Being a state school, I would imagine those numbers will come out sooner or later. Given the manner in which they have been losing money, I can't imagine Gene Smith is too anxious for that to happen.
jurecki is letting gene smith and ASU Have it..FYI
- Thread starter pinnacle
- Start date
Being a state school, I would imagine those numbers will come out sooner or later. Given the manner in which they have been losing money, I can't imagine Gene Smith is too anxious for that to happen.
Houdini
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Posts
- 880
- Reaction score
- 0
I have no problem if Bidwill is asking for what he feels he deserves in terms of damages, but I don't think it's morally right to ask for more than he deserves. I think that's one reason why the majority of people are against the Bidwills on this one. There are a lot of ticked off ASU alums at the moment. Many of those alums are people in high places in our community and government. It doesn't help the Cardinal's cause to have them ticked off, when down the road the Cardinals might be asking some of those same ASU alums for corporate sponserships and such. I wouldn't be surprised if Bidwill wins the battle with ASU, but loses the war.
Here's the exact wording from the newspaper article-----
As I read it, they are talking revenue, not net. The second sentence says "revenue included parking, concessions, catering and rent from the Cardinals." and the first sentence says $6.1 million. However, they also state in another sentence that "yearly net revenues topped $1 million once in 1994". How convoluted can you get? It all amounts to an effort to make the Cards look as bad as they can. What difference does the truth make if you can scare or shame someone into not taking what you rightly owe them. If you want to question morals, I think you need to look at ASU's AD.
As I read it, they are talking revenue, not net. The second sentence says "revenue included parking, concessions, catering and rent from the Cardinals." and the first sentence says $6.1 million. However, they also state in another sentence that "yearly net revenues topped $1 million once in 1994". How convoluted can you get? It all amounts to an effort to make the Cards look as bad as they can. What difference does the truth make if you can scare or shame someone into not taking what you rightly owe them. If you want to question morals, I think you need to look at ASU's AD.
Houdini
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Posts
- 880
- Reaction score
- 0
The article you posted also mentions stadium expenses.
Net Income = Revenue - Expenses
Yes it does mention expenses, but it doesn't state what they were. The article was carefully crafted to make it look like ASU only received $6 million over the life of the Cardinals contract. If you notice, they never used the word income, only the word revenue to try and deceive the public. If they had stated total revenue and total expenses, we could have figured the net income. Why do you think they didn't state those figures?
What kind of IDIOT, that actually reads a newspaper doesn't understand what is meant by "income" and "revenue"? Should we consider everyone who reads the AZ Republic to be as stupid as the voters in Dade County? When do you need to spoon food people facts, and when can you assume that those people are intelligent enough to read what they read???
40yrfan, you sound like you're calling everyone that reads the AZ Republic idiots! Am I correct??? How could anyone be "DECEIVED" by the statement in the article???
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
Since when does a poll on Azcentral have anything to do with morals? Or legality for that matter?
What is the point here?
If someone votes on a poll they are voting morality?
Or did you mean to say the opinion of people that frequent Azcentral.com and actually vote in their polls?
I think your bias is starting to show. I knew it. Watch yourself. I predicted you would end being banned from here. I am 1 for 2 so far. Keep it up.
Houdini
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Posts
- 880
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't swear or put people down, but if you feel any of my posts are offensive, you are free to report them to Skkorp.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
Not my style bud.
Care to answer the questions I asked? Or do I have to repeat them for you?
Houdini
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2002
- Posts
- 880
- Reaction score
- 0
My point is if 86% of the people are against the Bidwills, there must be a reason. If you don't think it's morals, why do you feel 86% of the people polled are against Bidwill?
Not to jump in the middle of your deal here. But since you asked!
Because 86% of the population in the valley are football idiots and could care less what goes on. They are also the same people who have heard for years how horrible the Cards are and just take that as fact. Regardless of the specific circumstance.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
86% of what people?
First, it is a flawed poll. Any intelligent person would realize that.
Second, the question does not ask anything about morals.
To answer your question, it is a popularity contest on the internet.
It has nothing to with the merits of the case and it has nothing at all to do with morals.
You are trying to use an internet poll to prove a point about morals. Half the people hit that poll and then brought up their porn site.
Maybe 86% of the football fans in this valley are 10 times more intelligent than the owner of my favorite NFL team???
The organization still made 4.4 million profit in it's worst year. Since 88 they have been the one team that never sells out. They leave so much revenue on the table because they don't even attempt to put a good product on the field. The stadium has had on average anywhere from 25-30,000 empty seats per game since the CArds moved here. At an average ticket price of $40, over 15 years (8 home games, not including preseason) that's somewhere between 3 million and 3.6 million unsold seats. At $40 a pop ... 120 to 144 million. The Cards get 60% of the home gate so that figures to 72 to 86 million dollars left on the table because the organization is too incompetent to field a competitive team. Maybe they should sue themselves.
How does that sound? I coppied that last paragrapgh from another site, but it really brought things into perspective for me...
The organization still made 4.4 million profit in it's worst year. Since 88 they have been the one team that never sells out. They leave so much revenue on the table because they don't even attempt to put a good product on the field. The stadium has had on average anywhere from 25-30,000 empty seats per game since the CArds moved here. At an average ticket price of $40, over 15 years (8 home games, not including preseason) that's somewhere between 3 million and 3.6 million unsold seats. At $40 a pop ... 120 to 144 million. The Cards get 60% of the home gate so that figures to 72 to 86 million dollars left on the table because the organization is too incompetent to field a competitive team. Maybe they should sue themselves.
How does that sound? I coppied that last paragrapgh from another site, but it really brought things into perspective for me...
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
Azballer, go ******** to your Jake posters.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
Sounds good.
You didn't take serious did you?
.
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 11,918
- Reaction score
- 2
Of course. Anytime.
Except when it involves trying to read meandering b.s. At that point I prefer blantant childhood insults.
No offense intended baller. Come on now.
It has been over and over. Do we really have to pick sides?
Last edited:
I sat and listened to Jeff Blake while Brighteyes was interviewing him and he believes. He seems convinced of the just the opposite of what you believe, so did Jerry Sullivan.
In fact everybody I heard seemed convinced they plan on winning. At the end of a three day mini camp our nice siney new superbowl MVP was still hyped up.
Yes we have had problems, though I think we have an unfair share of terrible luck for the last few years. But to say they don't attempt to put a good product on the field from where I sat this weekend IS WRONG, FLAT WRONG.
Will it result in a good team this year, who knows but they certainly seem to be trying.
Maybe you should actually read my post? It was a quote that I took off of another site...I'm not saying that I agree with that poster, but I'm also not saying that I dissagree with that poster.
My real point is that he put the $$$ in a better perspective than any of US have...
green machine
I rule at posting
The poll was probably answered by tons of people who know very little/nothing of the situation. All they hear is "Cards taking money from ASU". Of course they are gonna vote against the Cards. Frankly, if the Cards are owed money, then I don't see the problem. This is a country that bases itself on the legal system, and if the legal system was in favor of the Cards, then what's the problem? Seems like ASU is the one that is breaking the law. THE LAW. Is it morally wrong? Who is to decide that? I go by the law.
adam
adam
green machine
I rule at posting
When you post a post from somewhere else, and then don't disagree with it, I would take that as it being your perspective too. Next time you should write at the end "I don't necessarily agree with this, just using it for the discussion."
adam
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
Come on Houdini, I know that you aren't ignorant.
When someone is seeking damages from harm (whether finacially or physically) the smart thing to do is ask for more, so that when you get the judgement, you end up getting what you hoped for. Commonly juries or judges give less than what the plantiff wants.
If the Cards are right, they are MORALLY right. Our Justice system is supposed to be inherrently moral. If a court of law finds that ASU (or a legally binding arbitrator) is wrong, than it is moral for the Cards to seek what they deserve.
Huh?
I thought I qualified the post? Do they also not teach how to read at UA? I assumed that was just a myth? But I guess we all know what assuming does? Don't we? Seriously, why has it been soo tough for people to read entire posts lately?
green machine
I rule at posting
To me, this means "This post showed me the light". Now, maybe I can't read. But I wouldn't blame UofA for that. I'm supposed to know how to read before I get here. I would blame a Shadow Mountain High School education for that problem. But where in your post did you say "I disagree with what is said?" The quoted above, to me at least, says that you agree with the post. I'm sorry if there is any confusion here, but it seems to be a two way street.
adam
Similar threads
