phade

Members
  • Content Count

    7725
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

phade last won the day on March 17

phade had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4386 Excellent

1 Follower

About phade

  • Rank
    Resident Ego
  • Birthday 07/07/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Livingston Co.

Recent Profile Visitors

34402 profile views
  1. Don't know much about this guy but I know a few people who have hunted that bow zone and they all say it's a very special place unlike anything we experience here. They also all said the conditions are so extreme that nearly everyone who "works" in that area as a guide/outfitter have stringent rules/guidance for success. Stuff just doesn't work as well in that climate as it does here. I can relate in that I've climbed ladderstands in dead cold and silence only to hear the pop that didn't exist all season up until that point. They use ATVs way more than I'd expect.
  2. Some hunters are going to be real bummed. Wouldn't be surprised to see cam pics come out soon.
  3. phade

    Broadheads.

    Current broadheads are sharper than scalpels used on humans for surgery. At a certain point, we're past the point of positive ROI.
  4. I bought a 2019 4Runner Off-Road Premium w/KDSS a short while ago. Have to say that the 4Runner is way more capable than I could imagine. Still have a truck should I need it but the 4Runner can do alot of what I need.
  5. Assuming he is a clean 10 (hard to tell), I'd be thinking 118-122" gross. I find most people overestimate 8s and underestimate 10s. It's odd but it does happen pretty regularly when you look at these field scoring posts and there is a B & A.
  6. This is a trend that hopefully is slowly getting back to normal. Many of these disruptor camo companies were fitted for an athletic fit and not necessarily standard. Sitka is the same way although their 2019 cuts moved into more of a standard than athletic - at least in the whitetail and waterfowl selections.
  7. Don't get on here much lately. I think the last time I was on was in July. Cam business is doing well, but the summer cam season has been slow bucks-wise. I'm sure they'll be around come rut. Good luck this fall everyone.
  8. All I can say is that the financials show to me that the women’s team is under-compensated, again, when looking at the financials. Union negotiations could have been a bad deal, or done not in good faith if the USSF’s financial layout blurred the income streams to the point it was not easily determined who made what. This was cleared after the audit was conducted. Women bring in more gross revenue, spend less in expenses, and have higher net profit. Any BS about how one soccer player acts, how hairy her crotch may be, or how little people may agree or disagree with her beliefs is irrelevant to me based on facts of compensation. Also, I fully disagree that supporting this scenario is going against the grain of any American values systems. Same with the insinuation that people who think the women are under-compensated do not understand how people are paid in a free market. There may be people with better business acumen than me on this site, as we don’t always know backgrounds. What I can say is that I personally lead and am responsible for a P+L that is larger than what these soccer players are discussing. It’s clear to me the under-compensation exists. I will speak no more on this topic. Enjoy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. Behind the scenes reasoning is USSF tried to blur the two revenue streams. Last collective bargaining was based off of financials that were very hard to decipher. The growth of the women’s income is what really made it visible based on increased marketing opps. They had so many new deals that it had to be larger than before. The audit was conducted and it showed insight into the revenue streams. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. Market opportunity doesn’t matter. Demonstrated financial results do. Business A made more, spent less, and generated higher net revenue. They’re not asking for Business B’s bonus. They’re asking to be paid in line with Business B out of their own revenue stream, which again is larger, more efficient, and profitable. And let’s not forget the men’s team is in full support. They want to integrate a revenue sharing pay system. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. Lol. Good grief. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. USSF financial statements. Confirmed by audit of one of the big 4 CPA firms. You are really grasping at straws. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. Resorting to what if. Ignorance of facts. Facts. Business A brings in more revenue, spends less, brings in more profit, and employees are paid less than employees in Business B, which is less profitable, spends more, and brings in less revenue. Same task being completed in a non-free market employer situation. National team. Not another next block over. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Women’s team expenses are less and generated multiple times more net revenue than the men. $9M vs $3M during the recent years. Some of the mindsets are indeed unbelievable. Ignorance on full display. Any attempt to try to say pay is equal or close to for contract players is based off of pay for performance - the women win and men do not win nearly as much. Women have to overperform to come close to men who don’t. And they’re doing it while making more money for the USSF and spending less in expenses. Face it, some of you guys here are showing and demonstrating the exact cause of the problem. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  15. People who don’t understand how players are compensated. The billions of revenue claim come from overall value of the event that is owned and run by FIFA. Players are compensated by the governing body of the national country which is USSF here. Claims of revenue by FIFA doesn’t mean squat because the checks come from the USSF. FIFA pays USSF and USSF can do what they want with the payments (usually spelled out in contracts) USSF’s audited records show the women made more money for the USSF the past three years. For non-tournament games, such as friendlies, their contract is written for 20 games. If the women won all 20 and the men won all 20. The men make more than $250K, and the women make less than $100K. What soccer is worth on the global stage is irrelevant as the comp is men’s US and women’s US revenue streams. It’s blatant. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk