But are discussions based on merit and facts?

(06-23-2013 12:50 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 05:18 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 12:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Today on Sports Talk. Jim Paul ( diablos marketing genius) absolutely ripped Mountain Star for their final five names. He said that they are making a huge mistake.

Also watched KVIA 7 and apparently, the news is that everyone hates the new names.

What are these guys thinking? Do they want to piss everyone off before opening day?

fitbud... nobody gives a **** about you or the uneducated crazies.

"Uneducated Crazies"

I like that. That's funny

This morning on "Crunch Time" I enjoyed listening to caller after caller, including Mondo the Monster, rip Mountain Star for coming up for these names.

I find it odd that the people who care enough about El Paso sports to call into a radio talk show are in direct opposition to those who care enough about El paso sports to support whatever El Paso can come up with.

Fascinating.

I'm calling you out again... you douche

(06-24-2013 03:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  People in this forum don't care to discuss the pros and cons of sports but rather simply cheer for their favorite schools?

Is that about right?

Of course not.

(06-24-2013 08:03 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  But are discussions based on merit and facts?

I don't know. All I know is that I have continuously been attacked for simply posting facts.

For example.

Did you hear that the El Paso CFO said that we must have six thousand fans per game in order to not get behind on our debt for the stadium?

The HOT tax in the first quarter of 2013 generated 625K. Multiply that times four and that by 30.

Multiply MountainStar's 400K annual rent by 30.

Add those two numbers together.

Stadium isn't going into debt.

(06-26-2013 03:35 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  The HOT tax in the first quarter of 2013 generated 625K. Multiply that times four and that by 30.

Multiply MountainStar's 400K annual rent by 30.

Add those two numbers together.

Stadium isn't going into debt.

Based on those numbers perhaps not but anything can happen over the course of 30 years.

So why would the CFO say that the stadium must have more than 6000 fans per game then?

Don't you find that interesting?

(06-26-2013 05:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Based on those numbers perhaps not but anything can happen over the course of 30 years.

So why would the CFO say that the stadium must have more than 6000 fans per game then?

Don't you find that interesting?

Not really. I feel this is another Susie Byrd case where you want to cling to a quote for the sake of presenting the alternative opinion.

The numbers don't like. There is literally no point in asking for a guarantee.

The Hot Tax alone is going to generate 75 million dollars over the 30 year loan period. That even covers the interest you were concerned about.

The binding contract stipulates MountainStar will pay 400K a year for 30 years. That's 12 million dollars.

This does not even include ticket surcharges, parking, etc. The games could have zero people in attendance and the bills will still be paid.

So, I ask, what was the point of Holguin's tantrum? It's already in contract form. MountainStar will be paying 12 million dollars, by choice, over the 30 year contract.

(06-26-2013 05:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 03:35 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  The HOT tax in the first quarter of 2013 generated 625K. Multiply that times four and that by 30.

Multiply MountainStar's 400K annual rent by 30.

Add those two numbers together.

Stadium isn't going into debt.

Based on those numbers perhaps not but anything can happen over the course of 30 years.

So why would the CFO say that the stadium must have more than 6000 fans per game then?

Don't you find that interesting?

Another crazy post....
"Anything can happen over 30 years" Really? Caterpillars could have guns.... The price of rice in China could triple..... Don't leave your house- you could be struck by lightning....

C'mon man. Arguing crazy stuff just to argue. Even when its obvious you have nothing to sustain the argument with.

(06-27-2013 12:00 AM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 05:09 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 03:35 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  The HOT tax in the first quarter of 2013 generated 625K. Multiply that times four and that by 30.

Multiply MountainStar's 400K annual rent by 30.

Add those two numbers together.

Stadium isn't going into debt.

Based on those numbers perhaps not but anything can happen over the course of 30 years.

So why would the CFO say that the stadium must have more than 6000 fans per game then?

Don't you find that interesting?

Another crazy post....
"Anything can happen over 30 years" Really? Caterpillars could have guns.... The price of rice in China could triple..... Don't leave your house- you could be struck by lightning....

C'mon man. Arguing crazy stuff just to argue. Even when its obvious you have nothing to sustain the argument with.

Is it really so crazy to wonder whether or not this baseball team is going to be successful for the next thirty years given the fact that we have invested in said organization for the next 30 years?

Even Mountain Sports themselves have stated that they will not guarantee to pay the money back. Clearly, even they do not know what the future may hold.

Does the public have a right to know what might happen if the stadium averages less than 6k per game? Do they have a right to know what happens if MountainStar files for bankruptcy? Do they have a right to know what happens if Mountian Star sells the team?

You are going in circles. All of that has been answered. The stadium is stable even if zero fans attend.

(06-27-2013 12:56 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  You are going in circles. All of that has been answered. The stadium is stable even if zero fans attend.

If you answer my questions, I promise not to go in circles anymore.

Read Post #87

The HOT tax alone is going to generate 75 million dollars in the next 30 years. So what's the concern?

(06-27-2013 01:00 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  Read Post #87

The HOT tax alone is going to generate 75 million dollars in the next 30 years. So what's the concern?

75 Million dollars? Wow. Is that projected income or guaranteed income?

I find that amazing since just last year it was reported that the HOT tax would generate 28 million dollars. Then it went up to 30 million. then 48 million, now 75 million?

Amazing. And you are buying this stuff hook line and sinker?

The confirmed reports have already come in. HOT tax generated 625K in the first quarter. Do you have the ability to multiply that by 4 and then that number by 30? Guess what? I was able to come up with that all by myself. I didn't need talk radio or kvia Xtra to explain it to me.

(06-27-2013 01:09 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  The confirmed reports have already come in. HOT tax generated 625K in the first quarter. Do you have the ability to multiply that by 4 and then that number by 30? Guess what? I was able to come up with that all by myself. I didn't need talk radio or kvia Xtra to explain it to me.

Do you have the ability to realize that what is made in the first quarter may not be made in the next 120 quarters after that?

You have yet to post where you got that information by the way.

(06-28-2013 12:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you have the ability to realize that what is made in the first quarter may not be made in the next 120 quarters after that?

So, in an earlier post, to make your point, you would have us imagine a situation where we have to assume the Double Tree hotel loses money specifically because of the HOT tax, goes to City Council and demands extended tax incentives, receives said tax incentives, which leads to the City being underfunded, which leads to the City taxing Rep Holguin's poor constituents to pay for that stadium.

I guess "that argument" is sound and okay because you want to provide the alternative opinion.

But I am off base by assuming the HOT tax will be somewhat similar every quarter? LOL, I don't even think you got the bat off your shoulder on that one, bud. The HOT tax needs to provide 38 million dollars. Therefor the HOT tax could decrease by almost 50% and still cover it's obligations. Hotel rates will only go up over the next 30 years. Even you have to concede that. So the 2% tax is only going to bring in more money over the next three decades - not less.

(06-28-2013 12:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You have yet to post where you got that information by the way.

https://twitter.com/EPTCINDYRAMIREZ/stat...0496418818

(06-28-2013 01:05 AM)mistabinks Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 12:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Do you have the ability to realize that what is made in the first quarter may not be made in the next 120 quarters after that?

So, in an earlier post, to make your point, you would have us imagine a situation where we have to assume the Double Tree hotel loses money specifically because of the HOT tax, goes to City Council and demands extended tax incentives, receives said tax incentives, which leads to the City being underfunded, which leads to the City taxing Rep Holguin's poor constituents to pay for that stadium.

I guess "that argument" is sound and okay because you want to provide the alternative opinion.

But I am off base by assuming the HOT tax will be somewhat similar every quarter? LOL, I don't even think you got the bat off your shoulder on that one, bud. The HOT tax needs to provide 38 million dollars. Therefor the HOT tax could decrease by almost 50% and still cover it's obligations. Hotel rates will only go up over the next 30 years. Even you have to concede that. So the 2% tax is only going to bring in more money over the next three decades - not less.

(06-28-2013 12:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  You have yet to post where you got that information by the way.

https://twitter.com/EPTCINDYRAMIREZ/stat...0496418818

It could go either way. That is all that I am saying.

(06-29-2013 02:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It could go either way. That is all that I am saying.

Oh I love that chick. She is so hot.