[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

So posting tweets is irrefutable proof?

Opinions can't be refuted.

[LasVegasPlayer]

http://sntic.org/meeting/19/stadium/...(COMMENTS).pdf

Here is the latest draft with comments from the private investors. UNLV would receive up to $3.5 million a year to offset their lost profits at Sam Boyd for up to 10 years. That is good news. The developer doesn't like that or at least where it is positioned on the priority list.

The private investors demand a 15% ROI cap and want the cap total to be above their initial $650 million investment. In the end, they would get at least all of their money back under this draft. The only discussion now is whether they are entitled to more.

That goes against what Adelson's newspaper said in his Aug 28 press release:

Adelson said he won’t receive any return on his personal contribution.

My favorite part in the comments section from the developer is:

Note that the developers would like to have a section exempting the stadium project, the NFL team and NFL events from any new or additional taxes.

Tax everybody but the project itself?

We might as well just build the thing without Adelson. It will end up costing the public $1.4 billion in the end. More if the investors gets its way.

There is a meeting on Thursday but it is not anything that will move the project forward. It is to discuss the investors' comments.

[beachhead]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

http://sntic.org/meeting/19/stadium/...(COMMENTS).pdf

Here is the latest draft with comments from the private investors. UNLV would receive up to $3.5 million a year to offset their lost profits at Sam Boyd for up to 10 years. That is good news. The developer doesn't like that or at least where it is positioned on the priority list.

The private investors demand a 15% ROI cap and want the cap total to be above their initial $650 million investment. In the end, they would get at least all of their money back under this draft. The only discussion now is whether they are entitled to more.

That goes against what Adelson's newspaper said in his Aug 28 press release:



My favorite part in the comments section from the developer is:



Tax everybody but the project itself?

We might as well just build the thing without Adelson. It will end up costing the public $1.4 billion in the end. More if the investors gets its way.

There is a meeting on Thursday but it is not anything that will move the project forward. It is to discuss the investors' comments.

The devil is always in the details. Whenever it's billionaires (who can afford to hire the best laywers) versus the taxpayer (who are typically blinded by the gilded pile of feces that is being offered) the taxpayer usually gets the short end of the deal. And this doesn't seem any different.

I've said it from the beginning: Build a gold plated stadium, but not with one dime of taxpayer money/commitment/guarantee. If it's such a good deal, the billionaires wouldn't even be talking to anyone. (like the new stadium/entertainment complex in Los Angeles). The fact that they want to let the taxpayer into this "sweet deal" means only one thing: it's overly expensive, and a guaranteed money loser. Las Vegas doesn't need this to be a major city, we need to have the *******s to stand up and tell them to go fleece someone else.

[timothyaw]

It seems like mass transit/Light Rail has gotten lost in this discussion about the stadium. To me, that is a much more pressing need than some stadium.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

It seems like mass transit/Light Rail has gotten lost in this discussion about the stadium. To me, that is a much more pressing need than some stadium.

Las Vegas has a mass transit system. Many people don't realize this because they would never consider riding a bus.

[LasVegasPlayer]

A few new points today. Stadium projects typically use revenue bonds that are tied directly to the project and its revenue. Taxpayers are not exposed under that scenario. The Las Vegas stadium investors propose using general obligation bonds. That means taxpayers are on the hook if there is a default or shortfall as the lien would be against the county and its general tax base, not the stadium revenue.

How many times have we heard that taxpayers will never be on the hook if there is a problem? The investors wouldn't be insisting on using the GO bonds if that was the case.

There appears to be a clear reason why the investors want to go this route:

SNTIC Uses Risky Bond Debt Coverage To Justify $750M Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Subsidy

Cliffs: The debt ratio used when borrowing $750 million in GO over 30 years is about 1.5. The minimum for a sound financial decision is 2. The shortfall is estimated to be $267 million. Clark County taxpayers would have to pay that. The article also notes that the LVCVA uses a debt ratio that is twice as conservative as the stadium proposal.

Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Beers distributed this article. It is nice to see elected officials questioning the statements made by the investors.

[calisoccer99]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

A few new points today. Stadium projects typically use revenue bonds that are tied directly to the project and its revenue. Taxpayers are not exposed under that scenario. The Las Vegas stadium investors propose using general obligation bonds. That means taxpayers are on the hook if there is a default or shortfall as the lien would be against the county and its general tax base, not the stadium revenue.

How many times have we heard that taxpayers will never be on the hook if there is a problem? The investors wouldn't be insisting on using the GO bonds if that was the case.

There appears to be a clear reason why the investors want to go this route:

SNTIC Uses Risky Bond Debt Coverage To Justify $750M Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Subsidy

Cliffs: The debt ratio used when borrowing $750 million in GO over 30 years is about 1.5. The minimum for a sound financial decision is 2. The shortfall is estimated to be $267 million. Clark County taxpayers would have to pay that. The article also notes that the LVCVA uses a debt ratio that is twice as conservative as the stadium proposal.

Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Beers distributed this article. It is nice to see elected officials questioning the statements made by the investors.

You are using zennie62 as a source, you have lost all credibility. He generates his own news for youtube hits

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by LasVegasPlayer

A few new points today. Stadium projects typically use revenue bonds that are tied directly to the project and its revenue. Taxpayers are not exposed under that scenario. The Las Vegas stadium investors propose using general obligation bonds. That means taxpayers are on the hook if there is a default or shortfall as the lien would be against the county and its general tax base, not the stadium revenue.

How many times have we heard that taxpayers will never be on the hook if there is a problem? The investors wouldn't be insisting on using the GO bonds if that was the case.

There appears to be a clear reason why the investors want to go this route:

SNTIC Uses Risky Bond Debt Coverage To Justify $750M Oakland Raiders Las Vegas Stadium Subsidy

Cliffs: The debt ratio used when borrowing $750 million in GO over 30 years is about 1.5. The minimum for a sound financial decision is 2. The shortfall is estimated to be $267 million. Clark County taxpayers would have to pay that. The article also notes that the LVCVA uses a debt ratio that is twice as conservative as the stadium proposal.

Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Beers distributed this article. It is nice to see elected officials questioning the statements made by the investors.

Beers is a CPA. And a fiscal conservative. Good guy to look at this stuff. While I strongly support it that includes making the best deal reasonable for the taxpayer.

[LasVegasPlayer]

Originally Posted by calisoccer99

You are using zennie62 as a source, you have lost all credibility. He generates his own news for youtube hits

Are you refuting his facts or just insulting someone because you don't like what you read? My guess is since you immediately resorted to insults and your post contained no counterpoint, it is the latter.

As the poster above me mentions, Bob Beers is a CPA and backs up the figures. They look right to me too and I've read the full draft. I didn't think about the GO angle until he mentioned it. The accounting method is beyond my education level but a quick Google search shows it to be accurate.

If you refute the findings, please be specific. Otherwise, please stop cluttering the thread and attacking posters that you disagree with.

[calisoccer99]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/s...33613137342464

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/s...33973834895360