How big is Ray Jays new one going to be?

[Triple B]

Who's being sarcastic? Ned is on fire blowing people's arguments up with rock solid counterpoints.

 

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

[WWMJD]

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

[Brad]

The best thing for USF would have been if the taxpayers hadn't allowed themselves to be duped and voted into financial servitude and the Glazers had simply moved their team elsewhere.

[Triple B]

 

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

 

 

That's really not accurate. In 2013, I paid $36/game. The rent per game was $165,000 with an average attendance per game of 34,701. There is a per ticket surcharge (Max $2.50). This means that even if the Bucs got 100% of what USF pays the TSA, they'd only get $7.25 of your Bulls ticket money .... not what I would personally call a "big portion". Would the rent be cheaper if the Bucs weren't involved? Probably, but who knows how much lower ..... This means there is a negative impact, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you think it is.

[GaUSFBull]

**** ... This thread was a lot more fun when everyone was piling on Ned.

[NewEnglandBull]

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."

Correct, we are a constitutional republic.

[WWMJD]

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

 

That's really not accurate. In 2013, I paid $36/game. The rent per game was $165,000 with an average attendance per game of 34,701. There is a per ticket surcharge (Max $2.50). This means that even if the Bucs got 100% of what USF pays the TSA, they'd only get $7.25 of your Bulls ticket money .... not what I would personally call a "big portion". Would the rent be cheaper if the Bucs weren't involved? Probably, but who knows how much lower ..... This means there is a negative impact, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you think it is.

The distinction here is that you are operating under the laws of logic, reason, and facts, rather than the "nuh-uh!" that wasted half this thread.

[Triple B]

 

 

 

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

 

That's really not accurate. In 2013, I paid $36/game. The rent per game was $165,000 with an average attendance per game of 34,701. There is a per ticket surcharge (Max $2.50). This means that even if the Bucs got 100% of what USF pays the TSA, they'd only get $7.25 of your Bulls ticket money .... not what I would personally call a "big portion". Would the rent be cheaper if the Bucs weren't involved? Probably, but who knows how much lower ..... This means there is a negative impact, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you think it is.

The distinction here is that you are operating under the laws of logic, reason, and facts, rather than the "nuh-uh!" that wasted half this thread.

 

 

Agree completely .... Ned could have cleared it up, or at least a portion of it, 2 pages ago .... but it's the offseason and nothing really to go back and forth on at the moment.

 

 .... and the "nuh-uh" is a perfect description.

[WWMJD]

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

 

That's really not accurate. In 2013, I paid $36/game. The rent per game was $165,000 with an average attendance per game of 34,701. There is a per ticket surcharge (Max $2.50). This means that even if the Bucs got 100% of what USF pays the TSA, they'd only get $7.25 of your Bulls ticket money .... not what I would personally call a "big portion". Would the rent be cheaper if the Bucs weren't involved? Probably, but who knows how much lower ..... This means there is a negative impact, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you think it is.

So if we assume that the Glazers are getting 100% of what the TSA gets from normal (non-luxury) seats, on your calculation, they are pulling about 20% of that. (The 100% is slightly high, but not terribly so according to the Bucs 2012 revenues, and any remainder is probably offset at least somewhat by the number of non-paid attendees, which has sadly increased with our decline.) They also get 100% of luxury box sales and sponsorships, which is usually roughly equivalent to annual regular ticket sales (which in this case would be astronomically higher than the numbers we are talking about given that they are primarily after the Bucs anyway, but whatever portion is attributable to us probably roughly correlates with out ticket revenue). That can come close to doubling that revenue. Add in the fact that they are also pulling in the concession and parking money, the number could quickly approach 50% (if not more) of all revenue derived from USF games. If that money were going to Hillsborough County, or some other truly public entity to actually pay the taxpayers back for the stadium, I think it would be way less offensive to people, but it seems like it's an awful lot given that we are talking about money going into the pocket of someone who didn't contribute a penny to the stadium construction. If you disagree, then it's simply a difference of opinion w/r/t what constitutes "a lot," which I can live with (but would remind you that I am far from the only one still sore over this deal).

[Brad]

 

 

The problem is it's not the same argument. People keep trying to convince Ned that the Bucs get paid something from the TSA following a USF game when he's never said they didn't. His point, I think, is that there is no legal fiscal connection between USF and the Bucs and he's 100% correct, as far as I can tell.

The point he took issue with, although he has tried to reframe (but is still wrong), is that USF was negatively impacted by the Glazers' robber baron style deal on Ray J. I don't see how any rational person can dispute that, given that a big portion of the money you're paying for Bulls tickets (and basically everything else at a USF game) ends up in their pocket. If the deal had been more equitable (and there are a host of reasons it wasn't, some legit and some not), we would be in better shape financially.

 

 

That's really not accurate. In 2013, I paid $36/game. The rent per game was $165,000 with an average attendance per game of 34,701. There is a per ticket surcharge (Max $2.50). This means that even if the Bucs got 100% of what USF pays the TSA, they'd only get $7.25 of your Bulls ticket money .... not what I would personally call a "big portion".

 

Big portion or not, why?  For doing what? In the community stadium?