Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suff
Do you have any business experience? By not having a mortgage, they would have had rent, or a lease payment. That, quite likely would have been quite a bit more than $50 million.
Seriously.. are you 10? Do you have any business experience? How do you suppose the previous owners of the racetrack would have been compensated? Gummy bears? You cannot occupy a building without a rental, lease, or mortgage payment.
Do you have a rental payment? or mortgage? When you write your rental check do you think every dollar you pay is profit for the owner?
Think about what your saying... did'nt you just ask yesterday what the difference is between revenues and profit? Come on. Don't ruin a topic that has some worthwhile legs to it. If you don't know the diference between Revenue and net income, you lack the ability to evaluate this situation.
|
My, my, aren't you the arrogant one! 9 questions, okay, from the top.
1) yes And by the way, your next sentence is incorrect. By not having a mortgage, they would NOT necessarily had rent, or a lease payment. NYRA could have paid $20 million cash for the purchase of the tracks. Then they would have had a claim to ownership of the tracks.
2) I am >10.
3) repetitive question, sign of early dementia, I'd get that checked out if I were you, O Arrogant one!
4) As owners of the track, they earned the profits.
5) Gummy bears? I have no answer to this improperly formulated question. And your next statement is another incorrect statement...one most certainly can occupy a building without a rental, lease, or mortgage payment.
6) No
7) No
8) I don't write a check, but if I did, no, I would not think that. (is there a point to that question?)
9) Yes, I did, and I don't believe that there is any difference in the NYRA example I'm talking about.
Now, let me ask you a question, Your Mighty Arrogance. Why do I or anyone have to know the difference between Revenue and net income to determine if NYRA owns the racetracks or not?
ps. thanks again for posting this article
