View Poll Results: Should the players accept the current proposal by owners by Wednesday?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 77.42%
  • No - not a good deal, keep negotiating

    3 9.68%
  • No - not a good deal, decertify

    4 12.90%
Page 14 of 98 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 24 64 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 1944

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

  1. #261
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    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.
    Of course interest can be written off as an expense. Unfortunately interest goes against income dollar for dollar. But this is not a net zero result. The dollar in expense is saving the tax on that earned dollar. So you are spending $1 to save $0.25 (or whatever the tax rate is).

    The players aren't paying for losses incurred on capital expenditures - despite the fact any capital expenditures would be the for the direct benefit of the players.

    The owners want the players to decrease their share of the revenues to help pay for operational costs of the franchise and return the franchises to (hopeful) profitability or at the very least reduce the losses.

    Considering all the expenses the owners have in addition to the player salary (all other coaches, scouts, staff, travel, player medical care, etc.) the current starting point of 57/43 split is already questionable - in my opinion. The players share of the revenue goes directly in to their pockets - the owners share of the revenue is then used to cover all other expenses.

  2. #262
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Yah they are expensing out the COST of money against their monolith organizations profits, getting something for 75% instead of 100 is huge. It also helps in that makes you look less profitable than you would have been.

    Meanwhile the asset base is growing due to capital influx.

    (i am not saying this is the way it is, but giving a working possible scenario)


    This is why I keep saying, we need an independent audit.



    EDIT: You are basically putting in 100 units for the price of 75 into your asset base. Assuming you are doing it efficiently. So you never really lose the 75, but it does 100 good.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Tue Jul 12th, 2011 at 10:40 AM.

  3. #263
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The 75% is still a huge out of pocket expense which will one day have to be repaid. The only way to pay it back would be through the sale of the franchise (which is a final resolution that many owners may not wish to do) or through the 43% of revenues they receive that also pays for every other expense.

    The assumption is the asset base continues to grow - what happens if franchises do not continue to appreciate? what happnes if the economy takes another leg down? This is the issue with leverage - a 50% loss on a loan is a 100% loss i.e. you've lost 50% now you have to pay back the 50% to make up the full 100% loan.

    When people talk about leverage and using debt to keep things operating I think back to Chuck Prince in 2007:

    In a now infamous interview with the FT back in July, Prince made clear that he was aware of the risks his company was taking:

    When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing.

    At the time, blogger Yves Smith warned that timing the end of the song was a really hard thing to do:

    Prince has in essence said he knows that when the music stops, it won't be one chair that will be removed, but several, perhaps most. He seems supremely confident in his ability to know when to exit, but with everyone planning to stay as late as they can, he is likely to be underestimating how quickly conditions can change.


    Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....#ixzz1Ru2c67cg
    If the league was truly profitable for all (even well managed teams), I do not see the owners willing to shut it down. The fact that they are better off losing a season so they will not lose money speaks volumes of the situation in my opinion.

    Again this comes down to who you believe. Obviously we have a difference of opinion - I'm fine with that.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Tue Jul 12th, 2011 at 11:18 AM.

  4. #264
    Raptors Republic All-Star grindhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    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)
    The revenue has to be split in a way that allows amenities to be paid before the employees get paid if they are operating at a loss how can there be money to reinvest into the league to make it grow? The players should be compensated as the league grows but they should not be making more money then what is coming in

  5. #265
    Raptors Republic All-Star grindhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I think the players are being counter productive to their own interests. The players are basicly saying why should we pay to fix your problem, you owners fix your own problems and if I was the owners then I would say fine we will reduce the total teams to cut the teams that are not profitable. bring the number of teams down to 20 which puts 1/3 of their player union out of a job, the league is stronger cause their are better players to compete for the remaining roster spots and all the teams left can compete financially...problem solved.

  6. #266
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Scott in Santa Barbara, CA:
    Are teams discussing trades now or does all basketball talk have to wait until after the lockout?
    Eric Pincus:
    This will have to do for the week. As always, if I missed your question - you can find me at [email protected], on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/EricPincus or just wait until next week's chat.

    Scott,

    There's no basketball activity right now. Not on a player level - not on a GM level.

    Teams don't have a basic framework to discuss trades. Every single deal is illegal right now.

    Everything sadly has to just wait in this limbo until the owners and players get their act together. I understand that the owners' aren't profitable on a whole and thus they feel like of the 43% piece of the pie they get of basketball related income - they keep less than zero of it.

    From their perspective collectively it's a 57% split to players, 43%+ to expenses.

    The players want to argue how some of those numbers are interpreted and I agree that we're dealing with a worst case presentation of the accounting.

    Still, the owners are not profiting and they need to lock in some level of positive cash flow in this new deal. I think they're taking it way, way too far but the players are compensated like it's pre-recession and that's not realistic. Who in this economy is getting 8-10.5% raises each year? Income has been flat or declining for some time now.

    The system needs a reboot and both sides need to compromise. The players think they've given enough. They haven't. The owners are asking for too much and need to step into the middle - but won't until the players give more.

    It's a mess. Sigh. And worst of all - to me - is that it hits me in my pocket in what I need to support my family.

    I don't mind it as it is for a couple of months but it actually endangers the season, that's a problem.

    Hopefully cooler heads will prevail but I waver between hopeful to skeptical that it will be resolved any time soon.


    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...#ixzz1Rw45rZ3U
    From HoopsWorld chat today.

    I said from the beginning that the players were going to lose on this because the owners pushed for radical changes while the players wanted to stay status quo and the owners would not be losing money while players would. Towards the deadline to start the lockout it appeared the players relented giving back 2.7% of revenue (54.3% share - btw I'm going on memory someone can correct me if I am wrong) while the owners relented on a hard cap of $45M and upped it to a flex cap of $62M able to go another $7M or so - effectively putting in a hard cap at $70M.

    From a business perspective, I can see the owners insistence of capping salaries to not only be able to forecast revenues and expenses but to also ensure a team with deep pockets is unable to have a competitive advantage over teams with shallow pockets.

    It would seem to me that there will be no agreement until there is an NHL-style system in place whereby the salary cap has a limit and it adjusts annually based on revenues.

    This is unfortunate for fans but also those who rely on the league for a living - such as Pincus as he mentioned in the above. It is not going to affect my lifestyle financially but there are a lot of people in 30 cities in North America who will be affected by this.

  7. #267
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    11,955
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote grindhouse wrote: View Post
    I think the players are being counter productive to their own interests. The players are basicly saying why should we pay to fix your problem, you owners fix your own problems and if I was the owners then I would say fine we will reduce the total teams to cut the teams that are not profitable. bring the number of teams down to 20 which puts 1/3 of their player union out of a job, the league is stronger cause their are better players to compete for the remaining roster spots and all the teams left can compete financially...problem solved.
    I don't think any owner would be lining up to simply shut down their operations and walk away with nothing but you do raise a good point. If the owners are telling the truth then one potential fate of the league sees the players having less jobs to compete for and thus less money to go around. This is partly why I get a kick out of the PA earlier sending jokers like KG out to speak. The PA wheels them out but they don't represent the majority of the PA. The KG's are always going to get good money. I honestly don't identify with some spoiled player saying "we're not going to let them win". What I care about is the league landing in a place that promotes long term health for all and a system that is fair for all.

    The economy grows worse every month. Things are going to get a lot worse. This isn't '98, this isn't even 2005. Things are a lot different now. I understand why the owners want to tighten things up. Maybe the players don't realize that America is about to enter it's second economical dip. Things are going to get worse than 2008 for everybody and most of those who got rocked some time in or around 2008 still have yet to recover. This means less money for the league due to reduced spending. This means higher prices for the league due to ever increasing inflation. America has a fair highly and scary chance at seeing hyper inflation if they continue as they are. Please see the Ukraine, 1993 to see what I'm talking about here.

  8. #268
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The 75% is still a huge out of pocket expense which will one day have to be repaid. The only way to pay it back would be through the sale of the franchise (which is a final resolution that many owners may not wish to do) or through the 43% of revenues they receive that also pays for every other expense.

    The assumption is the asset base continues to grow - what happens if franchises do not continue to appreciate? what happnes if the economy takes another leg down? This is the issue with leverage - a 50% loss on a loan is a 100% loss i.e. you've lost 50% now you have to pay back the 50% to make up the full 100% loan.

    When people talk about leverage and using debt to keep things operating I think back to Chuck Prince in 2007:



    If the league was truly profitable for all (even well managed teams), I do not see the owners willing to shut it down. The fact that they are better off losing a season so they will not lose money speaks volumes of the situation in my opinion.

    Again this comes down to who you believe. Obviously we have a difference of opinion - I'm fine with that.

    How is the 75% an out of pocket expense? Who the hell would add to their business out of pocket? Are you crazy? You don't see the big picture do you? You googled some things but you are still having a problem using the concepts you have learned.

    What is worse, you are trying to give me a lecture.


    There is no out of pocket, the cost of money is written off. That is written off against profits which if they are lucky will only amount to 75% of original take. However, if they expense it in the business it stays at 100%.

    All those expenditures, are $1 for 1$ in to the business.... except that in this case $1 is equal to $1.33 in terms of effectiveness. Due to the fact you are not getting taxed on it by using it as an expenditure.


    The extra funds diverted to the business STAY In the BUSINESS full + tax you would of paid. They are there! They just changed into assets. You only have to account for them during capital gains. Which you can forestall, until you have some juicy capital loss. In the meanwhile, you can go boo hoo about your operational losses, to the fools.


    (BTW, they will also write off the lockout, the tax payer will pay for it, they are legally allowed to do so.)


    .... out of pocket? Are you a rookie? Who does that?
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:18 AM.

  9. #269
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    How is the 75% an out of pocket expense? Who the hell would add to their business out of pocket? Are you crazy? You don't see the big picture do you? You googled some things but you are still having a problem using the concepts you have learned.

    What is worse, you are trying to give me a lecture.


    There is no out of pocket, the cost of money is written off. That is written off against profits which if they are lucky will only amount to 75% of original take. However, if they expense it in the business it stays at 100%.

    All those expenditures, are $1 for 1$ in to the business.... except that in this case $1 is equal to $1.33 in terms of effectiveness. Due to the fact you are not getting taxed on it by using it as an expenditure.


    The extra funds diverted to the business STAY In the BUSINESS full + tax you would of paid. They are there! You only have to account for them during capital gains. Which you can forestall, until you have some juicy capital loss.




    .... out of pocket? Are you a rookie? Who does that?
    The insults do not help discussion.

    When one puts money in to a business ( i.e. franchise and lets stay with the practice facility as an example), where does the cost come from? The money has to come from somewhere. If it is paid for in cash, then it is an expense. If it is paid for via a loan, the loan still an expense and has to be repaid while adding an extra expense (interest). Furthermore if it is a loan, the loan has to have collateral (the franchise or other assets) therefore we are once again at the issue of leverage. Once the facility is complete, sure it can go against revenues but it would only be depreciated at 4% per year but then the depreciation goes against the adjusted cost base of the franchise increasing their capital gains when they eventually sell the franchise. Either way it is looked at creates an expense that has to be paid, therefore it is out of the owner's pocket.

    The owners (if you believe their books or more likely believe there is an issue but have the books skewed in their favour) are still not making a profit. Thererfore if they are losing money on operations, how can they put money in to the franchise to increase its value other than through a loan? And how can that be a wise business decision when the company is cash flow negative?

    I think Eric Pincus at HoopsWorld.com summed it up good in a chat yesterday which I linked above but here it is again:

    Everything sadly has to just wait in this limbo until the owners and players get their act together. I understand that the owners' aren't profitable on a whole and thus they feel like of the 43% piece of the pie they get of basketball related income - they keep less than zero of it.

    From their perspective collectively it's a 57% split to players, 43%+ to expenses.

    The players want to argue how some of those numbers are interpreted and I agree that we're dealing with a worst case presentation of the accounting.

    Still, the owners are not profiting and they need to lock in some level of positive cash flow in this new deal. I think they're taking it way, way too far but the players are compensated like it's pre-recession and that's not realistic. Who in this economy is getting 8-10.5% raises each year? Income has been flat or declining for some time now.

    The system needs a reboot and both sides need to compromise. The players think they've given enough. They haven't. The owners are asking for too much and need to step into the middle - but won't until the players give more.

    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...#ixzz1Rw45rZ3U

  10. #270
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The insults do not help discussion.

    When one puts money in to a business ( i.e. franchise and lets stay with the practice facility as an example), where does the cost come from? The money has to come from somewhere. If it is paid for in cash, then it is an expense. If it is paid for via a loan, the loan still an expense and has to be repaid while adding an extra expense (interest). Furthermore if it is a loan, the loan has to have collateral (the franchise or other assets) therefore we are once again at the issue of leverage. Once the facility is complete, sure it can go against revenues but it would only be depreciated at 4% per year but then the depreciation goes against the adjusted cost base of the franchise increasing their capital gains when they eventually sell the franchise. Either way it is looked at creates an expense that has to be paid, therefore it is out of the owner's pocket.

    The owners (if you believe their books or more likely believe there is an issue but have the books skewed in their favour) are still not making a profit. Thererfore if they are losing money on operations, how can they put money in to the franchise to increase its value other than through a loan? And how can that be a wise business decision when the company is cash flow negative?

    I think Eric Pincus at HoopsWorld.com summed it up good in a chat yesterday which I linked above but here it is again:

    Sorry about the insults, but I am getting frustrated with you because it is apparent that nothing is sinking in. So my response after response feels like just an exercise in futility. IF you really want to debate, than you will acknowledge I caught you multiple times not understanding the concepts.


    The money comes from a loan against the franchise. The interest is fully deducted, therefore the money cost is zip. Except that it costs you the revenues which would have been profits if you did not add that big ass loan to it (and Risk). So your cost of that money is 75% on the financing. Which means you have a big ass pile of it working in your favour for only 75% of the cost of the financing bill.

    This is the reason why you do not take money out of a business and than put it back in. It is retarded. You already got dinged on it by the tax man. It is not very smart.


    So a smart business owner, rather than renting his tools, and keeping his costs down, so that he can make oodles of profits for the tax man, instead buys his tools, buys his building, operates at a loss, including expensing out his own salary, because in the long run he is maximizing his earning potential and asset base, which he only has to account for when he has enough capital losses against the gains.

    It's just basic strategy.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 10:33 AM.

  11. #271
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    Sorry about the insults, but I am getting frustrated with you because it is apparent that nothing is sinking in. So my response after response feels like just an exercise in futility. IF you really want to debate, than you will acknowledge I caught you multiple times not understanding the concepts.


    The money comes from a loan against the franchise. The interest is full deducted, therefore the money cost is zip. Except that it costs you the revenues which would have been profits if you did not add that big ass loan to it. So your cost of that money is 75% on the financing. Which means you have a big ass pile of it working in your favour for only 75% of the cost of the financing bill.

    This is the reason why you do not take money out of a business and than put it back in. It is retarded. You already got dinged on it by the tax man. It is not very smart.


    So a smart business owner, rather than renting his tools, and keeping his costs down, so that he can make oodles of profits for the tax man, instead buys his tools, buys his building, operates at a loss, including expensing out his own salary.
    Believe it or not, I am following what you are saying. And unfortunately, the condescending "IF you really want to debate, than you will acknowledge I caught you multiple times not understanding the concepts." is beyond inaccurate. The beginning of this thread had you misusing terms such as capital gains and capital losses. You've continued to advocate depreciation of assets without acknowledging that subtracts from the adjusted cost base therefore increasing capital gains upon selling.

    The biggest miss is ignoring the impact of cash flow.

    If a business is operating at negative cash flow every expense added (interest, practice facility, whatever) makes them go more negative in cash flow.

    Every loan taken out might increase the value of the franchise if used appropriately however you still have to repay the debt and pay the interest when you are already cash flow negative. Where does the money come from to handle MORE expenses when you are already operating at negative cash flow i.e. a LOSS?

    Maybe this gives a better indication I hear where you are coming from:

    I bought a house in May 2007 as a rental and sold it in July 2008 for a profit of $38K. I took all those profits and rolled it in to another rental property that I bought at a discount because it needed serious renovations. When finished I had a property valued at more than the cost plus renovations and I had a better cash flow on the new property (+$450 per month on old versus +$1200 per month on the new) plus I paid no capital gains on the sale because the expenses in the renovations were greater. The difference here is I was operating at a profit.

    For many NBA owners they are operating at a loss. So you are saying the owners should take out more loans against their franchises to increase the value of the asset while increasing their expenses all the while operating at a loss, forgetting operational costs because they don't matter? If they don't matter, then why do businesses go out of business?

    When expenses and depreciation exceed revenues, the extra expenses and depreciation are not helping the business because you can't claim any extra expense or depreciation if there are no revenues left. You can only keep operating like this as long as you can keep taking loans to cover costs. At some point the cost to cover the loans becomes greater than the revenues themselves - forgetting all the other expenses.

    Also when you are operating at a loss year over year, as many owners claim to be, what is the point of carrying losses over against more losses? At some point you need to make a profit to claim a loss.

    This is the problem from the owners perspective: expenses exceed revenues.

    Your answer to cover costs through loans against an asset is leverage (there is no capital gain because a capital gain requires a sale). Leverage is a great tool when asset prices are rising. When they are stagnant or, worse, dropping losses are magnified even more.


    As for your smart business owner: what happens when the tool breaks with no warranty and the building needs a new roof while operating at negative cash flow? Where does the money come from? A loan of course. What happens when it is time to pay interest and principle and he has already been operating cash flow negative?

    Something the auditor for CRA in my family said to me a couple of years ago when I had exhausted every method possible to reduce my tax bill (depreciation, expenses, maintenance, repairs, personal use items, etc.) and it was the first time I had ever paid in on my taxes: Don't sweat paying taxes, it means you've made money.

    Your answer for the owners is to continue to loss $1 for every 25 cents gained (assuming marginal tax rate is 25%). Your answer only makes sense for owners if they are being taxed at over 100%.

    Lets put it another way, these are the owners choices for every $1:

    1) get 75 cents and give 25 cents to the taxman operating at a profit,

    2) lose $2.12 by losing $1 in operational costs and then give another $1 to a contractor plus pay the interest (say 6%) on the loan to cover operational costs and construction operating at a loss.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 11:36 AM.

  12. #272
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Okay dude, you are the king of the hill. You are the mod. Everything I say is wrong everything you say is right.



    You don't get it do you?

    "If a business is operating at negative cash flow every expense added"

    This is and assumption on your part, without knowing the info you cant say this. I keep saying lets check the books. My views are scenarios, you act like your views are facts. You seem comfortable pretending you know everything in this thread and getting it HORRIBLY WRONG, due to your inability to think logically about the subject, and not understanding it beyond its basic concepts.


    All praise Matt52. When he does not understand something, he just pretends he does.


    EDIT: Your points are on record, and anyone who reads this thread with any knowledge will see that I caught you not understanding the concepts many times. Too bad you can't admit it.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 11:46 AM.

  13. #273
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    Okay dude, you are the king of the hill. You are the mod. Everything I say is wrong everything you say is right.



    You don't get it do you?

    "If a business is operating at negative cash flow every expense added"

    This is and assumption on your part, without knowing the info you cant say this. I keep saying lets check the books. My views are scenarios, you act like your views are facts. You seem comfortable pretending you know everything in this thread and getting it HORRIBLY WRONG, due to your inability to think logically about the subject, and not understanding it beyond its basic concepts.


    All praise Matt52. When he does not understand something, he just pretends he does.


    EDIT: Your points are on record, and anyone who reads this thread with any knowledge will see that I caught you not understanding the concepts many times. Too bad you can't admit it.
    I am sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately my argument is backed by arithmetic. The fact I am a moderator has no bearing on this discussion. FWIW, if you had typed some of the comments towards another poster that you have typed to me, I probably would have sent you a PM by now.

    We have both already agreed neither one knows what the books say and it is players argument (your opinion) versus owners argument (my opinion). It is my opinion owners would not shut down an operation that is profitable in hopes of making more money. Going back to the rental property as an analogy, losing $1000 in rent for a month because I think I can rent a place for $1100 will take me 10 months of rent at $1100 to cover the loss of revenue for that original month of $1000.

    If anyone around here can prove that operating at a loss year over year with negative cash flow and taking out loans out against an asset as a means to cover expenses or increase value of asset is sound business advice, please let me know.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 12:07 PM.

  14. #274
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    FWIW in the NFL lockout I am squarely on the side of the players.

    From my understanding, owners are profitable with revenues are $9B of which players get $2B but there are no guaranteed contracts.

    Also from my understanding, the owners wish to cut the players share to $1B so they can make more profit.

    I find that appalling when they are already profitable to begin with and with franchise values soaring.

    Thought I'd throw that in to hopefully illustrate I'm not trying to screw players or make owners richer, I truly believe they system is flawed in the NBA.

  15. #275
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Matt, your argument is backed by your ego.


    You already have shown me that you do not even understand basic concepts or strategies. It looks to me like you had no business school and you are telling me that i am mixing up capital gains/losses. No offence, dude, but I don't appreciate the rouse.

    Just for once in your life admit that you do not understand.

    I demonstrated aptly why operational losses are not the end all and be all indicator. If you missed it than you deserve to be called less then knowledgeable on this subject. Someone who is not incorporated and does not understand general finance strategies. ...but you most likely have google.


    For you to call this a debate, is funny.... its all here, and if you go back you will find that you are making a lot deductive reasoning mistakes. It's not fair for me to go into a full page post in front of other users as to why you critical thinking on the issue shows me that you have no experience in this field.


    When I add all this up, it means you are taking a disproportionate amount of time attacking me on an issue you are fairly clueless about. So that is personal, and I am sorry if you need to be called out on it.
    Last edited by MyMomLovesMe; Wed Jul 13th, 2011 at 12:15 PM.

  16. #276
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    Matt, your argument is backed by your ego.


    You already have shown me that you do not even understand basic concepts or strategies. It looks to me like you had no business school and you are telling me that i am mixing up capital gains/losses. No offence, dude, but I don't appreciate the rouse.

    Just for once in your life admit that you do not understand.

    I demonstrated aptly why operational losses are not the end all and be all indicator. If you missed it than you deserve to be called less then knowledgeable on this subject. Someone who is not incorporated and does not understand general finance strategies. ...but you most likely have google.


    For you to call this a debate, is funny.... its all here, and if you go back you will find that you are making a lot deductive reasoning mistakes. It's not fair for me to go into a full page post in front of other users as to why you critical thinking on the issue shows me that you have no experience in this field.
    Telling me 2+3=7 doesn't make it true. The definition of a capital gain/loss from CRA clearly showed the use of the term was incorrect. Not one reply has gone off this topic or attacked you personally. I hope your discussions with other posters is more civil than this.

    I am not sure where this hostility has come from given this is the first exchange we've ever had besides a welcome in the "I'm New" thread.

    Best of luck to you and take care.

    I think it is best left at we'll have to agree to disagree on how to operate a franchise.

  17. #277
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    No where do I tell you 2+3=7, if you are having a hard time with the concepts I am sorry for that. This is not a personal attack on you and never has been, your understanding of ideas in this field on the other hand deserves to be attacked.


    It's not okay to know definitions and think you know something, you also must understand its application. It is the application part that you are not understanding, and often I find myself palming my head while replying to you because I see that you are not even making the effort to understand.


    At some point once I demonstrated that operational costs are not the entire story, you could of easily said, "You are right, we don't know until the books are released".


    So according to you you I am wrong as in 2+3=7 and you are right.

    Do your facts and figures include the "fact" that you can take a loan against your franchise that will make you operate at a net loss for purposes of expansion? Or do you just "figure" that what you read in the MEDIA is always correct? While ignoring gross indicators like Revenues.

  18. #278
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,080
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote MyMomLovesMe wrote: View Post
    No where do I tell you 2+3=7, if you are having a hard time with the concepts I am sorry for that. This is not a personal attack on you and never has been, your understanding of ideas in this field on the other hand deserves to be attacked.


    It's not okay to know definitions and think you know something, you also must understand its application. It is the application part that you are not understanding, and often I find myself palming my head while replying to you because I see that you are not even making the effort to understand.


    At some point once I demonstrated that operational costs are not the entire story, you could of easily said, "You are right, we don't know until the books are released".


    So according to you you I am wrong as in 2+3=7 and you are right.

    Do your facts and figures include the "fact" that you can take a loan against your franchise that will make you operate at a net loss for purposes of expansion? Or do you just "figure" that what you read in the MEDIA is always correct? While ignoring gross indicators like Revenues.
    Unfortunately there is nothing new in this thread worth commenting on for other readers/posters. The history of the thread gives a different indication, in my opinion, than what you see.

    As I've already said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the operations of a franchise.

  19. #279
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ...oh,

    and btw Matt52, you may run your operation month to month, but the corps do not. They have plans for 5 years at the minimum, cycles of asset gain, and capital write offs. Month to month is for small fish. If you can time a cycle to correspond with your labour negotiations you are ahead of the game.

    Like I said, all their losses now, will be written off by the: "got the PA by the balls" CBA they are about to get. So when you know you are in for a bonanza, you may as well start padding those losses early so you can keep more later.

  20. #280
    Raptors Republic Starter MyMomLovesMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Streetsville
    Posts
    489
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Unfortunately there is nothing new in this thread worth commenting on for other readers/posters. The history of the thread gives a different indication, in my opinion, than what you see.

    As I've already said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the operations of a franchise.
    Yah, I think its best Matt52.

    I don't think we are enjoying this nor are the users.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •