Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by southsider2k5

  1. Just now, raBBit said:

    Woof. You must think that's quite the zinger given your repeated use of it. I guess when you can't speak on the topic at hand you gotta keep it personal.  Stay classy s2k5. 

    Sure, OK. You love taking your personal shots, but get hurt feelings when it doesn't go your way.  You want to call me wrong, but when you were wrong you broke every single rule of Soxtalk to destroy the evidence of everything you had ever said, and then tried to pretend it didn't happen.  If you want to talk about rule breaking, but pretend that you've done nothing, you aren't being fully honest here.  That's OK though, I am used to it.  For as much as I have debated people over the years here, no one has quite gone to those lengths to have their cake and eat it too.  I can respect the people who are willing to debate and let it stand on their own merits, and not act like half of the story never happened.  I am sorry you can't do that.

    • Haha 1

  2. 33 minutes ago, raBBit said:

    Re: the financials: It's far more complicated than you're presenting and I get that as you may not have the understanding necessary. Knowing how much ISFA paid for the Sox deal is only one piece of the puzzle. In order to answer Fan O'Faust's question, you would need much more detail. As his question was about the White Sox operating results (not the ISFA financials that you're clinging to in hopes of salvaging your initial inaccurate comment), that additional detail needed would have to come from the Sox. Further than that, assessing what the Sox would be paying in a market scenario would be a daunting task in itself. His question is only answered if the cost of the alternative is understood. 

    Butt since you're going to get personal I'll bow out since we both know how you play with the rules. I am not sure of the relevance here. Enron was a fraud based upon bogus special purposes entities, recognizing profits before they'd been realized and conflict of interest creating Independence issues between the executive team and the public accounting firm. The White Sox took advantage of corrupt political environment. Also, Enron was a public entity so their financials and operating results are readily accessible to anyone whereas the White Sox are a private institution. Furthermore, Enron's execs were creating dubious financials to pump the publicly traded stock. Publicly traded stocks created hundreds of thousands of shareholders that the executives screwed over. Where the Sox are only beholden to only their private group of ownership and their creditor(s) (if any).  

    Sometimes it's a lot easier to just admit you're wrong on the first point you made rather than moving goal posts to open up another can of worms that you can't intelligibly speak to. 

    I should say though, congrats on your recent SoxTalk anniversary. 16 whole years of making 26 posts a day. That's quite an accomplishment. 

    It is even easier to delete posts.

    • Haha 2

  3. Just now, raBBit said:

    He made his own point and he was pretty clear to that end. He wanted to know how much of the Sox profit is related to the kush deal they have. That would require valuations services on what their stadium would cost in a free market scenario. That would require understanding the financials of the White Sox. None of that is available via FOIA

    That's great except they are not the Sox. You should put in a FOIA with them to see how much of the Sox profits come from their deal and report back.

    So the dollars won't show up on the agency who sent them out, but they will magically show up for the White Sox?  Do you work at Enron?

    • Haha 2

  4. And to get even deeper into the weeds of conspiracy theory... Coming from their most recent audited financials.

    The Authority presents ticket fees as revenue in the combined financial statements net of other payments due to the Chicago White Sox. Tickets sold are subject to the City of Chicago’s Amusement Tax. Under the Management Agreement, the Authority is required to reimburse the Chicago White Sox for a certain portion of taxes on the sale of tickets. As of June 30, 2018 and 2017, $0 was accrued as net estimated receivables under this agreement.

  5. 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

    His point was that money on subsidies from the ISFA (was wrong about the acronym) were what was driving the $76 million profit.  Because the ISFA is a governmental agency, that is all public domain and he could FOIA it is he really wanted to know.

    As a matter of a fact, they even have a part of their website dedicated to FOIA requests.



  6. 9 minutes ago, greg775 said:

    Exactly. I just hope the fans stay away in droves. Cmon Sox fans. Go to one game this year if you must, but that's it. Don't support this nonsense. They're not moving. Forbes put that talk to rest.

    Lead by example. 

  7. 27 minutes ago, Fan O'Faust said:

    It would be positively illuminating to see how much of that $76M profit came at the hands of Illinois state taxpayer subsidies.  

    When the White Sox suck, and when no one comes to the ballpark to line Reinsdorf’s pockets, who’s left to pay the bill to ensure Jerry maintains his billionaire status?  Answer - the state of Illinois, courtesy of the infamous sweetheart lease deal Reinsdorf employed blackmailing threats against the state to secure, at least as it was reported back when it happened. 

    It is that lease deal that allows Reinsdorf to operate the ball club in the careless, nonchalant way he does.  It matters not how well the team fares on the field because his profits are guaranteed.  Meanwhile, we the fans get stuck with going as long as we do without postseason experiences and putting up with losing season after losing season after losing season.  

    The fortunes of the franchise have zero chance of improving under this current ownership.  After nearly 40 years of it, we know what to expect and what not to expect.  Our fan experience won’t change until there is a change in ownership, and that change cannot and must not include the name Reinsdorf.  Enough is quite enough with that name at the helm. 

    If you really want to know, it would be a FOIA request away.

  8. 10 hours ago, skooch said:

    I really have to wonder what motivated this move. This just re-opens the Shields trade wound, and moreover it will be a constant reminder for the duration of Elijah's stay in the Sox organization. Every day any Sox fan looks at the minor league box scores it will be there writ large … a constant reminder of "The Trade". If I were KenHahn, unless I thought this kid is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't touch him with a 10' pole. This either took the biggest stones in the world to do the right thing in the face of certain criticism and embarrassment, or it is the troll-job of the decade. Too close to call really ...

    So the Sox should avoid signing players because they will remind people of other players? Seems snowflakey to me. 

    • Like 1

  9. 12 minutes ago, GradMc said:

    No it's not.

    The team is worth 1.6 billion.

    But hey as long as fans continue to be apologists for this ownership, why should any thing change.

    He makes money  despite the low attendance in baseball.

    But he sells out UC nightly.

    Sox and Bulls both near the bottom in payroll. Do your homework. Hyperbolic it ain't.  

    Yet, here you are.

  10. 1 minute ago, bmags said:

    I think one thing that stands out that I didn't know is that he is eligible now (from mlb.com article)

    Sox very well could agree to a deal now and figure out acquiring space from another team. Baltimore has more than they can use, considering they have not signed Sanchez, and several other teams have space.

    I didn't know he could sign now.  That is good news.  But if the deal was over 300k, which it is, they couldn't sign him anyway, which is why July 2.

    • Like 1