If anything I've found your post prior to this condescending and this follow up dismissive. You are telling me, "You still don't get it...", "....operational costs may mean nothing.", "..I am simply demonstrating ways to cook the books, not saying they are cooked."
What I am telling you is your definition of a capital gain and the use of a capital loss (in Canadian tax law) is incorrect.
Also, the literal bottom line is an individual, corporation, franchise, or country cannot operate at a loss using loans/debt against capital appreciation as a means to keep things going. This is the very essence of a ponzi scheme. Some of the examples you gave is not just erroneous accounting, it could also be considered tax evasion or fraud on the owners part. Operating at sustained losses (in the NBA's case, 6 years) is not good business in any enterprise, regardless of possible capital appreciation.
You most certainly have made the point:Unfortunately, and this is my point, there are errors in accounting principle, possible instances of tax evasion, and dangerous uses of leverage in your arguments. Ultimately the franchises report to the CRA/IRS rather than the players association and, with a very public battle ongoing, would it serve the owner's/NBA's best interests to 'cook the books'? They would certainly lose all credibility if the CRA/IRS performed an audit finding inconsistencies.on how one can stack their books, and how operational costs may mean nothing. I have done that. Nothing you have said has disputed that fact. I come from an accounting family, so I have a good grasp of these things.
Fwiw, I also have an immediate family member who is an auditor with CRA. I also have owned up to 6 rental properties and bought and sold a number of these in the recent past and I do my own accounting with assistance from the family member - especially on the capital gains and using depreciation. While I am not an accountant, I've yet to see anything to the contrary indicating your interpretations of capital gains/losses are correct based on my own accounting experiences.
We both can agree since neither one of us have access to the books, we are using owner's public arguments (me) versus players public arguments (you). However the following statement is quite a contradiction when I am only providing the other side of the argument:
I could easily say:If you want to add some original thought rather than parroting the leagues numbers, by all means go right ahead. I also don't see what the use is of attacking those that do.
If you want to add some original thought rather than parroting the players numbers, by all means go right ahead. I also don't see what the use is of questioning those that do.