This discussion has unfortunately strayed from the main point on which I think you've been clearly proven wrong. I recall another poster here who was quite willing to accept that they had misread something rather than redirect. Perhaps you should consider following that example.

As for this secondary issue of expense allocation, based on CAS, then you should be able to explain any of the scenarios I outlined quite easily. Please then tell us what the appropriate ratio of charges would be in any of those instances.

The point I make is not that there's not a way to handle these, it's that there are MANY ways to handle these costs. And it's true, it happens all the time in business, and depending on your interpretation and on your strategy, you can treat them differently, and do so WITHOUT fraudulence. The double deals cloud the issue and allow for legal, not just illegal expense allocations that aren't necessarily exactly accurate, but can be argued as proper. If you think otherwise, then your business experience is more limited than you let on.

Additionally, your "not worth the risk" argument is so easliy and often refuted by the real world examples that it's pointless to argue with you about it. Incentives are many and varied, and what's too risky for one, is common practice for another. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but do you think the risk/reward ratio was worth it for Ben Roethlisberger in his recent travails? That one hits home for me, unfortunately, but just shows you what kind of poor decisions people are capable of given the right circumstances when presented and how the legal system is less than perfect in dealing with them.

Personally, I'm not impressed with the stories of Leckrone, though I've not met him. Nor do I get a warm and fuzzy that he would run an accounting setup that is totally conservative and unquestionable. I think he's more likely to push the limits of accounting practices and interpretations and in a way that is favorable to him rather than the alternatives.

But again, this is a secondary issue to the primary issue of licensing deals and the mixing of portfolios.