I'm through engaging mini and seskridge. It's a lose-lose.

[mini-shock]

Right. So your assumption is that Koch pays Marshall, and WSU basketball wouldn't exist without that money.

The rest of us assume you are a giant delta bravo.

I guess we may never have the real answers, though some of us may continue to have real skin in the game.

I didn't assume anything. I stated WSU couln't support it's sports goals without the help of Chucks money or leadership to get money. It's true, our first offer was no where near the amount we are paying him now.

[mini-shock]

In my experience, the people who say Charles Koch pays Gregg Marshall are actually saying "WSU and Gregg Marshall should be vilified because dirty, republican, shady, capitalist money is sustaining that whole situation."

It never feels like they are just objectively saying "oh, it would seem that Charles Koch helps pay Gregg Marshall and supports WSU programs. What a great guy."

And last but not least....... that's an assumption that's not mine.

[Stickboy46]

Once again, you can't read. I never said Chuck fit the whole bill. You were supposed to prove your statement that it was only a small percentage, as if you know anymore than the rest of us. You deflected my question into your statement and instead rose an already clarified statement.

Please prove your claim that it was more than a small percentage.

[Play Angry]

Once again, you can't read. I never said Chuck fit the whole bill. You were supposed to prove your statement that it was only a small percentage, as if you know anymore than the rest of us. You deflected my question into your statement and instead rose an already clarified statement.

Nah.

You responded to:

FIFY.

Charles donates a bunch of money to WSU athletics and everyone is grateful for that. It's also a gross mischaracterization to pretend he "pays our coach" and imply he is providing the bulk or all of that subsidy, instead of a relatively small percentage of the pie in the aggregate (although a bigger slice than most or all other individuals).

with

Prove it. Otherwise you don't know anymore than anyone else.

I then provided support for my assertion that it is substantially less than all or the bulk of the comp package, and you now claim I can't read.

If you believe he subsidizes, say, between 5 and 30% of the base salary, then you actually agree with my original quote above and your "prove it" post was unnecessary.

If you believe he subsidizes a different percentage, let's hear what it is and why. Should be very simple for you to do.