Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mark Cuban, Olympics, Corp. America
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 965563" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>At some level I understand your point and from a certain POV it may hold true. I also saw in the wiki link that it was under Perot that the building of the arena took place and from that perspective your point is well made. But let's take your bank bailout example and consider it from another angle and then see where we are.</p><p></p><p>Mac's bank get's a bailout from taxpayer dollars and then a week later Pickup Banking buys out Mac's bank. I can't foresee a circumstance where Pickup Company is not aware of public dollars being injected into the business so I'm going on full disclosure here. Let's consider several questions to see just how far a clean hand's doctrine would extend.</p><p></p><p>1) Without the bailout, would Mac's bank have been a viable entity to purchase in the first place?</p><p></p><p>2) Without the bailout or injection of capital, would the profits even have been there to make this investment worthwhile?</p><p></p><p>3) How did the fact that Mac's bank used eminent domain to acquire land at below market places transfer to Pickup's bottomline upon purchase?</p><p>(I bring that up because eminent domain was used to acquire the land for <a href="http://www.strasburger.com/attorneys/108/kevin-j--maguire" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000">American Airlines Arena</span></a> rather than using open market transactions of negotiated purchase or force sale verses voluntary.)</p><p></p><p>4) Had Mac's bank not used the public to pass down various cost risks, would Pickup Company have enjoyed not only it's future profits or it's ability to become a national leader but would the sale price have been far, far higher and therefore not a good purchase to begin with?</p><p></p><p>Cuban did not initiate the hand going into the public kitty but you can't tell me he's not aware of the action nor in the future do I believe at this point that given the chance he'd not do the same thing. Sadly this is what sports franchises do these days. I use to own stock in Speedway Motorsports Corp. which owned such racetracks as Bristol, Charlotte and Atlanta among others. At some point I learned that SMS was using eminent domain to acquire additional lands around some tracks, in this case it was Bristol and after a few letters between myself and SMS to which I was unsatisfied, I sold my holdings in SMS and no, it had no effect on the stock price. My point is, like so many other companies and industry, sports owners like Mark Cuban on the one hand will complain when he's expected to kick a buck back in to the members only club but he never lifted a finger to extract himself in the firstplace from it. </p><p></p><p>Cuban on the one hand is correct but then he never took it the whole distance either. He does get credit also in calling out the Olympic Committee for not putting the money back into the public hands as you'll see in my original post in reading the last sentence in the quote box. The other problem with using the public tax dollar as the bank of last or sometimes first resort is that you have gov't picking and choosing winners and losers and then to protect their investments, central planning and regulations to assure success for the invested entity further clouds the marketplace and the chance of misallocation of resources grows possible to hyper levels and when the bubble pops it can have horrible consequences for the economy at large. Sound familiar?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 965563, member: 2189"] At some level I understand your point and from a certain POV it may hold true. I also saw in the wiki link that it was under Perot that the building of the arena took place and from that perspective your point is well made. But let's take your bank bailout example and consider it from another angle and then see where we are. Mac's bank get's a bailout from taxpayer dollars and then a week later Pickup Banking buys out Mac's bank. I can't foresee a circumstance where Pickup Company is not aware of public dollars being injected into the business so I'm going on full disclosure here. Let's consider several questions to see just how far a clean hand's doctrine would extend. 1) Without the bailout, would Mac's bank have been a viable entity to purchase in the first place? 2) Without the bailout or injection of capital, would the profits even have been there to make this investment worthwhile? 3) How did the fact that Mac's bank used eminent domain to acquire land at below market places transfer to Pickup's bottomline upon purchase? (I bring that up because eminent domain was used to acquire the land for [URL="http://www.strasburger.com/attorneys/108/kevin-j--maguire"][COLOR=#ff0000]American Airlines Arena[/COLOR][/URL] rather than using open market transactions of negotiated purchase or force sale verses voluntary.) 4) Had Mac's bank not used the public to pass down various cost risks, would Pickup Company have enjoyed not only it's future profits or it's ability to become a national leader but would the sale price have been far, far higher and therefore not a good purchase to begin with? Cuban did not initiate the hand going into the public kitty but you can't tell me he's not aware of the action nor in the future do I believe at this point that given the chance he'd not do the same thing. Sadly this is what sports franchises do these days. I use to own stock in Speedway Motorsports Corp. which owned such racetracks as Bristol, Charlotte and Atlanta among others. At some point I learned that SMS was using eminent domain to acquire additional lands around some tracks, in this case it was Bristol and after a few letters between myself and SMS to which I was unsatisfied, I sold my holdings in SMS and no, it had no effect on the stock price. My point is, like so many other companies and industry, sports owners like Mark Cuban on the one hand will complain when he's expected to kick a buck back in to the members only club but he never lifted a finger to extract himself in the firstplace from it. Cuban on the one hand is correct but then he never took it the whole distance either. He does get credit also in calling out the Olympic Committee for not putting the money back into the public hands as you'll see in my original post in reading the last sentence in the quote box. The other problem with using the public tax dollar as the bank of last or sometimes first resort is that you have gov't picking and choosing winners and losers and then to protect their investments, central planning and regulations to assure success for the invested entity further clouds the marketplace and the chance of misallocation of resources grows possible to hyper levels and when the bubble pops it can have horrible consequences for the economy at large. Sound familiar? :wink2: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Mark Cuban, Olympics, Corp. America
Top