How big is Ray Jays new one going to be?

[Bear]

 

That's the nice thing about democracy, the voters get exactly what they asked for. And USF is getting exactly what they agreed to.

Democratic Republic, not a democracy, but otherwise very JTrue!!!!

 

 

Another form of a democracy... but okay.

[Southshore26]

 

 

USF leases the RJ from the TSA not the Glazers. The court case had nothing to do with the USF's or it's lease.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/usf-extends-raymond-james-lease-through-2016

"USF exercised the option in August 2011, and the Times obtained a copy of the notice sent to the TSA on Thursday. "I look forward to our continued and mutually beneficial partnership," athletic director Doug Woolard wrote in a letter to TSA executive director Eric Hart."

I believe that Doug Woolard knows a lot more about the situation than you do.

Nothing in that cite contradicts a word that I said - USF's LEASE is with the TSA, but the proceeds from that lease (and all other non-Bucs events) goes, in large part, to the Bucs. This is (literally) EXACTLY what the "court case" we are discussing was about.

You are 100% wrong on this, dude. I'm amazed you picked this battle, as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

Pick your reference at will, whether it's print media:

"[The Bucs] also get naming rights and almost all revenues from tickets, concessions, advertising and parking, as well as a cut of non-Bucs event revenues." (St. Pete Times, 2001)

Or the ACTUAL LEGAL FILINGS in the case at issue:

"[The Bucs receive] the first $2 million of revenues, net of direct operating costs, received by the TSA in the form of rent, license or other fees, ticket sales and other admission charges, parking, concessions, broadcasting and merchandising and any other revenues, plus 50% of all such revenues in excess of $2 million, less sales taxes, surcharges and direct costs. All such revenues are payable to the BUCs within 30 days after the stadium event." (Appellant's Appeal Brief before Supreme Court at 10-11, 4/17/97)

 

Exactly how was USF party to this lawsuit you are referring...were they plaintiffs or defendants????

 

You were wrong when you stated "Money from USF ticket sales, among other things, goes straight into Glazer pockets despite the fact that they didn't contribute a dime to the cost of the stadium."

 

Out

 

 

Thanks Jim... 

[Apis Bull]

 

 

That's the nice thing about democracy, the voters get exactly what they asked for. And USF is getting exactly what they agreed to.

Democratic Republic, not a democracy, but otherwise very JTrue!!!!

 

 

Another form of a democracy... but okay.

 

 

We've never been a true democracy.

[JTrue]

That's the nice thing about democracy, the voters get exactly what they asked for. And USF is getting exactly what they agreed to.

Democratic Republic, not a democracy, but otherwise very JTrue!!!!

Another form of a democracy... but okay.

We've never been a true democracy.

Another great thing about democracy, even people who don't know what it means get to vote.

We are absolutely a true democracy. What we aren't is a direct democracy.

Edited July 15, 2014 by JTrue

[Triple B]

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[WWMJD]

 

 

USF leases the RJ from the TSA not the Glazers. The court case had nothing to do with the USF's or it's lease.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/usf-extends-raymond-james-lease-through-2016

"USF exercised the option in August 2011, and the Times obtained a copy of the notice sent to the TSA on Thursday. "I look forward to our continued and mutually beneficial partnership," athletic director Doug Woolard wrote in a letter to TSA executive director Eric Hart."

I believe that Doug Woolard knows a lot more about the situation than you do.

Nothing in that cite contradicts a word that I said - USF's LEASE is with the TSA, but the proceeds from that lease (and all other non-Bucs events) goes, in large part, to the Bucs. This is (literally) EXACTLY what the "court case" we are discussing was about.

You are 100% wrong on this, dude. I'm amazed you picked this battle, as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

Pick your reference at will, whether it's print media:

"[The Bucs] also get naming rights and almost all revenues from tickets, concessions, advertising and parking, as well as a cut of non-Bucs event revenues." (St. Pete Times, 2001)

Or the ACTUAL LEGAL FILINGS in the case at issue:

"[The Bucs receive] the first $2 million of revenues, net of direct operating costs, received by the TSA in the form of rent, license or other fees, ticket sales and other admission charges, parking, concessions, broadcasting and merchandising and any other revenues, plus 50% of all such revenues in excess of $2 million, less sales taxes, surcharges and direct costs. All such revenues are payable to the BUCs within 30 days after the stadium event." (Appellant's Appeal Brief before Supreme Court at 10-11, 4/17/97)

 

Exactly how was USF party to this lawsuit you are referring...were they plaintiffs or defendants????

 

You were wrong when you stated "Money from USF ticket sales, among other things, goes straight into Glazer pockets despite the fact that they didn't contribute a dime to the cost of the stadium."

 

Out

 

 

Which part of my statement is wrong again?  Glazers get a cut of all non-Bucs events, including USF games.  Factually correct.  Glazers did not contribute any funds to the cost of the stadium.  Factually correct.  I'm not seeing where the issue is here.

[Skingraft]

USF leases the RJ from the TSA not the Glazers. The court case had nothing to do with the USF's or it's lease.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bulls/content/usf-extends-raymond-james-lease-through-2016

"USF exercised the option in August 2011, and the Times obtained a copy of the notice sent to the TSA on Thursday. "I look forward to our continued and mutually beneficial partnership," athletic director Doug Woolard wrote in a letter to TSA executive director Eric Hart."

I believe that Doug Woolard knows a lot more about the situation than you do.

Nothing in that cite contradicts a word that I said - USF's LEASE is with the TSA, but the proceeds from that lease (and all other non-Bucs events) goes, in large part, to the Bucs. This is (literally) EXACTLY what the "court case" we are discussing was about.

You are 100% wrong on this, dude. I'm amazed you picked this battle, as you clearly do not know what you're talking about.

Pick your reference at will, whether it's print media:

"[The Bucs] also get naming rights and almost all revenues from tickets, concessions, advertising and parking, as well as a cut of non-Bucs event revenues." (St. Pete Times, 2001)

Or the ACTUAL LEGAL FILINGS in the case at issue:

"[The Bucs receive] the first $2 million of revenues, net of direct operating costs, received by the TSA in the form of rent, license or other fees, ticket sales and other admission charges, parking, concessions, broadcasting and merchandising and any other revenues, plus 50% of all such revenues in excess of $2 million, less sales taxes, surcharges and direct costs. All such revenues are payable to the BUCs within 30 days after the stadium event." (Appellant's Appeal Brief before Supreme Court at 10-11, 4/17/97)

Exactly how was USF party to this lawsuit you are referring...were they plaintiffs or defendants????

You were wrong when you stated "Money from USF ticket sales, among other things, goes straight into Glazer pockets despite the fact that they didn't contribute a dime to the cost of the stadium."

Out

Which part of my statement is wrong again? Glazers get a cut of all non-Bucs events, including USF games. Factually correct. Glazers did not contribute any funds to the cost of the stadium. Factually correct. I'm not seeing where the issue is here.

Ned: See Below

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/content/raymond-james-stadium-project-reminder-glazers-sweetheart-deal

http://www.sptimes.com/News/012501/SuperBowl2001/We_paid_for_it_it_pai.shtml

Edited July 15, 2014 by Skingraft

[WWMJD]

Ned: See Below

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/bucs/content/raymond-james-stadium-project-reminder-glazers-sweetheart-deal

http://www.sptimes.com/News/012501/SuperBowl2001/We_paid_for_it_it_pai.shtml

 

 

And a virtually endless supply of other articles and official docs as well... 

 

It's sad that public discourse (of which this board is just a microcosm) has degraded to such a point that rather than discussing the substantive merits of a position or action, people just scream that your (well documented, undisputed) facts are wrong.  Not saying that I never take a position driven by emotion, passion, or immaturity, but this conversation has clearly reached the point that I could say the earth is round and he would disagree because he is so entrenched he just can't take a step back and admit that he was mistaken about what was, in essence, a relatively minor point. 

 

Sorry for the rant (and pissing match); I just find this so disheartening.

Edited July 15, 2014 by WWMJD

[charsibb]

Actually, we're a dictatorship of the dollar

[JTrue]

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy."

You are killing it today. Keep up the solid effort in both arguments.