M’s report loss in 08, no evidence forthcoming

DMZ · March 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

According to Pravda, the M’s managed to lose money last year, as reported in their annual report…

The report, released at Monday afternoon’s quarterly meeting in Seattle, reflected a $4.5 million loss during the fiscal year that ended October 31, 2008.

…which isn’t up on the PFD site.

The M’s pay almost nothing for the lease of Safeco Field. Their rent is so low it’s absurd. Even if you buy the $121m in claimed payroll, and you figure it takes… $50m to run operations, the farm system, keep the Moose in anti-flea medicated shampoos, that’s ~$170m.

FSN pays them at least $30m for broadcast rights. KOMO paid them $10m. They probably made $12m from the Fox/TSN TV deals. I don’t know how much MLBAM is paying out, so drop that for a second. They probably get $3-4m from the DirecTV deal… none of this counts any cut the commish takes for his slush fund, btw, I’m just trying to sketch this out.

The M’s drew 2,329,702 in their home games last year. What do you think they made in revenue per ticket? $25? Okay, so that’s $60m there. Between concessions, parking, advertising, luxury boxes, club seats licenses, and whatever, they probably cleared another $60m in profit.

Wait, we’re profitable already. What just happened? How are they supposed to have lost money, exactly?

Also, despite the headline, note that there’s no link to the report, and the M’s haven’t put it up in the “press releases” section for your perusal.

Comments

59 Responses to “M’s report loss in 08, no evidence forthcoming”

  1. Breadbaker on March 9th, 2009 4:36 pm

    One possibility is some kind of trading losses, i.e., they parked some excess cash with WaMu or something. Of course, the ability of major league teams to juggle the books to look unprofitable is legion, but this group has fewer opportunities than most (e.g., the Yankees putting their broadcasting profit into YES while claiming the team only gets a tiny slice of the deal). One thing I noticed last year was that the staffing at Safeco dropped as attendance dropped, so I doubt their operating profit per game was significantly affected.

  2. CMC_Stags on March 9th, 2009 4:40 pm

    DMZ – you forgot any money from TV rights in Japan as another fairly decent revenue stream.

    The number of ways sports franchises cook the books is crazy. The ownership group could take a $100M one-time payment and the team could then claim to have lost money. If a team also owns or is owned by a Media Network (think Braves, Yankees/YES, Cubs/WGN, etc.) then the fee the network will pay the team can be way below market allowing the team to post a “loss.”

    In the US, only one major sports team is publicly traded, the Green Bay Packers. No league will allow another franchise to become publicly traded as it would blow the cover off of all the shared revenue streams and such.

  3. robbbbbb on March 9th, 2009 4:51 pm

    You’re neglecting their scouting and minor league operation. That’s a huge cost center, right there.

    But yeah, anything from Pravda should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

  4. isaac on March 9th, 2009 4:52 pm

    It looks like you’re talking about operating loss and they’re talking about accounting loss. You have to figure that the Mariners are taking depreciation on assets (both real stuff like equipment, facilities, and improvements to Safeco and abstract things like goodwill), plus things like taxes, etc. And if the baseball club took out loans to finance the purchase of the franchise (or other improvements, like office facilities) or lines of credit to make it run smoother, it would be amortizing those loans as well.

    Unless you’re counting those as part of the $50MM to run the club. I haven’t the foggiest idea how much it costs to operate a club, so I don’t know, and sorry if I’m arguing about something you already accounted for.

  5. JSully on March 9th, 2009 4:58 pm

    I was just about to post something similar to Isaac. An operating loss is definitely not the same thing as the M’s spending more dollars than they took in last year. Depreciation and other non-cash items can make up a huge part of a company’s cost structure on paper (think of Enron as the reverse of this).

    Having a rough idea about the type of revenue that many MLB has generated in total the past few years along with the decent drawing power the M’s have had, I think the odds of them turning an actual loss last year are pretty slim.

  6. Mike Honcho on March 9th, 2009 5:00 pm

    Yeah, making a bunch of guesses about their revenues and costs isn’t really a convincing argument…

  7. joser on March 9th, 2009 5:10 pm

    You’re neglecting their scouting and minor league operation. That’s a huge cost center, right there.

    No he didn’t:

    … $50m to run operations, the farm system, keep the Moose in anti-flea medicated shampoos …

  8. robbbbbb on March 9th, 2009 5:13 pm

    Oops. You’re right, joser. Mea culpa.

  9. msb on March 9th, 2009 5:14 pm
  10. kentroyals5 on March 9th, 2009 5:16 pm

    THERE IS NO FLOOR!!*

    *They had to sell it

  11. DMZ on March 9th, 2009 5:27 pm

    Yeah, making a bunch of guesses about their revenues and costs isn’t really a convincing argument…

    Guesses… really. You think I just pulled that stuff out of my butt?

  12. DMZ on March 9th, 2009 5:28 pm

    w/r/t accounting versus operating losses: it’s entirely possible that there’s some kind of semantic description, but look at how they’re selling it: “first loss since the move to Safeco Field!” and so on. They’re not making fine distinctions, so I don’t see why we should.

  13. Mr. Egaas on March 9th, 2009 5:36 pm

    Well, you don’t really want to come out and say you made a bunch of money and then cut payroll, do you?

  14. SequimRealEstate on March 9th, 2009 6:02 pm

    Mr. Egaas, My sides are hurting with the laughter you caused. I will not be able to go to work now so will have a loss of revenue plus the hospital visit for the laughitest will be an expense item. I might be getting the hang of this.

  15. drjeff on March 9th, 2009 6:04 pm

    Derek, FYI, the PFD link is bungled, methinks.

    Mr. Egaas, I would laugh if it didn’t ring so dang true.

  16. McExpos on March 9th, 2009 6:07 pm

    Both articles mention the 10% refund to Seattle once the $200 million has been paid off. It’s the first I’ve heard of that (but to be fair, I don’t live in Washington, so I’m allowed to be behind the curve).

    Is it possible that the Ms are hiding profits in order to avoid having to pay that ten percent? Maybe the idea is to rake in as much profit while its still “protected” and then sell the team?

    Maybe I’m a cynic?

  17. Rusty on March 9th, 2009 6:31 pm

    These profit/loss public release statements were so much easier to understand when we had Bob Finnigan interpreting them for us in a one-dimenional fashion.

  18. diderot on March 9th, 2009 7:23 pm

    They’re not making fine distinctions, so I don’t see why we should.

    Really?
    Here’s the distinction I would make.
    If someone wants to say the Bedard trade was stupid, the Vidro signing was stupid, and the WFB fanboys were stupid, not only would I agree, but that’s an opinion which is protected by the first amendment.
    On the other hand, to move into allegations of ‘cook the books’ (one poster previously, not Derek), then we’re talking about criminal behavior. And in that case, blogosphere or not, I think adequate distinctions should be applied.

  19. Breadbaker on March 9th, 2009 8:02 pm

    The point about the $200 million and that the cumulative operating loss was reduced despite the “loss” on the year indicates that there are a lot of different accounting methods involved. Of course, the M’s would want to emphasize the “loss” because it justifies everything that baseball clubs love to do, but you can hardly reduce a cumulative operating loss unless you made an operating profit.

  20. section331 on March 9th, 2009 8:13 pm

    Just based on the numerous games I attended last year compared with the year before, I have a hard time believing they lost any money. With the exception of some mid-week games, it looked about the same to me. Sure, it was probably down a bit after they started to go down the tubes, but there were still plenty of people walking around with freshly-bought merchandise, still plenty of people in the seats, I still had to wait in line in the Team Store, etc. I remember thinking that it was shocking, actually, for how poor 2008 was, that there would still be that many people there. I don’t know that I would accuse anyone of doing anything illegal, but I certainly have to think the situation isn’t that bad, just based on observation alone.

  21. Lantern on March 9th, 2009 8:17 pm

    What they report to the Washington State Major League Baseball Public Facilities District, is most likely legitimate. Since they have a binding agreement. The headline “Seattle Mariners lose $4.5 million in 2008″ is not honest. It should read “M’s will reflect a $1.9 million gain”. Not much of a difference to you or me but to most people who only read the headline and maybe a paragraph it means a big deal.
    Imagine the most true headline “M’s lose 101 games, profit $1.9 million, then slash payroll by 20%”

  22. LB on March 9th, 2009 8:20 pm

    > DMZ – you forgot any money from TV rights in Japan as another fairly decent revenue stream.

    That’s split 30 ways, just like the licensing fees for the Ichiro jerseys sold in Kobe and the Jeter jerseys sold in Kalamazoo.

  23. LB on March 9th, 2009 8:24 pm

    This gem from Cot’s seems relevant:

    “You go through The Sporting News for the last 100 years, and you will find two things are always true. You never have enough pitching, and nobody ever made money.”

    - Donald Fehr, executive director, MLBPA

  24. Mr. Egaas on March 9th, 2009 8:49 pm

    Gotta admit though, first thing that popped into my mind.

    “M’s report loss in 08″.

    “Just how much did Carlos Silva eat?”

  25. Breadbaker on March 9th, 2009 8:53 pm

    That’s split 30 ways, just like the licensing fees for the Ichiro jerseys sold in Kobe and the Jeter jerseys sold in Kalamazoo.

    That deal hasn’t exactly favored the M’s, has it?

  26. Mike Snow on March 9th, 2009 9:03 pm

    With respect to depreciation and all that stuff, it seems like the answers are actually there in the article, just a little obfuscated. They put out the story as a $4.5 million operating loss, but the part about the “special calculation” indicates a $1.9 million profit.

    Note that at the rate they’re going, the total profits will never cancel out the previous losses during the life of the lease, so the profit-sharing provisions will never come into play. Fearless prediction: Ten seasons from now, the Mariners will have negotiated a new lease for Safeco Field that does not have a profit-sharing provision.

  27. DMZ on March 9th, 2009 9:16 pm

    Yeah. I should at some point write that up.

  28. E_Martinez on March 9th, 2009 9:19 pm

    The “repaint” job of safeco…Mariners lost that in court finally and got stuck with the bill…they may have expenced it off this year, even though it was paid a couple years ago.

    Plus with the suite rentals dropping off significantly over the past 4 seasons (Its one of the reasons they gutted 8 of the $4000 suites to install the All-star club seats….even though they make less per seat off the all-star because food is included….they had to do something with those revenues dropping each year….and even if they sell out the allstar club for every game….its still half the revenue they use to get when they could sell those suites to weekeday games…..last couple years they werent even filling half of them for most of the games.

    They were even offering suites for over half off to single games to season ticket holders.

    Basic ticket sales may have only been off 13%….Suite/premium/etc sales would be off at least that much (I would say it was much higher for the high end seats and licenses)….and those revenues were $66 million last year….even if ya say those revenue are down across the board the same….it still comes to $57 million…..

    So pulling numbers here and there…that will be off by a couple percent….makes up the differences people have pointed out.

  29. enazario on March 9th, 2009 10:14 pm

    Another part of the profit picture are the naming rights for the park (Safeco Field). The naming right profits are realized over the life of the contract with Safeco Insurance.

  30. Typical Idiot Fan on March 10th, 2009 12:01 am

    How long before Lincoln blames the “loss” on the fans not supporting the team?

  31. Auggeydog on March 10th, 2009 12:44 am

    Nope, you guys got it all wrong. The loss is the amount they have to pay Washburn because they did not trade him. If they trade him and pay about half his salary this year it would make up the 4.5 mill they are talking about. That is the true loss, they were stupid enough to keep him.

  32. slescotts on March 10th, 2009 6:56 am

    The Mariners convenient SHELL…err, ‘HAT’ GAME.

    FROM PUGET SOUND BUSINESS JOURNAL:

    Under the terms of the stadium lease, the Mariners are required to share 10 percent of annual profits with the Washington State Major League Baseball Public Facilities District, the public agency that oversees Safeco Field, once the team recoups $200 million in operating losses.

    Despite last year’s losses, the Mariners said that a special adjustment means that the M’s will reflect a $1.9 million gain toward whittling down the cumulative net loss, which now stands at $51 million.

    So…Yeah, they ‘made’ $1.9 million. The operating ‘loss’ comes from paying down previous losses that keep us (and ‘to keep’ us) in the ‘red’. The M’s will never pay a dime to the agency overseeing Safeco. The Mariners negotiated a pretty sweet deal: a cheap lease secured with the promise of substantial profits down the road, “SO, charge us nothing up front, and we’ll pay you, I swear…” With $200 million bucks worth of debt, it seems pretty unlikely, even if they are making ‘progress’… I mean, if I am the M’s it makes NO sense to pay off that debt and turn over profits. As the honorable Mr. Snow predicts above, they will totally, 100%, absolutely negotiate a new lease without profit sharing once they do repay the remaining $51 million.

  33. Ralph_Malph on March 10th, 2009 8:36 am

    Just based on the numerous games I attended last year compared with the year before, I have a hard time believing they lost any money. With the exception of some mid-week games, it looked about the same to me.

    This is kind of like the guy who says “I watched Yuni play short all year and he looked as good in the field as ever”.

    Attendance per game (league rank)
    2008 28,762 (7th)
    2007 32,588 (6th)
    2006 30,632 (6th)
    2005 33,648 (4th)
    2004 35,863 (3rd)
    2003 40,352 (2nd)
    2002 43,740 (1st)
    2001 43,300 (1st)

    That’s a pretty steady slide (and not an unexpected one given the team’s slide on the field since 2001). And because attendance is a trailing indicator (and given the economy), it’s likely to be a couple years before that line starts up even if they start winning.

  34. slescotts on March 10th, 2009 9:13 am

    Also, in 2007 they reported a $17.8 million (or so) profit. With additions to payroll, ‘eating’ salary, etc. you can see how they got their figure. They gotta pay off $51 million bucks and can drag out until 2019. I bet if it looks like they might pay that off sooner and/or return profits, they’ll renegotiate the lease (“things are rough, but we expect them to turn around, what if we increased our lease payment to…”) sign it, and suddenly be profitable.

  35. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 11:29 am

    Guesses… really. You think I just pulled that stuff out of my butt?

    Pretty much. No offense, but you just don’t know the numbers. You may be in the ballpark, but you just don’t. It’s all speculation on your part. Perhaps “educated speculation,” but speculation nonetheless.

  36. Jeff Nye on March 10th, 2009 12:08 pm

    Since you can say that so authoritatively, you must yourself have access to “the numbers”.

    So, share with the class.

  37. niterunner on March 10th, 2009 12:48 pm

    I’m not Mike, but here is an article with some numbers for the 2001 season.

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1325

  38. DMZ on March 10th, 2009 1:44 pm

    You know, if you think I’m some uniformed yahoo spouting off randomly and you put no stock in what I have to say, why are you here, reading my stuff and complaining about it? No one’s forcing you to.

    Also, for the record, I’m not spouting off randomly and if you’re willing to pick up the tab, I’d be happy to spend some quality time refining those numbers to be even better. But they’re good.

  39. LB on March 10th, 2009 2:10 pm

    >> That’s split 30 ways…

    > That deal hasn’t exactly favored the M’s, has it?

    Revenues for Yankee telecasts in Japan and Matsui jerseys sold in Kanazawa are also split 30 ways. That hasn’t exactly favored the Yankees, has it?

  40. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 3:08 pm

    I just thought you guys were all into accuracy and raising the level of debate. It just struck me as odd that you base your disbelief/criticism of the Mariners’ annual report on educated guesses.

    I’m sure you’ve got a decent idea of how much the Mariners brought in and spent. But again, you are challenging a specific number ($4.5MM) with estimations.

    If you guys really believe in accuracy and the like, I don’t see why you can’t cite to more specific numbers. You are using words like “probably” and “at least,” estimating the amount they made per ticket – even if you are off by just a dollar on that $25 estmation, that puts you off by more than 2MM bucks – and you estimate their costs to be “~$170MM.”

    And no, I’m not going to pay the tab so you can come up with more accurate figures. You put yourself out there when you made this argument, I felt its shortcomings needed to be addressed.

    Usually, the quality of work here is top-notch. This post fell below that standard.

    That’s all.

  41. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 3:10 pm

    Since you can say that so authoritatively, you must yourself have access to “the numbers”.

    Wait. Because I don’t have access to the true numbers, I’m supposed to concede to someone on the other side of the debate who also doesn’t have access to the true numbers?

    Why?

  42. section331 on March 10th, 2009 3:15 pm

    This is kind of like the guy who says “I watched Yuni play short all year and he looked as good in the field as ever”.

    Never said I was an expert, just said that things didn’t look that much different to me between 2007 and 2008. Nothing more, nothing less.

  43. slescotts on March 10th, 2009 3:17 pm

    Regarding the $52 million or so from various broadcast rights… Does anybody know how those are paid? Is it paid upfront or financed over a term with an upfront payment. Also, does ‘a KOMO’ pay the Mariners directly? Who pays the MLB? I imagine there’s quite a bit of accounting going on… If paid to the M’s upfront, it’s possible broadcast rights monies are held somewhere as an asset with a big number value, that pay out over a term. No idea…Is there an accountant in the hous…’blog’?

    Any idea on the dollar amount of contracts that we ‘ate’ that might be dinging our PL? We could get pretty close to a reality if we used the 2007 reported profit and subtracted lost ticket sales, coats of paint, Miguel Cairo… That’s assuming we believe the 2007 figure.

  44. E_Martinez on March 10th, 2009 3:22 pm

    you put no stock in what I have to say, why are you here, reading my stuff and complaining about it?

    Most are here for the baseball side info and analysis, which we love….. DMZ’s financial analysis? I dunno……

    As far as the financial analysis….Ironically if you take into consideration possible 3-5% error on estimate revenues as well as expenses …… several million dollar loss or a several million dollar gain is all the same ballpart by most (USS and Mariners included)

    The other thing that is funny….The Mariners practices of accounting are similar if not the same of most businesses in the US, but because its “baseball” we view it differently. The Mariners are going to amortize their locker room Nintendo Wii just like other business will

  45. Mike Snow on March 10th, 2009 3:30 pm

    If you guys really believe in accuracy and the like, I don’t see why you can’t cite to more specific numbers.

    Because we don’t have access to the team’s books? You’re being bought off by a superficial appearance of accuracy. Ownership gives a highly specific figure without showing any of the numbers that went into it. Using the best estimates available, that highly specific figure appears questionable, but it’s our fault for not using the real numbers that aren’t given to us?

  46. Jeff Nye on March 10th, 2009 3:45 pm

    Wait. Because I don’t have access to the true numbers, I’m supposed to concede to someone on the other side of the debate who also doesn’t have access to the true numbers?

    Why?

    You don’t have to concede, but you shouldn’t make allegations that someone else is being sloppy or make presumptions about the quality of their research unless you have access to information that proves they are wrong.

    I’ve never known Dave or Derek to be sloppy about their research, and I don’t see why they would start with this post.

    Just because they’re having to estimate the parts that aren’t publically available doesn’t mean their entire analysis should be thrown out the window.

  47. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 4:28 pm

    You don’t have to concede, but you shouldn’t make allegations that someone else is being sloppy or make presumptions about the quality of their research unless you have access to information that proves they are wrong.

    Of course I can make those allegations. I don’t need to have access to the numbers to recognize that a critique of the annual report which is based on estimations is faulty.

    Yes, I agree that Dave and Derek are not sloppy. That’s why I found this post so surprising.

  48. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 4:29 pm

    You’re being bought off by a superficial appearance of accuracy. Ownership gives a highly specific figure without showing any of the numbers that went into it.

    ??? Are you suggesting that the Mariners are lying to the public about their bottom line?

  49. Jeff Nye on March 10th, 2009 4:33 pm

    Alright, this has gone on long enough.

    Either provide substantiative proof of where you think Derek is making things up, or can it.

  50. DMZ on March 10th, 2009 5:08 pm

    Yeah, I’m getting a little annoyed too.

    How come you’re not in Dave’s division estimation thread, chewing on him for not adequately backing up his numbers? Why is it that this time it’s not okay for me to rough out – with disclaimers – that the M’s revenue streams are as justification for why I’m skeptical of their unverifiable claim that they lost money?

  51. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 6:11 pm

    Either provide substantiative proof of where you think Derek is making things up, or can it.

    Fine, but that’s an awfully backwards way of enforcing burden of proof.

    How come you’re not in Dave’s division estimation thread, chewing on him for not adequately backing up his numbers?

    I guess it’s because Dave isn’t calling anyone’s integrity into question.

    Why is it that this time it’s not okay for me to rough out – with disclaimers – that the M’s revenue streams are as justification for why I’m skeptical of their unverifiable claim that they lost money?

    Like I said, I just don’t see how you can make a convincing argument without concrete data. And just because the M’s didn’t release the report itself doesn’t mean we should question its existence or accuracy.

    But per Jeff’s request, I’m done.

  52. Mike Snow on March 10th, 2009 6:30 pm

    And just because the M’s didn’t release the report itself doesn’t mean we should question its existence or accuracy.

    I’m sure it exists, I mean they at least had to show it to the PFD. And I expect it’s accurate in the sense that the numbers in it are derived from the team’s actual books, rather than simply being made up. But that doesn’t mean that the report isn’t carefully constructed to present facts in the light the Mariners want them presented, and what they call a loss may not be what I would call one.

  53. Jeff Nye on March 10th, 2009 6:56 pm

    Fine, but that’s an awfully backwards way of enforcing burden of proof.

    Derek’s gone out of his way to point out that this is just his best guess, using what information he can reasonably project, as to the realities of the Mariners’ financial situation. In the context of various prior instances of financial skullduggery on the team’s part, it’s not unreasonable to want to take a closer look as to whether their claim of a loss matches up with what information we CAN get at.

    You’ve been asked repeatedly to point out what specific things you think Derek is wrong about, and you haven’t done so.

  54. slescotts on March 10th, 2009 6:58 pm

    Are you suggesting that the Mariners are lying to the public about their bottom line?

    -Not ‘lying’ per se… Just doing what every other business does: limiting expenses, particularly those that come off of net profits (if any) and require payment to governmental bodies (quasi or otherwise). The M’s and MLB are smart folks. I would find it hard to believe that they didn’t have a team of accountants crunching numbers and building simulations ad nauseam.

    Is it less than truthful? Yeah, sorta’… It’s the system we have, profits and growth rule and are rewarded, fancy accounting can help achieve both.

    Besides, while we love Safeco, that didn’t go down super-well either…

  55. Mike Honcho on March 10th, 2009 7:32 pm

    You’ve been asked repeatedly to point out what specific things you think Derek is wrong about, and you haven’t done so.

    No, I’ve been asked to come up with specific numbers that refute DMZ’s comments. And I’ve already made clear that I don’t have those numbers, and that that fact doesn’t matter.

    And further, I’ve said several times that my problem is that DMZ can only give guesses (be they educated or not) as to total dollar amounts of revenues, expenses, etc. Which, to my knowledge, no one has disagreed with.

  56. Jeff Nye on March 10th, 2009 7:43 pm

    I don’t have any idea what point you’re trying to make, then.

  57. AFanOfTheSite on March 11th, 2009 12:45 pm

    I do numbers for a living, and the numbers on this site and elsewhere frequently end up raising an eyebrow or two. But I usually squelch that inner statistician, since I’m mainly here for the process of the analysis (and to learn more about the game) rather than the results.

    But, hey…. why not provide a confidence interval? Every one of DMZ’s numbers has an error, and when you sum up those errors correctly you’ll get an overall CI. The null hypothesis is the $4.5M loss. Sounds like DMZ’s point estimate is a profit….but I bet even if DMZ estimated his own confidence interval it would include the null, and he couldn’t say for certain that the team was wrong.

    But those that quibble about (the quality of) his numbers miss the point that the team has incentive to play the books to create a loss (no, that’s not “lying”… that’s “lying with numbers” which is not as bad!). Without the “forthcoming evidence”, any person reading the M’s reported number SHOULD assume it’s biased.

    And therefore a $4.5M loss is probably actually a profit.

    I post this at the end of a already dead thread. But that’s where statistical quibbling usually ends up!

  58. Mike Snow on March 11th, 2009 1:35 pm

    Confidence interval? This isn’t about statistics in the academic sense, it’s accounting.

  59. AFanOfTheSite on March 11th, 2009 2:32 pm

    He made educated guesses, and all the quibbles were about whether his guesses were right or not. Or about whether he didn’t include stuff (and DMZ I’m sure knows he missed some stuff). Hence they’re about the quality of his estimates.

    It ain’t accounting if you don’t have the numbers…. it’s statistics. It’s all statistics in the end.

    The only reason I bring this all up was all that stupid debate about someone needing to show specific errors to suggest the other person was wrong… or provide specific numbers to refute… no one has the numbers.

    But I won’t be arguing with you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.