BirdsEyeView wrote:Play Angry wrote:I mean, if we want to "clarify" by stating that those darned billionaires saved WSU's bacon by subsidizing roughly ~5% of our coach's salary at a critical moment a couple years ago, coupled with a one-time gift of $6 million to kickstart the arena renovation 15 years ago, with little in between, then go for it. That would be a stark difference from the lies that are repeated regularly to the contrary.
It's a lot more fun to incorrectly characterize it as a daddy warbucks relationship, though, and I get that. The redbird fan above already stated he does not care about facts, evidence or the truth with regard to how he views the financial backing of WSU.
Show me evidence Kochs only forked over roughly 5% of his increased salary after Alabama. You guys talk like they did nothing, we talk like they did. Nobody has shown factual evidence of how much was contributed. Regardless, this should not be an argument, but Wichita fans seem butt hurt that we would even THINK WSU's billionaire alums are helping fund Marshall's latest salary bump.
God forbid.
If ISUr had a big sugar daddy like that, I would not be so defensive about it.
He was paying none of the roughly $2 million Gregg was making before those meetings. The reported facts state that he helped organize a meeting of major donors where the hat was passed among more than a dozen leading backers at a local country club, and the extra $1.3 million was aggregated for Gregg's raise. My understanding is that each participant contributed substantially.
Let's attribute an outsize role to Charles and say he contributed double his share. That would be roughly $250,000 of the $3,300,000, or ~7.5%. Still a paltry sum on a relative basis when the base argument disputed here is that WSU's budget evaporates without the Kochs.
Why don't you show me your evidence to the contrary? If you want to try to tack on an extra, what, $100k, $200k or even $300k (again, no support for this but why not), that still does nothing to change the argument and the result.
There really is no disagreement that he is a wonderful asset to have and has chipped in at important times. I challenged your peer on his bold lie, which he has since doubled down on above. I bet the disagreement would ensue less frequently if you would do us the pleasure of straightening him out.
