(07-12-2022, 10:37 AM)ATOTR Wrote: I mean,  it would make sense it it were a different business or a different investment. 

You have 50M sitting around and want to put 25m into a new commercial development.  Your 50 is probably making 7-10% annually - so just use that cash to get a large loan at 5%, and the borrower is 'making' or saving 3-5%.   

But, what this McLuvin guy is saying, is that Owners/Teams 'dont have have a ton of cash' sitting around for player contracts.

Which is ludicrous; these teams have huge operating budgets and inflow of cash (That is why there is a Salary Cap). 

No one is going to personally borrow 100M/200M/300M dollars to pay year-to-year players, whose contracts are not  fully guaranteed, who may get traded, cut, injured, sit out, etc.   They will structure the contacts and the commitments to work within their cashflow and budgets. 

What he said was 100% wrong. He should just admit it was dumb 

(07-12-2022, 10:48 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Dumb?

Interest rates were less than 3% the last 5 years? They call it cheap money. I know because I borrowed millions and then got a return of 10 to 12% on the cash. What business do you own which has given you great financial knowledge? We are discussing paying players bonuses today for future work 4 to 10 years down the line.

The great things about low interest loans, they can locked in for no fees at any time or if an owner has the cash, they can pay them off at any time. The loan interest is also tax deductible. The bonus is tax deductible too. So, not as far fetched as you think an owner would borrow 100 million for a Watson contract the next 10 years, some cash down and then a loan.

There is  a huge difference between cap costs calculated yearly and cash paid yearly. The Tv money does not pay the owners for money they will get 4 to 10 years down the road, they pay it yearly for Tv revenue.

(07-12-2022, 10:58 AM)ATOTR Wrote: Lol - Like I said - Show we one example of NFL teams/Owners taking out large loans to pay for players contracts.    

As for the experience I have, it far surpasses your shell game, Mickey mouse strategy of ripping 3-6% off a loan 

(07-12-2022, 07:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Packers have 67 million in debt on books in 2021 for compensation
Look it up

(07-12-2022, 08:02 PM)ATOTR Wrote: LOL.  Yes! That means that it is 67 Million of 3rd party private debt that they took on to pay their bloated, over cap payroll. 

Or, you know, it could just be debt.  

But hey, im talking to the Bengals Board Warren Buffet here.  

Also, I know you are lying about this gem of a quote of yours 'I know because I borrowed millions and then got a return of 10 to 12% on the cash.'


You do know this is not only illegal/Fraud, but no bank is going to loan any random consumer millions of dollars for him to 'Side invest the cash'   Maybe you took fraudulent covid relief/SBA loans, is that what you did?


You keep making things up, just stop.

(07-12-2022, 11:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I suggest you look into meds

I have been in business almost 50 years and yes what I said was true. It is not illegal to borrow money if you have the assets and the bank approves it nothing hidden just a business transaction(s).

As for Packers, like I said look it up, it is specific on their balance sheet as compensation. The Packers are the only team I know that is public so has to share their financials so we are able to see them.

Like I said, look it up and prove me wrong or admit I am correct and you are clueless in the end.

(07-12-2022, 11:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I suggest you look into meds

I have been in business almost 50 years and yes what I said was true. It is not illegal to borrow money if you have the assets and the bank approves it nothing hidden just a business transaction(s).

As for Packers, like I said look it up, it is specific on their balance sheet as compensation. The Packers are the only team I know that is public so has to share their financials so we are able to see them.

Like I said, look it up and prove me wrong or admit I am correct and you are clueless in the end.

(07-13-2022, 09:24 AM)ATOTR Wrote: “The end result of all these moves was that Green Bay was able to keep their roster intact, they did eventually get under the $182.5 million salary cap, and $50.9 million worth of cap charges were pushed from 2021 to future years, including $29.2 million just to 2022, according to Ken Ingalls, who independently tracks the Packers’ salary cap situation.“

This doesn’t mean they went out and financed player contracts.  Lol

(07-13-2022, 09:20 AM)ATOTR Wrote: Dude. You’re just making things up.  

You sound like a robot who is trying to impress people, but beneath it all, you have zero comprehension of what you are actually  saying.

The packers being upside down on the cap, has nothing to do when them
Borrowing money to pay for their bad/poorly constructed contracts.  

It’s almost like you’re just typing a bunch of things you think make you look like you’re knowledgeable.  Very odd