View Single Post
Old
11-20-2012, 11:30 PM
  #978
madhi19
Registered User
 
madhi19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Cold and Dark place!
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whileee View Post
In looking at the Team / No Team scenarios, there are two key considerations. First, the AMF and Capital Fund for the arena (tied to the Jamison lease) is expected to be considerably more expensive than the arena management costs without the team.

So why does the deal "save" money in the long term. According to the figures presented, they are projecting that without the team they will have much higher General Fund expenditures. I can't recall any rationale for that assumption.

Can someone clarify why Skeete projects that General Fund expenditures will be substantially higher with No Team, even after the arena management costs are considered?
These peoples rejected reality a while ago. Otherwise they would have told Bettman where he can shove his team three years ago when he started asking for 25 million a year! Hell 50 million is enough to wipe a lot of the remaining debt on the freaking building. I keep coming back to gambler mentality to explain the whole psycosis. A gambler on a bad streak will throw good money at bad bets in the hope that his luck will turn so he can cover his previous loss. That how you lose a house and that how you bankrupt a city.

madhi19 is offline