KC Star: Hunt answers cynics on stadium funding (Murphy)

[Logical]

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.

[htismaqe]

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]

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]

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]

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.