Jump to content

Samson interview to air this Sunday


Guest Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

An interview between Marlins President David Samson and Michael Putney will air this Sunday at 11:30 AM on WPLG (channel 10). The show is called "This Week in South Florida".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't say WPLG in general doesn't support the stadium effort. I was watching their Sports Jam show a couple of weeks ago and one of their sports guys was for the stadium effort and the other was against it (I think Cefalo was against it, but I could be wrong). I just think Putney is a political guy, so he doesn't like political money going to sports teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you blame people for being against the use of public money for this sort of effort? Wayne is updating Dolphins stadium and building shops, offices and condos in the surrounding area, to make it a better area. The whole project is going to cost half a billion dollars. Do you know how much is coming from the public. Not a single penny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

 

 

It's very short and doesn't even consider counterarguments. Since when is a good argument one that ignores the counterarguments? When someone ignores the counterarguments, it seems like that person came to a conclusion and thinks it's self-evident. They look retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

The article is wrong because it argues that the Marlins are asking the state to use general fund taxes to pay for the stadium, ie revenue from other tax payers. The reality is that the Marlins are asking the state to let them keep the taxes they themselves would be paying and use it for the stadium.

 

If the Marlins dont get that rebate on the sales tax they pay right now, they will leave because they will be forced to leave whether they want to stay or not. No Marlins means no sales tax revenue anyway. Here is the deal dude, starting in 2010 and maybe earlier, the state of Florida is not getting that sales tax revenue no matter what. Giving the Marlins the rebate at least allows the state to keep the team, allows those jobs that are there right now to stay there, and eventually will mean a return of the sales tax revue from the team. What does not giving the Marlins the rebate do? Florida stops getting that revenue after 2010 and loses the Marlins. Ultimately they have to decide who gets that revenue..the Marlins to be used for a stadium or the state of Nevada.

 

To argue schools will be deprived in this situation is just silly because no matter what, schools are deprives by default in 2010.

 

btw did anyone email these people and explain this to them? I started writing one but realized its about two weeks old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

 

 

It's very short and doesn't even consider counterarguments. Since when is a good argument one that ignores the counterarguments? When someone ignores the counterarguments, it seems like that person came to a conclusion and thinks it's self-evident. They look retarded.

683187[/snapback]

 

 

Do you have a hard time understanding this type of editorial. READ IT. They lay out what they are thinking. They say flat out this is their opinion, its not right or wrong that it is "[their] take on things". They want to hear people's counterarguments, they ask for them for a reason, you know? If you are so strongly opposed write them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

 

 

It's very short and doesn't even consider counterarguments. Since when is a good argument one that ignores the counterarguments? When someone ignores the counterarguments, it seems like that person came to a conclusion and thinks it's self-evident. They look retarded.

683187[/snapback]

 

 

Do you have a hard time understanding this type of editorial. READ IT. They lay out what they are thinking. They say flat out this is their opinion, its not right or wrong that it is "[their] take on things". They want to hear people's counterarguments, they ask for them for a reason, you know? If you are so strongly opposed write them back.

683204[/snapback]

 

 

ALL EDITORIALS ARE "WHAT THEY ARE THINKING." DUH. It's retarded to say it's an editorial (what they are thinking) and then make no mention of even the simplest counterarguments. All they have to do is say, "some may argue that... but we find this unpersuasive because [something short and direct]." That's all. Does not require much thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

The article is wrong because it argues that the Marlins are asking the state to use general fund taxes to pay for the stadium, ie revenue from other tax payers. The reality is that the Marlins are asking the state to let them keep the taxes they themselves would be paying and use it for the stadium.

 

If the Marlins dont get that rebate on the sales tax they pay right now, they will leave because they will be forced to leave whether they want to stay or not. No Marlins means no sales tax revenue anyway. Here is the deal dude, starting in 2010 and maybe earlier, the state of Florida is not getting that sales tax revenue no matter what. Giving the Marlins the rebate at least allows the state to keep the team, allows those jobs that are there right now to stay there, and eventually will mean a return of the sales tax revue from the team. What does not giving the Marlins the rebate do? Florida stops getting that revenue after 2010 and loses the Marlins. Ultimately they have to decide who gets that revenue..the Marlins to be used for a stadium or the state of Nevada.

 

To argue schools will be deprived in this situation is just silly because no matter what, schools are deprives by default in 2010.

 

btw did anyone email these people and explain this to them? I started writing one but realized its about two weeks old.

683201[/snapback]

 

 

Where does it argue anything? You know, sometimes you blind-loving fans just make me sick. Its always, your with us or against us, there is no middle ground with you people. They are giving their take. They say it EXPLICITLY!!!

 

That's our take on things.

 

I never knew saying what you thinks mean you are arguing it. I think I should have studied today, but I am not arguing with myself over it, I just think it.

 

Let me ask all of you. Do you think the Marlins did the right thing when it came to that Vegas thing? When it happend most of the people on here thought that was a questionable tactic.

 

This article is not arguing. If it was arguing it would say this is what we think and why. This is just a bunch of events that happend being discussed. The tibit at the end is just to raise a question.

 

Can someone tell me why the Marlins should not have looked out for themselves and laid out that $52 million for themselves, helping their existence for a lot more than the next 4 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WPLG does not support the Marlins nor the Ballpark.

This is their editorial on it.

http://www.local10.com/editorials/4131275/detail.html

 

WPLG has more editorials than most newspapers.

682942[/snapback]

 

 

Not exactly a thorough and well-thought out editorial.

682951[/snapback]

 

What's wrong with this editorial exactly?

 

Is there something wrong pointing out that the Marlins rather spend $52 million on the next four years, rather then use that money to support the rest of their exsitence in S. Fla.?

683040[/snapback]

 

 

It's very short and doesn't even consider counterarguments. Since when is a good argument one that ignores the counterarguments? When someone ignores the counterarguments, it seems like that person came to a conclusion and thinks it's self-evident. They look retarded.

683187[/snapback]

 

 

Do you have a hard time understanding this type of editorial. READ IT. They lay out what they are thinking. They say flat out this is their opinion, its not right or wrong that it is "[their] take on things". They want to hear people's counterarguments, they ask for them for a reason, you know? If you are so strongly opposed write them back.

683204[/snapback]

 

 

ALL EDITORIALS ARE "WHAT THEY ARE THINKING." DUH. It's retarded to say it's an editorial (what they are thinking) and then make no mention of even the simplest counterarguments. All they have to do is say, "some may argue that... but we find this unpersuasive because [something short and direct]." That's all. Does not require much thinking.

683214[/snapback]

 

An editorial is NOT a persuasive argument which some of you think it should be. An editorial is saying what a media source thinks, and you seem to agree to that. So they say what they think, and then they ask the public to let them know what their counter-thoughts are. I am sure if someone responded to them they would have a more open discussion about it, one reason they ask people to respond. If they think it why would they argue against what they think.

 

I am against banning abortion. So if I ever discuss it, or write an editorial about it, I know I will never write "we'll the pro-life people have a point, unborne babies are living", because I don't believe that is true. And they believe what they think is true, is there something wrong with them having an open mind and disagreeing with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does it argue anything? You know, sometimes you blind-loving fans just make me sick. Its always, your with us or against us, there is no middle ground with you people. They are giving their take. They say it EXPLICITLY!!!

 

Maybe argue is the wrong word. It states the wrong thing or at least suggests it:

 

but must beg the state legislature for $60 million in your tax dollars to fund a new stadium.

 

They are not begging the state legislature for your or my tax dollars. They are asking to keep their own taxes to reinvest it. Suffice it to say, its like a tax credit. To call what the Marlins are asking the state "begging the state for your tax dollars" is like calling the child tax credit begging the federal govt for money.

 

Listen, if they are against this, then they need to be accurate in what "this" is. Nobody is asking anyone for anyone else's tax money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, if they are against this, then they need to be accurate in what "this" is. Nobody is asking anyone for anyone else's tax money.

683229[/snapback]

 

 

If that money is not given to the Marlins, who will have that $60 million spent on them?

 

 

 

Follow up:

 

If the money is given to the Marlins, who no longer gets to benefit from that money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, if they are against this, then they need to be accurate in what "this" is. Nobody is asking anyone for anyone else's tax money.

683229[/snapback]

 

 

If that money is not given to the Marlins, who will have that $60 million spent on them?

 

 

 

Follow up:

 

If the money is given to the Marlins, who no longer gets to benefit from that money?

683236[/snapback]

If the money is not given to the Marlins, the state of Nevada(or wherever the Marlins move after they are booted from PPS) gets the revenue from taxing the Marlins sales.

 

If the money is given to the Marlins, people in S. Florida keep their jobs(those who would have lost jobs had the Marlins moved), new people will be hired at the new stadium, Florida construction contractors and sub contractors get money for building the stadium, S. Florida continues to have a championship caliber team etc.

 

 

If they really think the state of Nevada needs these tax revenues from the Marlins, then they should make that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, if they are against this, then they need to be accurate in what "this" is. Nobody is asking anyone for anyone else's tax money.

683229[/snapback]

 

 

If that money is not given to the Marlins, who will have that $60 million spent on them?

 

 

 

Follow up:

 

If the money is given to the Marlins, who no longer gets to benefit from that money?

683236[/snapback]

If the money is not given to the Marlins, the state of Nevada(or wherever the Marlins move after they are booted from PPS) gets the revenue from taxing the Marlins sales.

 

If the money is given to the Marlins, people in S. Florida keep their jobs(those who would have lost jobs had the Marlins moved), new people will be hired at the new stadium, Florida construction contractors and sub contractors get money for building the stadium, S. Florida continues to have a championship caliber team etc.

 

 

If they really think the state of Nevada needs these tax revenues from the Marlins, then they should make that point.

683248[/snapback]

 

I want to get one thing straight, this is not a tax "rebate" it is a subsidy. Look up any amount of articles, google it up. Samson is the one calling this a "rebate", which in acctuality it is a subsidy from the state meaning this money is coming out of the state's budget to help fund this "enterprise".

 

You make an intresting distinction. If the Marlins stay the people who benefit are thosing in S. Florida alone. Well, hmmmm... I never knew the rest of Florida was empty. Is it right to make people in Alachua county lose money in the state budget that might have went to them, instead to pay for a team's stadium 6 hours south of them? Or how about the people in Tampa, they have a team already. Granted, people would lose their jobs, but how much of ths is the state's fault really?

 

Loria just laid out $50+ million this offseason for free-agents that will help the franchise for the next 1-4 years. Instead he could have used that money to help finish funding a stadium that would keep those jobs and the team in S. Florida for a looong looooooong time, much more than the 1-4 years the players he is paying will help the Marlins. At some point it is not the state's fault or problem.

 

Also the state of Florida has a law where a sport's team can only get the 30 year $60 million deal once. And guess which franchise already got it before.... There is nothing written about it being the same owner, or anything else like that. I think first they might need to edit that little law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that nearly two years into the process so many people still do not understand the mechanics of the deal, it's financing and what the revenue streams are which will finance the stadium.

 

Part of the blame has to fall on the shoulders of the Marlins for not articulating the basic underpinnings of the deal in a way that the average person can look at an editorial like this and understand why it is not fact-based.

 

Regardless of whether "editorializing" allows for ignoring facts to make a point, one would hope that Channel 10 and others would be more ethical in the way the use their their constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...