Meanwhile in bankruptcy court...

[KSpan]

51 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

I can tell who here views everything related to money through a political lens. Almost every large company will seek to work with government to reduce the expense of building a new facility whether its through tax breaks, cost sharing, or any number of other things. Why do they do this? Why does government agree to this? Because the business is a benefit to the community within which they are seeking to move.

So it's mutually beneficial, in a non-pandemic and pre-recession period of time for government to work with private enterprise to get that business. Sure, Tepper could've bankrolled the entirety of the project and taken up a large chunk of his net worth in the process. Do you know the amount of liquidation necessary for him to have the cash to bankroll the build?

I really, really get tired of reading the demonization of people solely because they have money. Stop being envious. It's not a good look for anyone and it does nothing for you.

I think part of the issue with scenarios like sports teams is that the owners typically push a community-first agenda, wanting to make it look like that's as big of a priority as anything, if not moreso. In the case of Tepper the whole '2 Carolinas, 1 Team' message at the heart of the new facility doesn't jive with the fact that Tepper could comfortably complete the project on his own if it was indeed his priority, but is instead choosing not to for business reasons when the deal had significant risk from the outset.

I'm not saying it's fair or that the perspective is without flaw, but IMO it is more nuanced with things like sports teams vs typical businesses.

[top dawg]

37 minutes ago, CPcavedweller said:

I can tell who here views everything related to money through a political lens. Almost every large company will seek to work with government to reduce the expense of building a new facility whether its through tax breaks, cost sharing, or any number of other things. Why do they do this? Why does government agree to this? Because the business is a benefit to the community within which they are seeking to move.

So it's mutually beneficial, in a non-pandemic and pre-recession period of time for government to work with private enterprise to get that business. Sure, Tepper could've bankrolled the entirety of the project and taken up a large chunk of his net worth in the process. Do you know the amount of liquidation necessary for him to have the cash to bankroll the build?

I really, really get tired of reading the demonization of people solely because they have money. Stop being envious. It's not a good look for anyone and it does nothing for you.

This isn't  even about politics, and I laugh at the thought that I am demonizing anyone. I am not mad at Tepper, he's just playing the game.

Now if you want to talk politics, I can discuss it, but there's no need to because most of the time people aren't honest. The fact is that Tepper doesn't need any public money to build his facility or benefit the community in which he puts it. 

FYI: Trickle-down economics has been a failure, as evidenced by a decreasing middle-class and increasing working-class, despite American productivity gradually accelerating and growing (record growth) over my lifetime. Americans are working harder than ever before, but haven't seen the benefits because, unlike 1950s America, the fat cats are taking hundreds and thousands more of the cut than they used to at their workers expense. And another thing, Corporations are not people and shouldn't be treated as such. Plutocrats, corporate welfare, and outright corruption are the bane of human existence and that's why things like homelessness, lack of heath care, fires and floods are increasing, and it's also why America is divided as ever. 

Just the way I see it. You can miss me with trickle-dowm economics or anything akin to it.

[top dawg]

1 hour ago, CPcavedweller said:

I can tell who here views everything related to money through a political lens. Almost every large company will seek to work with government to reduce the expense of building a new facility whether its through tax breaks, cost sharing, or any number of other things. Why do they do this? Why does government agree to this? Because the business is a benefit to the community within which they are seeking to move.

So it's mutually beneficial, in a non-pandemic and pre-recession period of time for government to work with private enterprise to get that business. Sure, Tepper could've bankrolled the entirety of the project and taken up a large chunk of his net worth in the process. Do you know the amount of liquidation necessary for him to have the cash to bankroll the build?

I really, really get tired of reading the demonization of people solely because they have money. Stop being envious. It's not a good look for anyone and it does nothing for you.

This isn't  even about politics, and I laugh at the thought that I am demonizing anyone. I am not mad at Tepper, he's just playing the game.

Now if you want to talk politics, I can discuss it, but there's no need to because most of the time people aren't honest. The fact is that Tepper doesn't need any public money to build his facility or benefit the community in which he puts it. 

FYI: Trickle-down economics has been a failure, as evidenced by a decreasing middle-class and increasing working-class, despite American productivity gradually accelerating and growing (record growth) over my lifetime. Americans are working harder than ever before, but haven't seen the benefits because, unlike 1950s America, the fat cats are taking hundreds and thousands more of the cut than they used to at their workers expense. And another thing, Corporations are not people and shouldn't be treated as such. Plutocrats, corporate welfare, and outright corruption are the bane of human existence and that's why things like homelessness, lack of heath care, fires and floods are increasing, and it's also why America is divided as ever. 

Just the way I see it. You can miss me with trickle-down economics or anything akin to it.

Edited August 12, 2022 by top dawg

[frankw]

1 hour ago, CPcavedweller said:

I really, really get tired of reading the demonization of people solely because they have money. Stop being envious. It's not a good look for anyone and it does nothing for you.

On the flip side standing around with a bullhorn yelling at people not to be rude to the wealthy isn't going to get you in any club yourself pal.

[top dawg]

33 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Should we be patient with Sam Darnold as well?

Tepper being bad isn't just a matter of opinion. It's based on objectively very poor results from his efforts, both on the field and off.

You can choose to say that might change. I choose to say my verdict on him will change only when he gives me a reason to do so and not a single moment before.

Yes, patience is a virtue. Patience without wisdom is an enemy of progress.

You have to be wise enough to recognize when being patient just isn't going to pay off.

Darnold has had four years to get his act together. If a QB hasn't proven that he can be a starting QB after starting for four years, he probably isn't a starting QB (most QBs don't even get that long). But that same time length is not the standard for judging whether or not someone is a good owner.

Edited August 12, 2022 by top dawg

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, top dawg said:

Darnold has had four years to get his act together. If a QB hasn't proven that he can be a starting QB after starting for four years, he probably isn't a starting QB. But that same time length is not the standard for judging whether or not someone is a good owner.

How long did it take the Pegulas?

[top dawg]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

How long did it take the Pegulas?

At least five to seven years. They haven't  even been to a Super Bowl.

Edited August 12, 2022 by top dawg

[Mr. Scot]

16 minutes ago, top dawg said:

At least five to seven years. They haven't  even been to a Super Bowl.

No but their team is consistently good, and even flashed winning seasons early on.

(hell, even their losing seasons involved winning more than five games)

So I wonder, if we come back after this year, or the next, or the next, and not much has improved, will you be changing your mind about Tepper or is it going to be like when they kept moving back how many years it would take Michael Vick to learn the West Coast offense?

Also, for the record, the Pegulas bought the Bills in September 2014, then hired Sean McDermott and Brandon Beane under 3 years later in early 2017.

Since Beane and McDermott were key to the Bills becoming consistent playoff contenders, it doesn't really sound like three or four years is such an unreasonable time frame to expect good things after all.

Edited August 12, 2022 by Mr. Scot

[PantherGuy]

On 8/11/2022 at 12:49 PM, CRA said:

GTRE also says $20M will be available to city of Rock Hill, stemming from the sale of the 240-acre property 

Can someone translate why they doing that 

Trying to make Rock Hill whole by selling their land and giving them the proceeds.

[Basbear]

Where is the old sizzle at, he slowed down a ton after his twatter was exposed, but still posted some. 

[jayboogieman]

3 hours ago, top dawg said:

Tepper was a brand new owner in July of 2018. He obviously didn't  know what he was doing, and I'm fairly certain that he intimated as much.

Shouldn't Tepper have done some research on the Panthers and formed at least a tentative plan for the team before spending $2 billion on it?

[jayboogieman]

1 minute ago, Basbear said:

Where is the old sizzle at, he slowed down a ton after his twatter was exposed, but still posted some. 

I believe he was banned after posting some racist stuff in the TB.

[frankw]

1 hour ago, jayboogieman said:

I believe he was banned after posting some racist stuff in the TB.

[top dawg]

2 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

No but their team is consistently good, and even flashed winning seasons early on.

(hell, even their losing seasons involved winning more than five games)

So I wonder, if we come back after this year, or the next, or the next, and not much has improved, will you be changing your mind about Tepper or is it going to be like when they kept moving back how many years it would take Michael Vick to learn the West Coast offense?

Also, for the record, the Pegulas bought the Bills in September 2014, then hired Sean McDermott and Brandon Beane under 3 years later in early 2017.

Since Beane and McDermott were key to the Bills becoming consistent playoff contenders, it doesn't really sound like three or four years is such an unreasonable time frame to expect good things after all.

That's fine, if you want to look at it that way. As you know, not everyone is the same, nor are the circumstances (like the fact that though playing in basically a trash division, the Bill's finally start really turning it around until Brady left). We've had some pretty good QBs and teams in general to deal with on a yearly basis). 

We have an owner who has owned the team barely four years who decided to hire his guy, from the NCAA, who has only been here two seasons (one of which was tainted by Covid-19). I don't think it's unreasonable to give the coach and the owner another season or so to prove themselves, particularly if it looks like the team has at least improved on paper. It's not unreasonable at all. And, sure, as time goes on, and more of a track record is laid bare, then it will be more appropriate to develop more definitive opinions and even draw conclusions. I don't know what else to tell you.