The Lockout & the Raptors: Players approve CBA, Owners too! (1944)

[Matt52]

Matt52,

The reason I don't like doing this crap, is because its egotistical, and not fun for others who read this board.


You still don't get it, and I think you think this is about right and wrong. You and I do not know who is right or wrong, because we don't see the books. I don't want to get into this back and forth with you because its obvious you are not understanding me, and when you are you are just playing devils advocate for the sake of argument. I am simply demonstrating ways to cook books, not saying they are cooked.


I am also trying to contribute with my knowledge not my ego. I did not come here to argue, I just came here to make a point 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.



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. Good Day.

I do not see where the egotism is stemming from. You have made numerous statements throughout the thread that I have not agreed with. The posters who have agreed with you spurred you on to post more along the same lines. I have an opposing view none of which have anything to do with my ego. I have not made any comment that attacked you personally or implied any insult to your knowledge.

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

I could easily say:

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.

[MyMomLovesMe]

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you matt52. I don't find this enjoyable.

You are having a hard time following me, and all your replies are just your opinion.


Your replies are about ego and acting like you are the top of the hill. They certainly have noting to do with knowledge, just "no its not". When I tell you why you are wrong, you just find something else to argue about without any acknowledgement. I don't want to waste my time.


What ponzi scheme? WTF Are you talking about? Corporations take on loans against their value all the time, its called over extending yourself. There is a lot of corruption out there, and I don't see CEO' as saints the way you do. All the techniques I mentioned are legal and are done all the time.


Was it illegal for Greek PM to sell the Greek hedge for 40 million profit to his family and friends? A Hedge that would of been worth 5 Billion to the Greek Government a month after it was sold? A sale he made while negotiating the deal with the IMF, and therefore must have had full knowledge of the value of that paper?


No, it was not illegal. Some are calling it stupid, shortsighted. I wish I could be that conveniently stupid. Well, doing stupid things that pad bank accounts seems to be the norm amongst the elite. The final answer is always "How could we have known?". "We did not see it coming..."


So if you think that CEO's are incapable of running a business into financial bankruptcy, while bonusing themselves out , then you have not been following the news.



The books need to be open. You can't ignore gross indicators like Revenues which have grown substantially. Operational cost don't mean jack, and if you have not learned that from the examples I have shown you than you are one suborn fool. Something is not right.

[Matt52]

The players and owners haven't made any progress toward a new collective bargaining agreement and the general consensus is that this will be a lengthy lockout. However, there are many who believe that the players will budge when their paychecks don't arrive in November.

Noah Sheer - the Director of the Sports and Entertainment division at Cherry, Bekaert & Holland - provides financial services to many professional athletes, actors and musicians. Sheer has many NBA clients, but felt that the majority of players weren't changing their habits in the months leading up to the lockout.

"Players are not preparing," Sheer said in December. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Now, he believes that players will be in for a rude awakening if a portion of the season is lost.

"In the NBA, players are going to feel the pain on November 15," Sheer said. "Spending is fine right now, but many players live paycheck to paycheck and that's when they'll be affected. I'm not the first one to say this, but players have to be preparing for when the paychecks stop showing up."

"This is a situation everyone hoped to avoid," he added. "We have prepared our clients for this possibility and will do all we can to be with them in the challenging time ahead. The state of the worldwide economy touches everyone. Solid financial and tax planning is even more critical for success in these times. Taxes are the largest expense, bar none. Federal and state income, real estate, sales, excise, foreign income taxes all must be scrutinized and planned. This is our forte and often overlooked by many athletes."

Professional athletes are expected to maintain a certain lifestyle, which is why many have such a difficult time saving money and preparing for situations like a lockout.

"The problem with a lot of athletes is that they've learned to live out of their means," Sheer said. "They become so accustomed to a certain lifestyle - being able to spend $100,000 over the course of a few months, which is something the average person just can't do. When they need money, they're asking for enormous loans to maintain that lifestyle. It doesn't make much sense for players to take these loans, but they feel like it's their only option because nobody wants to be seen without any money during the lockout."

However, if players are low on money, Sheer says that they have several options.

Because most players are still under contract, they will be able to take out loans, but they must be careful. Sheer advises his clients not to accept loans from hard money lenders. Instead, he says that a number of banks are willing to work with NBA and NFL athletes during the lockouts.

"There are a lot of hard money lenders out there that are willing to loan at ridiculous interest rates with points on top, but you come out paying upwards of 20 to 40 percent to borrow the money," Sheer said. "There are better ways to find money. A lot of players think that's their only option, but that's not the case. There are a lot of banks that are talking with players in the NBA and NFL. One, in particular, is SunTrust. They're doing a great job and if these players want to get serious, banks like SunTrust will get serious too and help them through this lockout."

Another option for players is to revisit their tax returns and receive money that they previously missed out on.

"A lot of players aren't involved in the preparation of their tax returns. With the amount of money that these players are receiving, they're paying a lot in taxes and they should be getting large refunds. If a player isn't getting a large refund, it's because he's not involved in his accounting, bookkeeping and tax preparation. If their accountant doesn't know who they are, they don't know what expenses you've had in the past year that relate to them being a professional athlete. You can amend your prior tax returns and, more often than not, you will get money back. Some guys went from owing money to receiving nearly $10,000 in tax refund. That's their money - it's just a matter of going back and looking over the expenses that relate to being a professional athlete."

Sheer advises his clients to do something productive with their free time during this lockout. He believes that players should be going back to school, training on a rigorous program or finding other ways to make money such as camps and appearances.

If the entire season is lost, Sheer believes that a lot of players will be in trouble.

"Living off of debt is not a good situation," he said. "A lot of players will find themselves in a bad position because they'll be living off of other people's money. That's a high cost of living."

Many NFL players have come crawling to Sheer's firm, completely broke and out of answers. NBA players must prepare for the worst if they want to avoid a similar fate.


Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?...#ixzz1RtHDwbRm

The bolded section holds true for an NBA franchise.... or anyone. Living off debt is dangerous.

The issue many owners have is they are not borrowing to make improvements in the team, they are borrowing to make everyday payments on typical business expenses. That is like me taking money off my home equity line of credit to pay for my heat and light bill. If it happened once and quickly repaid due to an unforseen expense that may be acceptable (forgetting the fact that is what a rainy day or emergency fund is for). To do this year after year makes no sense long term.

[MyMomLovesMe]

The bolded section holds true for an NBA franchise.... or anyone. Living off debt is dangerous.

The issue many owners have is they are not borrowing to make improvements in the team, they are borrowing to make everyday payments on typical business expenses. That is like me taking money off my home equity line of credit to pay for my heat and light bill. If it happened once and quickly repaid due to an unforseen expense that may be acceptable (forgetting the fact that is what a rainy day or emergency fund is for). To do this year after year makes no sense long term.

Do you have a source for that? How do you know that without seeing the books? Are you an owner?



Are you ever going to acknowledge, that one can overextend themselves by making poor decisions and decision that have nothing to do with the business? Crippling debt, 95% of the time is of the individuals own making.

[MyMomLovesMe]

Here is one on BP writing off their losses, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...s-for-2010.php. A heart warming story.

They set up a trust fund that deals with the claims and contracts, over years, so that they can maximize the write off and spread it over many profitable years at a benefit to themselves.


---------



This is why you should incorporate.

Corporations follow different rules. Their capital losses must first be carried back to each of the three preceding years, if possible. Any capital losses that cannot be applied against capital gains from the three previous years can then be applied against capital gains in the 5 succeeding tax years.

For example, assume that X Corporation has $50,000 in net capital losses in 2005. Their capital gains for the last three years are:
2002: 0
2003: 23,000
2004: 11,000

The net capital losses cannot be carried back to 2002 because there is no net capital gain to offset. $23,000 can be used to offset the capital gains in 2003, leaving $27,000. Another $11,000 can be used to offset the capital gains in 2004, leaving $16,000. This $16,000 can be used to offset any net capital gains that arise in the next five years.

A capital loss, can be as simple as getting your but bitten in the stock market. I am sure clubs had their investments in this crisis.

[Matt52]

[QUOTE=MyMomLovesMe;93544]

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you matt52. I don't find this enjoyable.

What pissing contest? This is a discussion of public issues being debates by owners and players in the current lockout.

You are having a hard time following me, and all your replies are just your opinion.

I understand exactly where you are coming from. The problem is your terms are incorrect. From Canada Revenue Agency (www.cra-arc.gc.ca):

Usually, you have a capital gain or loss when you sell or are considered to have sold capital property. The following are examples of cases where you are considered to have sold capital property:

You exchange one property for another.
You give property (other than cash) as a gift.
Shares or other securities in your name are converted.
You settle or cancel a debt owed to you.
You transfer certain property to a trust.
Your property is expropriated.
Your property is stolen.
Your property is destroyed.
An option that you hold to buy or sell property expires.
A corporation redeems or cancels shares or other securities that you hold (you will usually be considered to have received a dividend, the amount of which will be shown on a T5 slip).
You change all or part of the property's use (see "Changes in use").
You leave Canada (see Guide T4056, Emigrants and Income Tax).
The owner dies (see Guide T4011, Preparing Returns for Deceased Persons).

Your answer for the owners is use their capital gains to cover operating costs and losses. The correct term, based on your suggestion, is for owners to further leverage themselves to pay for the operations of a franchise that is cash flow negative in many cases (i.e. more money is going in than coming out) in the hopes the appreciation of the franchise will allow further lending against it. That is not how businesses operate, that is how people go bankrupt in time. That is the problem - too many owners are spending more each year than they are taking in.

Your replies are about ego and acting like you are the top of the hill. They certainly have noting to do with knowledge, just "no its not". When I tell you why you are wrong, you just find something else to argue about without any acknowledgement. I don't want to waste my time.

That is your opinion. I 100% disagree. Not once have I put you down directly or indirectly. The posts have stayed on topic. Unfortunately it has been yourself who has questioned my posts in this thread. I suggest you take a look back.

What ponzi scheme? WTF Are you talking about? Corporations take on loans against their value all the time, its called over extending yourself. There is a lot of corruption out there, and I don't see CEO' as saints the way you do. All the techniques I mentioned are legal and are done all the time.

Here is the definition of a ponzi scheme:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors.

Now take away investors and substitute lenders - remember you are the one advocating owners to take out debt to pay for operational costs. Owners are expected to cover losses and operational costs through lending? What happens when they need to borrow more AND pay interest on the loan? They need another loan. Then they are paying expenses they always had, interest on the original loan, and interest on the new second loan, and so on and so forth. When minimum payments can no longer be made on the loans, creditors no longer want a return ON their capital, they want a return OF their capital.

Was it illegal for Greek PM to sell the Greek hedge for 40 million profit to his family and friends? A Hedge that was worth 5 Billion to the Greek Government, bought by the previous party in power. A sale he made while negotiating the deal with the IMF, and therefore must have had full knowledge of the value of that paper?


No, it was not illegal. Some are calling it stupid, shortsighted. I wish I could be that conveniently stupid. Well, doing stupid things that pad bank accounts seems to be the norm amongst the elite. The final answer is always "How could we have known?". "W did not see it coming..."


So if you think that CEO's are incapable of running a business into financial bankruptcy, while bonusing themselves out , then you have not been following the news.

I'm not seeing the correlation in this section to NBA owners and players and the last line makes quite an assumption.


I've said numerous times I don't really care about millionaires vs. billionaires.

My issue, as a fan, is seeing a league that is competitive for the majority of franchises rather than a select few who can afford to outspend other teams. It just so happens that this vision falls more on the side of the owners argument.

[MyMomLovesMe]

Dude can you get any more condescending?

I did not ask you for the definition of a Ponzi scheme. I did not ask you for the definition of Capital Gains or Losses. You are saying a lot without saying anything. It's unnecessary. They can easily write out the capital losses which could be as simple as a loss on investments (if they structure it better it can spin off companies). (they can write it off in the US for up to 5 years)


Stop acting like you know what is going on on the owners side. You don't.


Running up your credit card is not a ponzi scheme, it may not be manageable behaviour, but its not considered a ponzai scheme. In an environment where your next SPLIT comes from how you look financially, I would choose to run up my credit card just before the new CBA ran out just for posturing. I gain more this way. I also have control of the funds I borrow and can efficiently use them to expend the footprint of my business all while showing a loss. There is nothing illegal here dude, just strategy, like chess.


Again, as I keep hammering this to you, operational costs mean nothing, unless you see the books. Let them open the books. Why should they lose any sleep over it if it is as they say?

[Matt52]

Dude can you get any more condescending?

I did not ask you for the definition of a Ponzi scheme. I did not ask you for the definition of Capital Gains or Losses. You are saying a lot without saying anything. It's unnecessary. They can easily write out the capital losses which could be as simple as a loss on investments.


Stop acting like you know what is going on on the owners side. You don't.


Running up your credit card is not a ponzi scheme, it may not be manageable behaviour, but its not considered a ponzai scheme. In an environment where your next SPLIT comes from how you look financially, I would choose to run up my credit card just before the new CBA ran out just for posturing. I gain more this way.


Again, as I keep hammering this to you, operational costs mean nothing, unless you see the books. Let the open the books.

Unfortunately the definitions were necessary to show your original use of terms and premise as incorrect.

I'll tell you what: I'll stop acting like I know what is going on on the owners side when you do the same. Your whole premise is based on the owners cooking the books.

Running up your credit card is a ponzi scheme when you then take out other loans to pay for the original and continue to do so. This is what you originally advocated:

This is why operational costs are not THE INDICATOR. Asset value is.

Using appreciation of an asset value to borrow against it is fun until the asset value stops increasing in value or the creditor wants their capital back.

[Matt52]

Here is one on BP writing off their losses, http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...s-for-2010.php. A heart warming story.

They set up a trust fund that deals with the claims and contracts, over years, so that they can maximize the write off and spread it over many profitable years at a benefit to themselves.


---------



This is why you should incorporate.



A capital loss, can be as simple as getting your but bitten in the stock market. I am sure clubs had their investments in this crisis.

You are going off track. My understanding of the disagreeing views is this:

You said:

Thanks guys.


The other reason why business may not want to show a profit.


Suppose you have a great revenue stream coming in. What do you do? Well being cheap in life may be cool, but being cheap in business can be a deal breaker.

So you get 20 mil and it cost you 10 mil, well.... you can cash it out if you want, but the tax man is standing over you. So if you spend it internaly on the business, the expendature becomes more cost effective. If you make a profit you risk 30%, but if you spend it against your operational costs. By buying new HD cameras, new score board, buying up an adjacant property next to your areana and building a nice building there, etc... all are expenses against your operational costs... so in essence you can say you never made any money. But...the overall franchise value incerases with these expenditures.

So in business, operational costs on year to year basis, don't mean so much. Teams often need to renevoate, buy new scoreboards, new HD equipment, new bandwith connections, etc.... these expenditures cost money, and go agaisnt your opertional costs.

This is why operational costs are not THE INDICATOR. Asset value is.

We all understand that business often take on expenditures that mean building a new stadium, renovations, upgrades in technology, these costs are often accounted for many years in adcance in terms of benefits... so its not always so obvious as to PROFIT or LOSS.

I can hide profits for years by funneling it to the businesses asset base. I can take out MAJOR SUMS of money and make the business pay interest on MY GAIN. ... and blame the lossess on the salaries.


EDIT: By the way, the only way you can get dinged by this is captial gains.... but you dont pay that out until you sell, whole or partialy (divisions).... and this is why some businessmen prefer to have a hedge in terms of losses, for capital gains you can write off you losses for 7 years.

Followed by this, to which I originally replied:

Let my reiterate that losses don't tell the full picture.


The revenues are up since the last CBA, the clubs control their expenditures. It's very easy for an owner to over spend, or even borrow money against his franchise and the costs of the money is calculated against operational costs. Hence owners can very easily pay themselves out, and than claim that they lost money in operational expenses. (in fact since these negotiations were expected, it could have been a directive)

Without looking at the books there is no way to tell. The revenues are up across the board, so the losses look self inflicted to me. At what point are owners going to be held accountable for their side of operations? (One of the ways to fuck the players over, is to encroach on the line drawn by expenses, and than put your hands up in the air and tell them that more must come from their side, as you are losing money.)

If teams are mismanaged, no matter how much revenue is generated and how much players give up an owner can still find himself in a position where he is in the red.


The other thing to consider is say a franchise like Dallas losses, 10 million, 5 million, 11 million, 3 million, consecutively. It looks bad operationally, but if the franchise value and brand has gone up by 100 Million in that time, than that 29 million total loss was worth it.

So without seeing the books, and knowing if Owners are expensing themselves out lavish bonuses and perks, to see capital gains, there is no way of knowing if these losses are worth crying about or not. The revenue streams are healthier then they ever have been why are they inadequate to pay the players by the last CBA?


Transparency is essential, not selected figures... but real books and statements, loans etc...

(The players have a right to this, they should not agree on any deal, until owners explain where their side of the revenues are going and why. If the losses are due to shady loans, poor investments, extreme expensing, the players should not be held accountable for these expenditures.)

Your argument is based that the owners are cooking the books to hide profits (your opinion) and that they can handle any operational losses through asset appreciation.

My argument is the owners books are legit (my opinion) and borrowing to pay for operational costs or stating that operational costs do not matter as franchise values continue to appreciate is the same practice that has led to a lot of economic turmoil worldwide.

[MyMomLovesMe]

No, they were correct, show me one item that was wrong, so that I can educated you. I find your 10 points in one post unreadable, maybe you should focus on one or two points. (not to mention egotistical, and confrontational)



Just because one can ponzi with credit cards does not mean everyone who is struggling with credit card debt is a ponzi schemer. Or for that matter those borrowing against their houses, businesses and future profits (many times you need capital to make money). AT least I have not heard it expressed like that, so I don't understand why your trying to complicate this issue by calling any of these tactics ponzi schemes.

Are you saying owners cant borrow agaisnt their franchises?

Are you saying that owners cant expense out monies?

Owners have no control over profit/loss by expenditures and upgrades?




Where the hell is this ponzi scheme coming from? Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue?

[MyMomLovesMe]

Your argument is based that the owners are cooking the books to hide profits (your opinion) and that they can handle any operational losses through asset appreciation.

My argument is the owners books are legit (my opinion) and borrowing to pay for operational costs or stating that operational costs do not matter as franchise values continue to appreciate is the same practice that has led to a lot of economic turmoil worldwide.

So there is no disagreement here. No need for 10 points tit for tat, when its just opinion. State it, don't act like your opinion is better by giving me definitions on subjects that I am better versed on than you.

Everything I have said here can be done legally, whether you agree with it or not. I don't care if it ruffles your feathers. I am just expressing the counter opinion. Your opinion is easy, and frankly generic.

[Matt52]

No, they were correct, show me one item that was wrong, so that I can educated you. I find your 10 points in one post unreadable, maybe you should focus on one or two points.

Very interesting how someone who claims another is condescending replies in such a manner.

Just because one can ponzi with credit cards does not mean everyone who is struggling with credit card debt is a ponzi schemer. Or for that matter those borrowing against their houses, businesses and future profits (many times you need capital to make money). AT least I have not heard it expressed like that, so I don't understand why your trying to complicate this issue by calling any of these tactics ponzi schemes.

You advocated owners ignoring operational losses in the face of appreciating franchise value. I interpreted this view as stating owners can continue to borrow against their franchises to cover expenses. If the ponzi scheme analogy is confusing, ignore it. All one needs to do is look at the number of homes worth less in the US than their actual value - and then look at the number of homes that also have second mortgages or HELOC against them. This is what happens when one uses asset appreciation as a means to pay for expenses.

The argument that owners are misusing or abusing these loans is baseless and purely speculation.

Are you saying owners cant borrow agaisnt their franchises?

Not in the least. What I am saying it is not sound business practice over time if operating at a loss - which 22 of 30 owners claim to be. Nevermind the competitive aspect of the league which is actually my concern.

Are you saying that owners cant expense out monies?

Owners can do what they like with the monies but with 11 teams with losses of greater than $20M in 2009/10, I highly doubt this to be what you are advocating (my opinion).

Owners have no control over profit/loss by expenditures and upgrades?

They absolutely do which is why they are attempting to reign in the largest expense they have - player contracts which accounts for 57% of revenue.

Where the hell is this ponzi scheme coming from? Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue?

Running losses year in year out while borrowing against the appreciating value of a franchise might have been a tough bridge to gap in the analogy. Please see above where I have removed this word from the discussion.

[MyMomLovesMe]

Your interpretation was incorrect. I mentioned lots of credible reasons why someone would have losses, including strategic reasons. I also showed that money could be advanced and withdrawn under a business that operates at a loss.


I always keeps saying open the books, because without the books I do not know if I am correct. I want a full audit, we are talking a SPLIT of a huge sum. An audit by the PA is very reasonable in light of this.


So you affirmed my questions in the positive. That is good, so you see the tools at an owners disposal.

[MyMomLovesMe]

BTW,


I am all for smacking myself on the head and saying "wow, I am so sorry Owner XYZ, you guys were right, there is no way to make money with such a huge revenue stream while paying out on the current CBA."


They just need to show me the books. No credible person would act on what they have shown, and this is why the sides are not talking. If you want to use these reasons for the negotiations, you must prove them.



What has been proposed is a division of net between the players instead of gross.



Let me tell you something, as a contractor, you do not want to hear you will be paid by how much the builder makes net on the house. It means you will be screwed. They control their own expenses you don't. So the deal offered by the league is ridiculous and no one with any sense would touch it. No one signs net contracts, there is too much potential for abuse.

[Matt52]

So there is no disagreement here. No need for 10 points tit for tat, when its just opinion. State it, don't act like your opinion is better by giving me definitions on subjects that I am better versed on than you.

Everything I have said here can be done legally, whether you agree with it or not. I don't care if it ruffles your feathers. I am just expressing the counter opinion. Your opinion is easy, and frankly generic.

Look back through the thread. Those are some large statements considering the statements you have directed at me personally and the form of your own responses.

Opinions are the foundation of a great fan forum - in my opinion. Opinions are what we are here to discuss. Also in my opinion, RR is the best fan forum out there.

As for ruffling feathers, I have not had any issue with the discussion. While I am a moderator, many of the regulars know I go back and forth with all sorts of people on all sorts of issues. The majority of people have no issue and I've always been able to agree to disagree - which is obviously the point you and I have reached.

Things you have suggested that can be done legally is not the issue. The reality is the concepts you were proposing involve leverage - which is great as long as franchise continue to appreciate - and are dangerous business practices over the long term when operating at a loss. Those reading your statements should at least have the other side of the argument - remember I originally replied to you.

The accounting principles and terms I have discussed are fact based - not opinion. If unwilling or unable to take a look at thread, take a look at your response above. I won't bother replying because the hypocrisy is evident.

[MyMomLovesMe]

leverage is a tool, it can be used strategically and it often is.


The thing you have to ask yourself Matt52 is what was gained by this 2 page exchange we had? Because I honestly don't know. A lot of your responses were just text for the purpose of saying something, and often you misinterpreted my ideas to serve some novel reply point. Than in 4 or 5 points down you would use another premise unrelated to the first one, because it sounded better in the reply.

Based on that I took it as confrontational and a tad egotistical.


First of all we cant discuss accounting without seeing books. I discussed very real scenarios, all of which you had no counter for other than your opinion of 22 of 30 teams loosing money. Which has not be substantiated by any independent audit.

[Matt52]

leverage is a tool, it can be used strategically and it often is.


The thing you have to ask yourself Matt52 is what was gained by this 2 page exchange we had? Because I honestly don't know. A lot of your responses were just text for the purpose of saying something, and often you misinterpreted my ideas to serve some novel reply point. Than in 4 or 5 points down you would use another premise unrelated to the first one, because it sounded better in the reply.

Based on that I took it as confrontational and a tad egotistical.


First of all we cant discuss accounting without seeing books. I discussed very real scenarios, all of which you had no counter for other than your opinion of 22 of 30 teams loosing money. Which has not be substantiated by any independent audit.

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of using asset appreciation to overcome operational loss.

I will not make this a personal exchange as you have attempted on numerous occasions.

[MyMomLovesMe]

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of using asset appreciation to overcome operational loss.

I will not make this a personal exchange as you have attempted on numerous occasions.

Are you kidding me? You can't see a corporation building an extra facility and therefore incurring an operational loss while increasing franchise value? This is not a complicated concept.

EDIT: I interpret personal culpability in your style of response against me. I feel like you are looking for fault without looking at the big picture. Your argument seems to have too much dissection, and the eventual impulse to fight on has more to do with the fight than the point being expressed.

[Matt52]

Are you kidding me? You can't see a corporation building an extra facility and therefore incurring an operational loss while increasing franchise value? This is not a complicated concept.

Capital expenditures are fine. However, a building is a charge to the expenses at 100%. They can only be depreciated at 4% per year in Canada. If the interest on the expense is contributing to yearly operational losses, you are running a deficit regardless of the facility possible appreciation - but what happens if the building does not appreciate? The proper and healthy use of leverage is to create additional cash flow that pays for the interest on the loan and the extra income is put down on the loan. Rolling profits over in to other ventures - while certainly being able to increase value of the franchise - increases leverage and the risk moving forward in an environment where cash flow is negative.

My argument has been I believe the owners are taking losses operational costs (i.e. staff, players, trainers, travel, support staff, etc.).

[MyMomLovesMe]

No they are not. The interest on the money borrowed can be written off as an expense. It's an investment by the business.


You can't expect the players to pay for the losses you incur on capital expenditures. (when revenues have grown)

(lets have an audit)