Quote:
Originally Posted by zachvac
A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that Chad didn't start this. Cate posted a long thing on twitter trashing Chad, my understanding was this thread was his defense. I haven't had any direct financial dealings with Chad but I know a good amount of people who have and have heard nothing but great things. I don't understand how anyone can read this exchange and think Chad looks bad.
before she tweeted didnt he threaten to out her tho?
and to your last line, it seems pretty simple. they agreed to arb; he doesnt get his way, yet clings to one line thinking he is owed, while completely ignoring the circumstance of that point (that she keeps playing on her own or for someone else).
short of forcing her to play, it seems ridiculous to be entitled to 100% makeup ever. thats literally the risk of backing. why would anyone play backed if they owe it all if they lose? being out of the state of mind is one thing, but the onus is on the backer to not punt their own money also.
and as has been said, a buyout should not be 100% because it is his choice also. the only reason he should be entitled to 100% of the makeup is if hes still taking 100% of the action