Back-loaded contracts

[o2cui2i]

Me: Oh and I spoke with Porsche dealer and this special edition Porsche we purchased is no longer available. Once those rich pricks Roger Dodger, Bobby Redsox and Angel Jiminez at the end of the block see this special edition Porsche they are all going to want it, so in 2 years when the payments go up they will be fighting each other to take them over.

Wife: I knew there was a reason I married you instead my highschool boyfriend Adam Greenpecker.

 

lol

[o2cui2i]

Why do you say that? Is it because I'm black? You think black people can't afford nice things?

 

no, I just dont think someone who takes four pages to explain a simple idea could ever figure out which end of the pen is used to sign the contract.

[TwistedLogic]

Its TVM not TMOV

 

the fact that you didn`t use the right abbreviation tells me that you don`t know anything about time value of money, or finance for that matter. I am very disappointed because you lead posters on to thinking that you are a financial expert but you really aren`t. Using inflation to account for time value of money instead of Rogers cost of capital also makes me doubt you have an understanding of the matter. Its more likely that you are just a poser.

 

In any case, if anyone is interested the reason we use Rogers WACC is because this is the cost at which Rogers must raise funds to finance projects. As such any money that is not used to pay Martin today, and delayed can be used to finance their operations, thus leading to savings

 

Finance is a thing.

 

This was excellent. Thank you.

 

That TMOV though.

[AdamLindsMom]

Another factor is revenues are growing at 5-10% per year. Say for arguments sake jays revenue is $250 Mil. By deferring the payments you are matching it against compounding revenue increases every year.

[shortstop]

good point about WACC RA, i remember that from undergrad finance courses! And without any further investigation, makes sense.

 

whatever on backloading Martin - AA didn't mortgage the future - jays will have enough room down the road & it's a great move right now - Martin could get hurt on day 1 and this would still be considered a great move by AA in my books.

[Ehjays]

Why do you say that? Is it because I'm black? You think black people can't afford nice things?

 

No dont worry, they are not saying that just be glad you can run fast with a colour tv....

[Spanky99]

AG...hook,line and sinker!

 

lol

[Stangstag]

I love how Greenwood didn't reply to my post on pg.1

 

If you missed it, Greenwood thinks that we could have signed Martin for 5/65 if the contract wasn't backloaded.

[RealAccountant]

Money that Rogers doesn't have to pay Martin now, and will pay Martin in later years, will be used to pay another baseball player his salary, this year. And it's money that will still need to be paid, regardless. You aren't deciding whether or not to fund the "Martin project," and through which source ... just when to pay the expense. Therefore (not "there for"), the CPI is the correct concept, and Rogers' WACC has nothing to do with it.

 

You fool.

 

No its really not.

 

1. You are using conjecture to justify your argument. You dont know that Rogers will spend that money on other players, assuming that they will and trying to justify its impact on a current financial decision is the form of a very poor professional.

 

2. Yes you are all. All monies have to be funded. You should know that. The fact that you continue to push on CPI confirms my suspicions. What is that you do Moogy, why do you lead people to believe you are a financial analyst?

 

3. I didn't use insults, don't use them. It adds nothing to your argument, and shows you to be of poor taste.

[RealAccountant]

Who the hell is able to buy a new Porsche for $27,600? Is this a special edition Hot Wheels recreation? Lego Porsche, perhaps?

 

Regardless, you're not earning 5% "in the bank."

 

And you're not putting that $850 "in the bank." You're spending it on another car.

 

Anyone who thanked you for this post, should never make a monetary decision in their lives.

 

Example over your head eh. So you aren't in finance what do you do?

[RealAccountant]

Actually, it's TVOM, not TVM or TMOV.

 

Maybe in your personal word, but here in this world we use TVM, i'd say the most use financial reference website is a good source.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp

 

And we were speaking only about the time value effects of expenses ...

 

Not a real thing

 

 

 

we were not speaking about the cost of equity, or debt. Since you are not talking about capital, you don't talk about cost of capital. Since you are not deciding on different projects, or different areas to spend your money (here, it's just an allocation decision within the baseball payroll), it's not relevant, because the only components it adds - That's a different discussion. You are very confused. Trying to look learned, but looking like a fool.

 

Pretty sure acquiring an asset for $82M is a capital decision.

 

The fact you'd think this, makes me believe you're a high school kid who took a econ/finance course which mentioned the subject, but that you never actually "learned" it. Just thought it was a cool "buzzword."

 

Nice try to belittle my analysis. However its clear from your point of view that you have resorted to desperate posting

 

1. You resorted to name calling, a sure sign that your argument is slipping.

2. You are trying to belittle my analysis.

 

Its time to go from this board. No one likes you here, and though initially you come of as intelligent, overtime your arrogance makes you appear ignorant. Its more important for you to be right then to get things right.

[RealAccountant]

No, you made a horrible hypothetical, and I destroyed it at every possible turn. You failed. It was a horrible example. It was completely wrong.

 

If you had any sense at all you'd know that unlike regular payroll, signing to players to large contract, is a contractual capital based decision. A payroll decision would be similar to how Taco Bell pays you $10/hour to make tacos, they can get rid of you at any time.

[RealAccountant]

No, you made a horrible hypothetical, and I destroyed it at every possible turn. You failed. It was a horrible example. It was completely wrong.

 

lol its a real situation genius, not a hypothetical.

 

the problem with you is you are more interested in being right, rather than getting it right. Your arrogance is through the roof, and if I were to guess its likely based on a lack of fulfillment in other areas of your life. Until such date that you are interested in performing objective analysis, we have nothing to discuss.

[Deadpool]

Me: Hey honey, I bought a new Porsche.

Wife: What the f***? How are we going to pay for that?

Me: Don't worry. I set it up so that we only make payments of $300 a month this year.

Wife: And what about next year?

Me: Then they jump up to $2000 a month for a year, and then $10,000 a month, but that's two years away. Pfffftt!

Wife: That's a brilliant master stroke. I love the flexibility you've give us with our budget. I love you.

Me: I love you too.

 

Are you the sort of person who uses "a family has to balance their books..." as an analogy for government spending? Seems like you'd be that sort of person...

[z3r0s]

My god, can we just ban this clown again? My mouse scroll wheel is worn out having to pass over his massive posts.