- Sep 1, 2004
The end of section 23 makes no sense.
This will come down to the audit. What were they including in that "overhead"? I'm thinking they were padding it out big time.
Plus they're saying they only have to spend $82 million, not 100, because they have fewer channels. Theoretically, there's an amended agreement that says that...why hasn't it turned up? And where did they get this $82 million from anyway? If you divide $100 million by 21 and multiply by 15, you get $71.4 million and change.
Since they keep saying that, they must have been spending between 82 and 100.
AND if there wasn't a revised agreement and DISH agreed to pay $3.25 a subscriber for 21 channels, shouldn't they have been able to drop that to $2.32?
Hmmm...I'm not done skimming this, looks like it may be addressed around #36 or so...
Read the suit
The $82M was because for every channel not on, ones that were movie channels were 'worth x million', and non-movie ones were 'y million' off the $100 million spending.
And no, the $3.25 a sub was NOT to be changed because Dish only showed 15, not 21 channels. A change to that was not in the agreement