ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   KC Star: Hunt answers cynics on stadium funding (Murphy) (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=98823)

Logical 09-20-2004 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe
There are several NFL owners, including Irsay, who vehemently disagree. Signing bonuses can be pro-rated against the cap, but they must be paid to the player IMMEDIATELY. This is not about the cap, this is about actual money. Irsay had to SELL ASSETS to pay Peyton Manning. Daniel Snyder will NEVER have to do that -- he can re-invest profits in his team.

Until the Chiefs are no longer making a profit so could the Chiefs. This argument is silly for now.

One other thing Lamar's initial investment in the Chiefs was less than $50K, he has over $700 million in equity, he is a hell of a long way from spending any of his money based on a cash out position on the franchise. Dan Snyder on the other hand paid almost a billion for the Redskins, so he is a long way from no longer having a huge amount of cash sunk into the Redskins.

tk13 09-20-2004 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief
HUH? Teh Yankees spend 181 million. The Royals spend 45 million. The Chiefs and Redskins get to spend the same exact amount every year. No more. They can spend less but not more. It's called a salary cap. Baseball should try it.

No, signing bonuses are paid up front. Snyder can spend 115-120 million easily every offseason paying people signing bonuses up front. I've talked about this all offseason. Snyder can sign an All-Star team on both sides of the football because he can put everything in signing bonuses that is guaranteed money... Snyder has much, much, much more room to screw around. If he makes a mistake here and there, it's no big deal. The Chiefs made 20 million dollars profit... that's practically one big FA, and like the Royals, if we screw up or something bad happens (look at all the injuries we've had), that's it, unless Lamar wants to take a loss of profit. I can understand people wanting him to do that, but personally, that's Lamar's decision, I don't expect him to not make a profit on his business.

htismaqe 09-22-2004 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav
Until the Chiefs are no longer making a profit so could the Chiefs. This argument is silly for now.

One other thing Lamar's initial investment in the Chiefs was less than $50K, he has over $700 million in equity, he is a hell of a long way from spending any of his money based on a cash out position on the franchise. Dan Snyder on the other hand paid almost a billion for the Redskins, so he is a long way from no longer having a huge amount of cash sunk into the Redskins.

Like I said, people that currently OWN NFL TEAMS disagree with you. Of course, I'm sure your own in-depth experience with owning an NFL team fuels your argument, right?

whoman69 09-22-2004 05:03 PM

I always think that the teams should have to put a portion of the funds for a new stadium, they are profiting from that new stadium. But on the other side of the coin, the Chiefs are not making as much profit as the sum being bantied about here.

Logical 09-22-2004 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe
Like I said, people that currently OWN NFL TEAMS disagree with you. Of course, I'm sure your own in-depth experience with owning an NFL team fuels your argument, right?

Most of those people bought in and do not have the huge positive equity position of the Hunts. The Hunts just want the seats full and more money came in. Lamar has never been all that vested in winning, the 80s are proof of that to me. I think Lamar is a great man, but he is not motivated towards winning and never has been beyond filling the seats and his pockets.

BigRedChief 09-23-2004 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav
Most of those people bought in and do not have the huge positive equity position of the Hunts. The Hunts just want the seats full and more money came in. Lamar has never been all that vested in winning, the 80s are proof of that to me. I think Lamar is a great man, but he is not motivated towards winning and never has been beyond filling the seats and his pockets.

I disagree. I don't think Lamar is just about winning. But supposely we have 6 mil on the table we could have used to bring someone in here and didn't. So on the surface it looks like they wanted to keep the 6 mil in their pocket instead of out on the field. I have disaggreed with some of their off season moves but at least they were making moves. Spending all of their cap dollars. This is the first time off season I felt that they were not trying their best. Another episode like this and I may be swayed to a "vlad" way of thought.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.