Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, June 26, 2012
Sports Conlin Thinks the Arena Deal Is Dead
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin thinks the proposal for an arena that would bring the Sonics back to Seattle is "unlikely" to be approved by the council, Nick Eaton reports at Seattlepi.com. Conlin—who's always been game for spending hundreds of millions on new highways—says he's opposed because he doesn't wanna spend public money on a major infrastructure project.
The city would need to chip in up to $200 million toward the half-billion dollar project, with the city recouping its expenses from future user fees. Most of the arena would be financed by grazillionaire investor Chris Hansen.
Not every council member agrees with Conlin. Jean Godden says his talk is "premature," but Goldy reported a couple weeks ago that the council may be aligning to smother the arena deal.
1
So McGinn supports leveraging city monies to push forward a megaproject while the Council is against and plans to obstruct?
Oh fuck you, Seattle politics.
Oh fuck you, Seattle politics.
2
Conlin only opposes the deal for political calculations that it's failure would hurt Mike McGinn. Conlin is unfit for the Council.
3
@1 and 2
Then put the arena on the ballot and see how much voter support it really has among the Seattle electorate.
The results would probably surprise you. Among people who actually vote in Seattle, Conlin is on the winning side of this issue.
Then put the arena on the ballot and see how much voter support it really has among the Seattle electorate.
The results would probably surprise you. Among people who actually vote in Seattle, Conlin is on the winning side of this issue.
4
"Among people who actually vote" is an interesting qualification. Do you think the desires of the citizenry at large differs greatly from the active electorate? And if so, which should our leadership be serving the interests of, ideally?
5
@ #3 There is no need to put this to a general vote because there is no new tax that affects the general population. The arena generates the $$ itself. It pays for itself and Sonics fans such as myself are more than happy to pay a small fee when I go to games. Just because you are anti-basketball doesn't mean you have to spread your misinformation and try to rain on our parade.
6
Tell me (honestly, I do not know the answer to this!) is there some reason why there's no talk of taking the existing Key Arena at Seattle Center, demolishing it, and rebuilding something like what these guys are proposing?
I haven't kept up on that aspect of the issue and would like to know if the proposed new owners have considered that.
Sure seems like Seattle Center could use a revitalization in that corner of the Center grounds.
I haven't kept up on that aspect of the issue and would like to know if the proposed new owners have considered that.
Sure seems like Seattle Center could use a revitalization in that corner of the Center grounds.
9
Not to get diverted but what we really need is to end the at-large council system. Divvy up the city into nine districts by population and we would see a Council that actively votes for the wishes of its residents--and it would take away their political and DSA capital to hide behind.
10
@4,
"The stadium will pay for itself" belongs right up there with other abject bullshit lies like "The check is in the mail", "You don't look a day over 40" and "I promise not to come in your mouth."
The Key Arena was heralded as a cutting-edge stadium financing deal that was gonna pay for itself, too.
Been there, done that, fool me twice, etc etc etc etc...
"The stadium will pay for itself" belongs right up there with other abject bullshit lies like "The check is in the mail", "You don't look a day over 40" and "I promise not to come in your mouth."
The Key Arena was heralded as a cutting-edge stadium financing deal that was gonna pay for itself, too.
Been there, done that, fool me twice, etc etc etc etc...
11
I say all this actually being a basketball fan and very much missing the Sonics and going to the games:
@# 4 ..... huh? I understand saying something like that if you are talking about people that dont vote such as homeless people, and felons. But huh? isnt this what a democracy is? You tell me who our leadership should be serving the interests of. Sonics fans? they cant vote? Why elect anybody for any position if you dont want them to represent your ideals?
@#5 I love the mantra around this of "no new tax"....true statement. but 200 mil loan is basically what we are doing. are the citizens going to collect interest on this loan? 200 mil payed back over time is actually not even that amount if you figure in inflation. and what "disinformation" is #3 raining on peoples parade with? by asking for a vote? that is disinformation? and where do you see #3 say anything negative about basketball whatsoever?
@# 4 ..... huh? I understand saying something like that if you are talking about people that dont vote such as homeless people, and felons. But huh? isnt this what a democracy is? You tell me who our leadership should be serving the interests of. Sonics fans? they cant vote? Why elect anybody for any position if you dont want them to represent your ideals?
@#5 I love the mantra around this of "no new tax"....true statement. but 200 mil loan is basically what we are doing. are the citizens going to collect interest on this loan? 200 mil payed back over time is actually not even that amount if you figure in inflation. and what "disinformation" is #3 raining on peoples parade with? by asking for a vote? that is disinformation? and where do you see #3 say anything negative about basketball whatsoever?
12
@4,
On this particular issue, what I was referring to was the fact that most of the pro-stadium posts you see in the comments section of the Times, etc come from people who live outside of Seattle.
With regard to registered Seattle voters, whether you are talking 1/4 (ie - infrequent) voters or 4/4 (ie - perfect) voters, if you put public funding for yet another stadium on the ballot it would lose.
On this particular issue, what I was referring to was the fact that most of the pro-stadium posts you see in the comments section of the Times, etc come from people who live outside of Seattle.
With regard to registered Seattle voters, whether you are talking 1/4 (ie - infrequent) voters or 4/4 (ie - perfect) voters, if you put public funding for yet another stadium on the ballot it would lose.
14
@11,
Let's not forget all of the other non-stadium costs that get pushed off on the public, too (f.e - just how much did WSDOT spend to rebuild the I-90/4th Ave ramps that were less than 10 years old after the public funded a stadium for Paul Allen, for just one example).
Let's not forget all of the other non-stadium costs that get pushed off on the public, too (f.e - just how much did WSDOT spend to rebuild the I-90/4th Ave ramps that were less than 10 years old after the public funded a stadium for Paul Allen, for just one example).
16
@ Mr. X - now you are just making stuff up. "the fact that most of the pro-stadium posts you see in the comments section of the Times, etc come from people who live outside of Seattle." - oh please. What a joke. Also - YES the public bonds portion of the arena deal - $120 million if there is just an NBA team - DOES IN FACT PAY FOR ITSELF. Read up on the issue before you start spreading your lies. If you are simply opposed to the arena deal because you want Hansen to pay for it himself that's one thing, but don't go all Seattle Times on us and start lying to support your points. Oh and @ Baconcat - "Baconcat?!??"
17
Not to mention the arena deal is required to abide by I-91 - so the arena will not only pay for the bonds, but the city is legally required to make money on it. did you vote for I-91?
18
@5,
You're just determined to lie about this, aren't you? Best case scenario, this proposal raises property taxes.
How about you try arguing from a position of truthfulness so the rest of us don't laugh in your face?
You're just determined to lie about this, aren't you? Best case scenario, this proposal raises property taxes.
How about you try arguing from a position of truthfulness so the rest of us don't laugh in your face?
19
@ Mr. X - non-stadium costs that aren't caused by the stadium and don't in fact exist yet. Deal with it dude, it's a good deal, it pays for itself. If you don't like because you are - wait for it - anti-basketball, you don't want Sonics fans to watch grown men throwing a piece of leather through a metal hoop, then that's great it's your opinion. But stop with your lies.
20
Where do we go to recoup our property taxes? Where do we get that profit if the arena fails to deliver on revenue? Is Chris Hansen going to cut the city a check?
but the city is legally required to make money on it.
Where do we go to recoup our property taxes? Where do we get that profit if the arena fails to deliver on revenue? Is Chris Hansen going to cut the city a check?
22
@19,
Chris Hansen and his investors are more than welcome to pay for this project themselves, with no money taken out of the pockets of Seattle taxpayers.
Chris Hansen and his investors are more than welcome to pay for this project themselves, with no money taken out of the pockets of Seattle taxpayers.
23
Chris Hansen has already guaranteed he will cover any revenue short coming. I'm sure if it is approved, that the city would get that in writing. Wouldn't you? Deal with it - the arena proposal is a good and fair plan. I can't wait till it's approved and I get to hear all the whining on Slog.
24
@21,
You lie.
You lie.
But yes, contrary to the implied promise of a "self-financing arena", the proposed deal would result in a $2 to $3 bump on the property tax bill of the average Seattle homeowner (35 cents for King County homeowners outside of Seattle), and yes, the city/county portion of this extra revenue will be dedicated entirely toward servicing the arena bonds.
25
@ Keshmeshi - again you are unfamiliar with this issue. THERE IS NO NEW TAX quit with your lying. The bonds are paid back with rent and money generated by the arena. As a Sonics fan I would be happy to go to a game and have to pay some small fee. It would be my pleasure to do so. And I'm not the only "Seattle Resident" that feels this way. If there was a general tax, I would be against this proposal, or at least want there to be a vote. But there isn't.
26
@25,
No, just an increase in taxes. What, pray tell, is the difference? Why should the rest of us see an increase in taxes to suit your hobby? More specifically, why should the rest of us see an increase in taxes to get multimillionaires to build an arena they could fund on their own?
And, good God, could you be any more of a fucking whiner?
THERE IS NO NEW TAX quit with your lying.
No, just an increase in taxes. What, pray tell, is the difference? Why should the rest of us see an increase in taxes to suit your hobby? More specifically, why should the rest of us see an increase in taxes to get multimillionaires to build an arena they could fund on their own?
And, good God, could you be any more of a fucking whiner?
27
hahaha wow! "no new tax" does not equal "no tax raises" hahaha spin spin spin If a tax is raised or extended thereby requiring citizens to pay more than if this didnt go through... im gonna go ahead and call that more taxes.. i guess just not "new taxes"
28
@ Slog tipper david.... care to answer my question about how mr x. is "anti-basketball"? I am pro basketball, just anti new stadium financing. So again: where does Mr. X. say he is anti basketball? im not saying he is not, but i dont see how you could say he is?
31
@election fetishists: The City already voted. It was Initiative 91. Google it.
@keshmeshi: Why are you asking questions about the security for the repayment? Why don't you just read the Memorandum of Understanding that is under consideration instead of ignorantly speculating about its contents?
@keshmeshi: Why are you asking questions about the security for the repayment? Why don't you just read the Memorandum of Understanding that is under consideration instead of ignorantly speculating about its contents?
32
slog tipper david is a fucking tool. maybe he's actually McGinn in disguise, god it's lke he wants to fuck the Arena.
33
@23
"I'm sure if it is approved, that the city would get that in writing."
Why not have it in writing NOW as part of the deal that is being put forward?
Hmmmm?
No. I do NOT believe that a group of millionaires would risk their own money in such a fashion.
They did not get to be millionaires by being stupid about money.
If the stadium would be such a great deal then those millionaires would be able to find private financing to cover it. They would not need the government to kick in any dollars.
"I'm sure if it is approved, that the city would get that in writing."
Why not have it in writing NOW as part of the deal that is being put forward?
Hmmmm?
No. I do NOT believe that a group of millionaires would risk their own money in such a fashion.
They did not get to be millionaires by being stupid about money.
If the stadium would be such a great deal then those millionaires would be able to find private financing to cover it. They would not need the government to kick in any dollars.
36
Dead as in...wait a minute...I smell Mr. Franklin...yeah...I'm feelin' better already....
Look, the day that thieving local politicos turn down yet another Billionaire Cry Baby who wants to spend his money to get the love he was always denied while attending prep school in Seattle, is the day there's actually good weather all through the year.
Look, the day that thieving local politicos turn down yet another Billionaire Cry Baby who wants to spend his money to get the love he was always denied while attending prep school in Seattle, is the day there's actually good weather all through the year.
37
Seattle's liberalatti only want to finance nice white sports, like soccer, Roller Girls or lesbian tossing.
38
2 hours later Conlin was non-committal on his declaration, and the "we" in his statement was reduced to "I"
He has a 4 part test for these agreements he only applies to millionaire pro sports franchise owners that have weiners, the Storm owners, not so much.
He has a 4 part test for these agreements he only applies to millionaire pro sports franchise owners that have weiners, the Storm owners, not so much.
39
I would imagine the council would be having kittens if McGinn had given Hansen 500 free parking spaces, and 10 year rent free retail space as part of the current agreement, just as the council did for the Storm 2 and a half years ago.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/fn…
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/fn…
40
I do not care what you do, with your arenas, or your basketball teams, or my property tax.
Just DO NOT TOUCH the Key Arena - except to change it's name back to the Washington State Colliseum.
Just DO NOT TOUCH the Key Arena - except to change it's name back to the Washington State Colliseum.
41
@14, you're a dumbass. The reason the I-90 offramp you're referring to had to be rebuilt was to make room for a new BNSF mainline in that area. The new mainline allowed there to be more room for Amtrak and Sound Transit. It had nothing to do with the stadiums.
This comment, however, is pretty typical. I can't wait to see the slog postings in 2022 if we reject this deal when we're building a new entirely taxpayer funded arena. Guess what, at some point a new arena is going to be built. The question is do we take the best deal we're going to get -- the one that's on the table right now -- or do we take the worse deal in the future. So far the idiots seem to be winning. Awesome.
This comment, however, is pretty typical. I can't wait to see the slog postings in 2022 if we reject this deal when we're building a new entirely taxpayer funded arena. Guess what, at some point a new arena is going to be built. The question is do we take the best deal we're going to get -- the one that's on the table right now -- or do we take the worse deal in the future. So far the idiots seem to be winning. Awesome.
42
@39,
Did you just gloss over a $300,000 annual payment to the Storm? WTF? So it's ok to give the ladies a check for $300,000 a year but not ok to finance an arena for the fellas which will be paid back? Did Conlin vote for the Storm ordinance?
Did you just gloss over a $300,000 annual payment to the Storm? WTF? So it's ok to give the ladies a check for $300,000 a year but not ok to finance an arena for the fellas which will be paid back? Did Conlin vote for the Storm ordinance?
43
@41,
I have never seen that cited as the reason the ramps were reconfigured to the extent they were - and if you are trying to argue that the way they were designed around the new stadium(s) didn't add taxpayer costs I'm not buying it.
In 2022 Key Arena (which was built to order for the Sonics) will be 27 years old rather than 17 years old and perhaps we can discuss funding its replacement then. The notion that we have to replace sports facilities at public expense every 20 years is freaking ludicrous, so I don't guarantee that my vote will be yes then, either.
How much do we owe on the Kingdome, again?
I have never seen that cited as the reason the ramps were reconfigured to the extent they were - and if you are trying to argue that the way they were designed around the new stadium(s) didn't add taxpayer costs I'm not buying it.
In 2022 Key Arena (which was built to order for the Sonics) will be 27 years old rather than 17 years old and perhaps we can discuss funding its replacement then. The notion that we have to replace sports facilities at public expense every 20 years is freaking ludicrous, so I don't guarantee that my vote will be yes then, either.
How much do we owe on the Kingdome, again?
44
I don't think WSDOT was talking about Sounder when they said that one of the key reasons to do the project was that "the route passes through an area so much in recent years that the roadway arrangement is not well suited to present conditions." Hmm - I wonder what had changed?
In fact, I see no mention of BNSF at all as a reason for the project in the EIS for the SR 519 project and related ramp work, though they do cite increased rail traffic/pedestrian conflicts at the old at-grade crossing at Royal Brougham as a rationale for the project (though those trains pass by a lot more quickly than freights).
WSDOT had been talking about doing some sort of SR 519 grade-separation project for awhile, mind you - but building it to order for a new stadium cost a whole lot more than it would have.
PS - Catalina, I still call it the Coliseum.
In fact, I see no mention of BNSF at all as a reason for the project in the EIS for the SR 519 project and related ramp work, though they do cite increased rail traffic/pedestrian conflicts at the old at-grade crossing at Royal Brougham as a rationale for the project (though those trains pass by a lot more quickly than freights).
WSDOT had been talking about doing some sort of SR 519 grade-separation project for awhile, mind you - but building it to order for a new stadium cost a whole lot more than it would have.
PS - Catalina, I still call it the Coliseum.
45
Catalina @ 40 wins. Again. Bring back the Coliseum!
Mr. X @ 43: We probably owe around $70 million on the Kingdome with 4 years of payments to go. By that time, I'm sure the Mariners will be grousing for a new stadium.
Mr. X @ 43: We probably owe around $70 million on the Kingdome with 4 years of payments to go. By that time, I'm sure the Mariners will be grousing for a new stadium.
46
I am with Conlin on this one. Public money should not be used for this project. We have more pressing issues than throwing money in a leizure project. Good job conlin, and thanks for standing up for the tax payers.
47
I have always called it the Seattle Center Coliseum. I call the football stadium Seahawks Stadium, too. Nobody ever paid ME a fucking nickel for naming rights, did they now? so I call them what I fucking please, and if you don't, then think about what a fucking tool you are.
48
@43, 44 -- here's the dot page about the teardown of the former offramp to make room for the new mainline:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/ki…
See the two tracks on the left side of the picture? That's the new mainline. It runs right where the old ramp was. It allows more room to stage passenger trains at King Street, which was necessary to provide increased capacity to handle Sounder traffic. Are you saying that we should not have planned for increased transit use?
The rest of the project was done to get grade separation for traffic in the area, which is exactly the sort of thing the Port and everybody else is now saying is so critical. Are you saying that shouldn't have been done? Just because it benefits traffic around the stadiums doesn't mean it also doesn't benefit other traffic in the area. So which is it? Should the rail crossings be grade separated, or not?
Just because the stadiums are there doesn't mean that these things didn't need to be done or aren't beneficial. This is what pisses me off so much about this whole arena conversation. Politicians and commenters who have sat on their ass about issues of freight and traffic mobility in that area for decades are now saying it's completely critical. I have absolutely no doubt if they manage to kill this deal then they'll all turn around and do absolutely nothing to correct any of those issues in the future.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/rail/ki…
See the two tracks on the left side of the picture? That's the new mainline. It runs right where the old ramp was. It allows more room to stage passenger trains at King Street, which was necessary to provide increased capacity to handle Sounder traffic. Are you saying that we should not have planned for increased transit use?
The rest of the project was done to get grade separation for traffic in the area, which is exactly the sort of thing the Port and everybody else is now saying is so critical. Are you saying that shouldn't have been done? Just because it benefits traffic around the stadiums doesn't mean it also doesn't benefit other traffic in the area. So which is it? Should the rail crossings be grade separated, or not?
Just because the stadiums are there doesn't mean that these things didn't need to be done or aren't beneficial. This is what pisses me off so much about this whole arena conversation. Politicians and commenters who have sat on their ass about issues of freight and traffic mobility in that area for decades are now saying it's completely critical. I have absolutely no doubt if they manage to kill this deal then they'll all turn around and do absolutely nothing to correct any of those issues in the future.
49
"Did you just gloss over a $300,000 annual payment to the Storm? WTF? So it's ok to give the ladies a check for $300,000 a year"
In Seattle, it's important we subsidize lesbians' opportunities to play with some balls.
In Seattle, it's important we subsidize lesbians' opportunities to play with some balls.
50
1. if it paid for itself via the tiny tax, why can't it pay for itself via a higher ticket price with the diff going to the bank of america that provided the financing, leaving the public out of it?
2. all numbers calculations leave out risk. so, we get 5 % or something. how is that a justifiable return when the other investors get fantastic private sector profits? if we are tTHE key investment partner here, the public, why don't we get one third of the team's equity and upside potential?
3/ if hansen personally guarantes it, then there's little risk. oh wait, i mean if ballmer personally guarantees it. oh wait, we'd also need a $1 billion liquidated damages provision in there, applicable if the team breaks the lease or if the returned stadium after 20 years is a worthless white elephant hulk. oh wait, ballmer hasn't proposed signing a personal guarantee. hmmmmm why not if there's no risk? if it's a sure thing? if we must act now?
3. all public spending creates economic benefit, when we have cuts to education health welfare and aren't repairing roads and bridges, um, aren't there things with better ROI for public dollars? like, traditional governmenty type things?
4. if basketball fans can raid the public purse and symphony fans can raid the public purse how come we don't havce a SambaDome where everyone could dance on stage once a year at Carnaval? that would have more public benefit, bonding, etc. than basketball. or why not use the public basketball stadium purely for public teams, intramural games, schools. you know, PEOPLE WHO AREN'T MILLIONAIRE BASKETBALL STARS WHO DON'T NEED OUR FUCKING WELFARE.
2. all numbers calculations leave out risk. so, we get 5 % or something. how is that a justifiable return when the other investors get fantastic private sector profits? if we are tTHE key investment partner here, the public, why don't we get one third of the team's equity and upside potential?
3/ if hansen personally guarantes it, then there's little risk. oh wait, i mean if ballmer personally guarantees it. oh wait, we'd also need a $1 billion liquidated damages provision in there, applicable if the team breaks the lease or if the returned stadium after 20 years is a worthless white elephant hulk. oh wait, ballmer hasn't proposed signing a personal guarantee. hmmmmm why not if there's no risk? if it's a sure thing? if we must act now?
3. all public spending creates economic benefit, when we have cuts to education health welfare and aren't repairing roads and bridges, um, aren't there things with better ROI for public dollars? like, traditional governmenty type things?
4. if basketball fans can raid the public purse and symphony fans can raid the public purse how come we don't havce a SambaDome where everyone could dance on stage once a year at Carnaval? that would have more public benefit, bonding, etc. than basketball. or why not use the public basketball stadium purely for public teams, intramural games, schools. you know, PEOPLE WHO AREN'T MILLIONAIRE BASKETBALL STARS WHO DON'T NEED OUR FUCKING WELFARE.
51
@48,
Thanks for the link - I tried to find that information and was unable to. With regard to that piece of the project, I stand corrected.
So how do you think the stadium would have done at the polls if voters had been informed that hundreds of millions (sorry - gotta head to work and don't have time to Google the full tab, but that's surely a conservative estimate) of state highway dollars were going to go for a new interchange and overpasses for this new facility?
Do you really think voters would have gone for that? I sure don't.
Thanks for the link - I tried to find that information and was unable to. With regard to that piece of the project, I stand corrected.
So how do you think the stadium would have done at the polls if voters had been informed that hundreds of millions (sorry - gotta head to work and don't have time to Google the full tab, but that's surely a conservative estimate) of state highway dollars were going to go for a new interchange and overpasses for this new facility?
Do you really think voters would have gone for that? I sure don't.
52
@51 - again, as I stated above, the new overpasses aren't exclusively for the new stadiums. They're the sort of grade separation everybody is screaming is necessary in that area. They're intertwined with the need to tear out the old ramp to provide more space for the new mainline. They needed to be built if the stadiums were there or not. Claiming that the cost is solely attributable to the stadiums is horseshit.
This is exactly what is so goddamn annoying about all of the anti arena bullshit. The abject failure of local government to plan and build these things is what should be the real focus of attention. The fact that the stadiums may have pushed these projects ahead is a GOOD THING and beneficial to the public. Stop pretending that it's some kind of giveaway, because it's not.
This is exactly what is so goddamn annoying about all of the anti arena bullshit. The abject failure of local government to plan and build these things is what should be the real focus of attention. The fact that the stadiums may have pushed these projects ahead is a GOOD THING and beneficial to the public. Stop pretending that it's some kind of giveaway, because it's not.
53
@52,
Are you saying that the scope and cost of that project (let alone the fact that it leapt to the front of the line ahead of lots of other equally worthy projects that could have been funded) wasn't dictated by the stadiums? Please.
Are you saying that the scope and cost of that project (let alone the fact that it leapt to the front of the line ahead of lots of other equally worthy projects that could have been funded) wasn't dictated by the stadiums? Please.
54
@53 - the single biggest factor initially was because ST created a need for more track space at King St. Station. The only space was east. That takes out the old on ramp. That means you need a new on ramp. Then it needs to be grade separated when you have more trains in the area.
The stadium pedestrian traffic would be a factor, sure. But it was important and necessary because of a variety of different things. Your simplistic anti-stadium view with respect to this particular project is a great example of a lot of the stupidity about the arena.
The stadium pedestrian traffic would be a factor, sure. But it was important and necessary because of a variety of different things. Your simplistic anti-stadium view with respect to this particular project is a great example of a lot of the stupidity about the arena.
55
When are we going to stop falling for slick talking, rich con-men who think up ways to rip off tax payers???
56
"I'm sure if it is approved, that the city would get that in writing. Wouldn't you? "
nope, I'd get the hansen personal guarantee now. but also with financial covenenants and monitoring provisions that effectively require him to keep about a billion dollars locked up. so, if he complied, it would mean he has, um, er, duh, about an extra billion dollars sitting around. which if true means he don't need us at all, he's just taking us cuz we're chumps once again.
the notion you lock up the guarantee AFTER approval is so naive. um, you get your guarantees beforehand, otherwise it's not locked down, duh. more evidence 90% of the public has no idea how you do a deal like this, or what "risk" is. hint: you deal with it the same way banks and private lenders do. whatever they are requiring, we're not and that's why hansen is running to us -- we the most generous lender around, a/k/a as the "dupe" the "chump" or in con man parlance, the pigeon I think it is. oh wait, the MARK. that's us in this deal. we're the prey. and don't even know it.
btw, how come he didn't sign the personal guaranty already if that's part of the deal? man, he didn't even publish a balance sheet as far as I can tell. he'd have to publish his balance sheet and that of any private companies he has interests in. he ain't gonna do it. the personal guarantee you dream about is exactly what a bank lender would require, and it's why he's not going to one of them, he's coming to us, the easy money marks who are too ignorant to even anlyze this deal but who can be stirred up with sports fans having demos and putting p.r. pieces in the times talking about father son bonding and crap like that. what bank thi nks about father son bonding or sports fan demos when structing a loan folks?
More...
nope, I'd get the hansen personal guarantee now. but also with financial covenenants and monitoring provisions that effectively require him to keep about a billion dollars locked up. so, if he complied, it would mean he has, um, er, duh, about an extra billion dollars sitting around. which if true means he don't need us at all, he's just taking us cuz we're chumps once again.
the notion you lock up the guarantee AFTER approval is so naive. um, you get your guarantees beforehand, otherwise it's not locked down, duh. more evidence 90% of the public has no idea how you do a deal like this, or what "risk" is. hint: you deal with it the same way banks and private lenders do. whatever they are requiring, we're not and that's why hansen is running to us -- we the most generous lender around, a/k/a as the "dupe" the "chump" or in con man parlance, the pigeon I think it is. oh wait, the MARK. that's us in this deal. we're the prey. and don't even know it.
btw, how come he didn't sign the personal guaranty already if that's part of the deal? man, he didn't even publish a balance sheet as far as I can tell. he'd have to publish his balance sheet and that of any private companies he has interests in. he ain't gonna do it. the personal guarantee you dream about is exactly what a bank lender would require, and it's why he's not going to one of them, he's coming to us, the easy money marks who are too ignorant to even anlyze this deal but who can be stirred up with sports fans having demos and putting p.r. pieces in the times talking about father son bonding and crap like that. what bank thi nks about father son bonding or sports fan demos when structing a loan folks?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
Should I Buy One of These? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (56) RSS