Kblaze8855
07-05-2023, 07:44 PM
…the massive increase in team value offsets it over time?
That(and questioning if they actually lose money to begin with) is the basis of this long, but fairly good argument between Mike Schur(creator or writer for several huge comedy series) and David Samson the nepo baby stepson and former team president for an MLB owner.
https://youtu.be/PCpWsQiIgK4
It begins at about 5:25 with the question about how it is Mickey Arison loses money every year.
The basic arguments are these for those who don’t feel like watching the almost heated argument:
If expenses are _____ and return for the year is less than that you lost money. The end.
Countered by….
It isn’t losing money when it’s a massively appreciating asset and your accountants can rig the bottom line to look like anything they want.
Follow up arguments were that if you gain value in a stock but aren’t willing or able to realize it by cashing in(selling) you can’t pay the light bill with that appreciation. It isn’t real till you sell it off and Arison will never sell it off because he’s gonna give the team to his son like his dad gave the Heat and Carnival cruise lines to him. He loses money year to year even if he’s still rich from other sources.
The general counter was even if he lost money on the Heat technically to paint it as him personally losing money on the investment is dishonest because we count billionaires worth and they use it indirectly for many things. They can take loans out on their hypothetical value at any time. That the losses are just manufactured just like movie studios are doing to writers now(he heads the writer strike going on).
So.
Where do you stand?
I feel like most, will generally side against a billionaire, because the easiest way to get applause in modern society is to be against rich people. In this particular case, it’s a 100 millionaire arguing against billionaires and of course that point is brought up. He does the same creative accounting, but he somewhat side steps that.
my question to you is this…..
Should pretty much all owners be willing to spend what it takes to win because the so-called losses are bullshit next to the massive appreciating value of their asset?
That(and questioning if they actually lose money to begin with) is the basis of this long, but fairly good argument between Mike Schur(creator or writer for several huge comedy series) and David Samson the nepo baby stepson and former team president for an MLB owner.
https://youtu.be/PCpWsQiIgK4
It begins at about 5:25 with the question about how it is Mickey Arison loses money every year.
The basic arguments are these for those who don’t feel like watching the almost heated argument:
If expenses are _____ and return for the year is less than that you lost money. The end.
Countered by….
It isn’t losing money when it’s a massively appreciating asset and your accountants can rig the bottom line to look like anything they want.
Follow up arguments were that if you gain value in a stock but aren’t willing or able to realize it by cashing in(selling) you can’t pay the light bill with that appreciation. It isn’t real till you sell it off and Arison will never sell it off because he’s gonna give the team to his son like his dad gave the Heat and Carnival cruise lines to him. He loses money year to year even if he’s still rich from other sources.
The general counter was even if he lost money on the Heat technically to paint it as him personally losing money on the investment is dishonest because we count billionaires worth and they use it indirectly for many things. They can take loans out on their hypothetical value at any time. That the losses are just manufactured just like movie studios are doing to writers now(he heads the writer strike going on).
So.
Where do you stand?
I feel like most, will generally side against a billionaire, because the easiest way to get applause in modern society is to be against rich people. In this particular case, it’s a 100 millionaire arguing against billionaires and of course that point is brought up. He does the same creative accounting, but he somewhat side steps that.
my question to you is this…..
Should pretty much all owners be willing to spend what it takes to win because the so-called losses are bullshit next to the massive appreciating value of their asset?