well, it is in line with the strategy they've had all along. I think the argument is that some of the revenue made from 2006 was always supposed to be used to for future campaigns and should therefore be taken off the table before the profit is calculated. Remember the fight is essentially over how much profit there is to split up.
I remember at least one version of the TTFF figures had monies allocated to the 2010 (and possibly also the 2014 IIRC) campaign as a cost. This was early on in the wranglings. I thought/think it was a ridiculous tactic, mostly because the dollar values just seemed to be made up after the fact to make the numbers work out. But it's a consistently held position over what must be a few years now.
Regardless as to what future purpose they've earmarked the money for... this money would still be coming from the profits. They agreed to split the profits, not what's ever left over after paying bills. So even if they say well we budgeted XYand Z for overheads, salaries and maintenance and upkeep of the physical plant, that allocation is still coming from profits made and can only be made after the debt is settled. If the deal says you have to split the profits then whatever you have/need to do with your share is not really my concern.
I agree with everything you say here. Just pointing out that this is in keeping with their strategy all along.
I think that even in the original offer where the claimed profit was $282,203 ( $18,255,952 in revenue and $17,973,749 in expenses) they had counted future campaigns in the expenses.
I might try to look for the threads with the breakdowns of the various numbers the TTFF has provided over time.