Stadium Discussion

Where Do You Want The Stadium?

  • Manhattan

    Votes: 54 16.6%
  • Queens

    Votes: 99 30.5%
  • Brooklyn

    Votes: 19 5.8%
  • Staten Island

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Westchester

    Votes: 18 5.5%
  • The Bronx

    Votes: 113 34.8%
  • Long Island

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Dual-Boroughs

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Etihad Island

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • Total voters
    325
Taking the politics (a little) out of it, if anyone is serious about UBI, here's some info.

First up is a suggestion we take the idea seriously from that famously ultra-liberal organization the Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...fix-our-broken-welfare-system-give-it-serious

And another about why some of the top Silicon Valley people think we need this. (FWIW, as someone who shuns social media, I'm not one to kowtow to what SV wants.)

http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/universal-basic-income-free-money-silicon-valley/
As a conservative leaning (Economically only) person, the UBI concept is a dream. It could replace most other forms of inefficient welfare and subsidies which, as Lion rightly pointed out, discourages people from working and has created a trap for millions of families.
The problem is, UBI has been talked about for generations. Mark Zuckerberg didn't wake up one day with this vision, it's been around. It's been researched by top institute's, governments, universities and so on. The problem is, we have never heard a viable proposal from anybody. We keep hearing people say "we should look into...." or "it's time to consider" Ubi. Until one of these people lay out a viable proposal instead of trying to score points by "looking into" it, it's going to be a stupid idea.
 
I appreciate you trying, although I am skeptical I will understand but, where do bondholders enter into this. Nobody is borrowing money, not Company D or company G. Why are there bonds? If you want to take this to DM, that’s cool, so we don’t waste other people‘s time.

To simplify.

Bonds were used to borrow money to build the garages. The various garages owe a lot of money on those bonds, and they can't pay it. Bonds trade just like other securities do, and the trading prices for the garage bonds have gone down to reflect the fact that the payment is in doubt.

But, the prices have been moving back up in the last year or so, which seems to indicate that some investors believe something will change that makes repayment more likely. One possibility would be a stadium built on the site of some garages, because it is possible that the entity building the stadium will pay back some or all of the bonds on the garages that are torn down. A new stadium would also take some of the parking off the market making it easier for the remaining garages to make enough money to pay their bonds.

Of course there could be another reason that the bonds have traded back up - maybe its the price increases at the garages or that they have been rented out to fleets. Or maybe the investors are just wrong. But it is still interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hatt91
Finishing Touches

Lion got me all...

giphy.gif
 
Ok back to the bond prices. I’m at work and I’ve tracked the trades going back a year.

These are all VERY small trades.

In June of 2018, you could have purchased a lot of the bonds for 37 cents on the dollar. In January, that same lot cost 65 cents on the dollar. Last trade in March? 62 cents on the dollar. So they’ve gone down.

Now, something happened between January and March. In February, they released the financials on the garages for the period ending September 30th (it looks like they release their financials about 4 months behind). The financials show the garages continue to lose money. So the garages were more in the hole on September 30th than they were on January 1st.

Why should you care? Maybe you shouldn’t. But for the quarter, the garages lost $5 million more on paper. And the “deficiency” was $20 million more than it was on January 1st.

All this to say that the garages continue to be losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rimil and hatt91
One more thought on how bad these bonds are.

I’m looking at the 2017 financial statement (last one available until the 2018 statement comes out in May probably).

For 2017, the parking garages made $8.8 million.
The expenses were $37 million.

There's a overabundance of cheaper options around YS. Why anyone would spend $45 to park slightly closer is beyond me. I pay $20 at the Bronx Terminal Market. It's a 5 minute walk to the stadium.
 
Taking the politics (a little) out of it, if anyone is serious about UBI, here's some info.

First up is a suggestion we take the idea seriously from that famously ultra-liberal organization the Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...fix-our-broken-welfare-system-give-it-serious

And another about why some of the top Silicon Valley people think we need this. (FWIW, as someone who shuns social media, I'm not one to kowtow to what SV wants.)

http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/universal-basic-income-free-money-silicon-valley/
One of the first champions of minimum basic income? Noted left-wing President Richard Nixon.

https://thecorrespondent.com/4503/t...-and-his-basic-income-bill/173117835-c34d6145
 
OK, I’m understanding it quite a bit more. I wasn’t aware that a company could issue bonds to finance something. I just thought they borrowed money from a bank. And I thought bonds could only be bought from the government. Those are just a few of the misconceptions I had, LOL Thank you to all of you who helped explain it.

I guess another question I have is, if the bond prices are going up, does that mean that only a few people are buying the bonds at the higher price? Maybe they know something is going to happen. Or is there sort of a scramble of a lot of people to get these bonds and that gradually raises the price?
 
AOC is a political hack. But she’s the only voice for an entire generation of voting age Americans.
Well, that’s a vast overstatement and one I hope isn’t true. She’s pretty much a left-wing Trump.

ETA: and this is why I abstain. It’s totally garbage that people think the answer to one idiot is an idiot on the other end.

Eta 2: If you think AOC speaks for an entire generation, I’d suggest you have missed out on a massive movement among a group of many of the higher intellect millennials that skews far away from AOC. They might be fewer in number, but I’d suggest their means of influence is beyond what you might imagine. I don’t agree with most of these folks, but I am aware of and acknowledge they exist and they will not just crumple for someone, especially a walking socialist soundbite with no grip on anything exhibiting any sort of intellectual or moral rigor (so like I said, a left wing trump). It’s why I’ve given up on voting. It’s all bullshit. I will not grant tacit approval to these morons by casting a vote for any of them.

ETA 3: We just radicalize our own population with polarizing political bullshit to the extent we render external terrorism moot. Wake up, social media warriors. What’s needed is some good, reasonable, common sense statesmanship, not a bunch of like-whoring internet-feedback tailored misfits crafting a social media narrative and driving wedges between people.

FFS, practically all of the “political stars” of today are nothing but walking retweets of bad ideologies that fail either morally, economically, or politically when subjected to the scrutiny of the entire populous. I’m sick to death of it on all sides.


Eta4: I’m disgusted with myself for using “AOC” to refer to the wrong person. Can’t believe it’s seeped into me. Stick to soccer, soccer twitter.:triumph:
 
Last edited: