Originally Posted by manchambo:
So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.
But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?
Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?
That's not how book-keeping is done on PPP capital projects. When bond referendums are involved stuff doesn't work like that.
Spoiler!
Anyone with any knowledge of how municipal capital bonds and public-private partnerships work knows that those funds are separate from everything else for legal and ethical purposes, and that money isn't put into said accounts regarding capital improvements until after approval of the project and that money used towards or as escrow towards capital improvement projects/bonds/ etc for accountability and transparency purposes. Even the most basic knowledge of bookkeeping tells you that you're wrong, and that if they didn't have that basic knowledge of bookkeeping; there were even larger issues that probably require criminal charges at that point since public bonds were involved and there is potentially misrepresentation to vested interests. Mixing accounts often ends up leading to lawsuits or criminal charges because things are misrepresented or you are committing fraud in essence by claiming you have more money set aside after expenses than you actually do.
Just... No... in no world does the stadium story make sense unless Bowlen is committing fraud by misrepresenting accounts.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, in the 90s, laws were different than they are now, but even if that wasn't standard practice in a scenario like that then, its still highly unethical and misrepresenting in the best case scenario as you described to dip from certain accounts to move money into others when referendums are at play. (I ended up putting the bit of a explanation in spoilers to take up less room... not worth it considering he seems to lack critical thinking skills) [Reply]
Yep. Love watching Cheating Donx fans reach for anything to try and defend their cheating. Two proven illegitimate titles. And they still don't have as many as the Chiefs! :-):-):-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by manchambo:
So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.
But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?
Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?
Please be respond to his questions little buddy [Reply]
Originally Posted by manchambo:
(A)So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.
(B)But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?
(C)Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?
(A) It is only "illogical" to short-sighted Donks homers like you. Meanwhile objective observers can easily see the logic of it. Bowlen and company had no certainty that referendum 4A was going to pass & what if it had been voted down? Regardless, it doesn't change or alter the fact that Bowlen & company are WITHOUT EXCUSE for cheating and violating the salary cap.
(B) You've had ample evidence presented to you right here in this very thread & not just by me, but multiple other posters. You simply choose to ignore it because you can't answer or refute it.
(C) Right there is where you've just illustrated exactly how the Donks violated & cheated the salary cap. They were not deferring funds anywhere & "paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have" still constitutes cheating and violating the salary cap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as there is no other instance of any team in 1996 -- 1998 committing such an act.
Like I suggested earlier -- Try naming any other team that added players to their roster (or as many as the Donks did) in the illegitimate manner the Donkeys did in 1996 -- 1998. [Reply]
Originally Posted by brdempsey69:
(A) It is only "illogical" to short-sighted Donks homers like you. Meanwhile objective observers can easily see the logic of it. Bowlen and company had no certainty that referendum 4A was going to pass & what if it had been voted down? Regardless, it doesn't change or alter the fact that Bowlen & company are WITHOUT EXCUSE for cheating and violating the salary cap.
(B) You've had ample evidence presented to you right here in this very thread & not just by me, but multiple other posters. You simply choose to ignore it because you can't answer or refute it.
(C) Right there is where you've just illustrated exactly how the Donks violated & cheated the salary cap. They were not deferring funds anywhere & "paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have" still constitutes cheating and violating the salary cap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as there is no other instance of any team in 1996 -- 1998 committing such an act.
Like I suggested earlier -- Try naming any other team that added players to their roster (or as many as the Donks did) in the illegitimate manner the Donkeys did in 1996 -- 1998.
If the referendum didn’t pass, they would’ve had extra cash on hand. If it did pass, and they didn’t set the money aside, they would not have been able to build the stadium.
It is hard to believe that even you could pretend it is inconceivable that a business would set money aside to be able to meet a large expense.
Further, I have not denied that they violated the cap. It is your claim that they violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise. And you continue to present zero evidence that that is the case. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
Yep. Love watching Cheating Donx fans reach for anything to try and defend their cheating. Three proven illegitimate titles. And they still don't have as many as the Chiefs! :-):-):-)
