Broncos news megathread

[ROYC75]

Discussion: All things Broncos.

[kcgreene]

Originally Posted by manchambo

So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.

But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?

Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?

That's not how book-keeping is done on PPP capital projects. When bond referendums are involved stuff doesn't work like that.

Spoiler!

Anyone with any knowledge of how municipal capital bonds and public-private partnerships work knows that those funds are separate from everything else for legal and ethical purposes, and that money isn't put into said accounts regarding capital improvements until after approval of the project and that money used towards or as escrow towards capital improvement projects/bonds/ etc for accountability and transparency purposes. Even the most basic knowledge of bookkeeping tells you that you're wrong, and that if they didn't have that basic knowledge of bookkeeping; there were even larger issues that probably require criminal charges at that point since public bonds were involved and there is potentially misrepresentation to vested interests. Mixing accounts often ends up leading to lawsuits or criminal charges because things are misrepresented or you are committing fraud in essence by claiming you have more money set aside after expenses than you actually do.

Just... No... in no world does the stadium story make sense unless Bowlen is committing fraud by misrepresenting accounts.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, in the 90s, laws were different than they are now, but even if that wasn't standard practice in a scenario like that then, its still highly unethical and misrepresenting in the best case scenario as you described to dip from certain accounts to move money into others when referendums are at play. (I ended up putting the bit of a explanation in spoilers to take up less room... not worth it considering he seems to lack critical thinking skills)

[TEX]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Check and mate

Yep. Love watching Cheating Donx fans reach for anything to try and defend their cheating. Two proven illegitimate titles. And they still don't have as many as the Chiefs!

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by manchambo

So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.

But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?

Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?

Please be respond to his questions little buddy

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by manchambo

(A)So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed. I wish that illogic surprised me.

(B)But you keep going on and on about what you think didn’t happen. Where is the evidence for what you think did happen?

(C)Specifically, where is the evidence that Denver was able to pay more, better players due to this issue, rather than paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have?

(A) It is only "illogical" to short-sighted Donks homers like you. Meanwhile objective observers can easily see the logic of it. Bowlen and company had no certainty that referendum 4A was going to pass & what if it had been voted down? Regardless, it doesn't change or alter the fact that Bowlen & company are WITHOUT EXCUSE for cheating and violating the salary cap.

(B) You've had ample evidence presented to you right here in this very thread & not just by me, but multiple other posters. You simply choose to ignore it because you can't answer or refute it.

(C) Right there is where you've just illustrated exactly how the Donks violated & cheated the salary cap. They were not deferring funds anywhere & "paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have" still constitutes cheating and violating the salary cap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as there is no other instance of any team in 1996 -- 1998 committing such an act.

Like I suggested earlier -- Try naming any other team that added players to their roster (or as many as the Donks did) in the illegitimate manner the Donkeys did in 1996 -- 1998.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

(A) It is only "illogical" to short-sighted Donks homers like you. Meanwhile objective observers can easily see the logic of it. Bowlen and company had no certainty that referendum 4A was going to pass & what if it had been voted down? Regardless, it doesn't change or alter the fact that Bowlen & company are WITHOUT EXCUSE for cheating and violating the salary cap.

(B) You've had ample evidence presented to you right here in this very thread & not just by me, but multiple other posters. You simply choose to ignore it because you can't answer or refute it.

(C) Right there is where you've just illustrated exactly how the Donks violated & cheated the salary cap. They were not deferring funds anywhere & "paying part of the salary cap number for some players later than they should have" still constitutes cheating and violating the salary cap, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as there is no other instance of any team in 1996 -- 1998 committing such an act.

Like I suggested earlier -- Try naming any other team that added players to their roster (or as many as the Donks did) in the illegitimate manner the Donkeys did in 1996 -- 1998.

If the referendum didn’t pass, they would’ve had extra cash on hand. If it did pass, and they didn’t set the money aside, they would not have been able to build the stadium.

It is hard to believe that even you could pretend it is inconceivable that a business would set money aside to be able to meet a large expense.

Further, I have not denied that they violated the cap. It is your claim that they violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise. And you continue to present zero evidence that that is the case.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by TEX

Yep. Love watching Cheating Donx fans reach for anything to try and defend their cheating. Three proven illegitimate titles. And they still don't have as many as the Chiefs!

Fyp

[BroncoBuff]

I'm trying to post images - screenshots - wtf this ancient BB program, any body?

I have them listed as attachments below but I don't know how to put them in my post

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I'm trying to post images - screenshots - wtf this ancient BB program, any body?

I have them listed as attachments below but I don't know how to put them in my post

Well, that’s a shame

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by kcgreene

That's not how book-keeping is done on PPP capital projects. When bond referendums are involved stuff doesn't work like that.

Spoiler!

Anyone with any knowledge of how municipal capital bonds and public-private partnerships work knows that those funds are separate from everything else for legal and ethical purposes, and that money isn't put into said accounts regarding capital improvements until after approval of the project and that money used towards or as escrow towards capital improvement projects/bonds/ etc for accountability and transparency purposes. Even the most basic knowledge of bookkeeping tells you that you're wrong, and that if they didn't have that basic knowledge of bookkeeping; there were even larger issues that probably require criminal charges at that point since public bonds were involved and there is potentially misrepresentation to vested interests. Mixing accounts often ends up leading to lawsuits or criminal charges because things are misrepresented or you are committing fraud in essence by claiming you have more money set aside after expenses than you actually do.

Just... No... in no world does the stadium story make sense unless Bowlen is committing fraud by misrepresenting accounts.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, in the 90s, laws were different than they are now, but even if that wasn't standard practice in a scenario like that then, its still highly unethical and misrepresenting in the best case scenario as you described to dip from certain accounts to move money into others when referendums are at play. (I ended up putting the bit of a explanation in spoilers to take up less room... not worth it considering he seems to lack critical thinking skills)

Let’s try to figure out what you’re on about. The deal required the Broncos to contribute 25%, a total of around 100 million.

Is it your claim that it would be “fraudulent” for them to set aside money for that contribution? Let’s say they set aside fifteen million a year for the three years leading up to the bond initiative.

How would that be fraud?

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by manchambo

(A)If the referendum didn’t pass, they would’ve had extra cash on hand. If it did pass, and they didn’t set the money aside, they would not have been able to build the stadium.

(B)It is hard to believe that even you could pretend it is inconceivable that a business would set money aside to be able to meet a large expense.

(C)Further, I have not denied that they violated the cap. It is your claim that they violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise. And you continue to present zero evidence that that is the case.

(A) I'll be frank with you......all you're telling anyone with that is you were obviously raised on Milk of Magnesia, because you're totally full of crap. It's not surprising that you would try to spin the false narrative of "if they didn’t set the money aside, they would not have been able to build the stadium" since you Donks homers live in a world of delusion & false spin.

If you really believe that false narrative, then I've got the Brooklyn Bridge for sale to offer to you. Ain't nobody else buying into that.

(B) You must really believe that fans of other teams are as dumb as both Bowlen and Elway look, as evidenced by the fact that you've already had it pointed out to you that such an expense was non-existant until Nov. 3, 1998.

(C) Nice try with bold-faced lie of "presenting no evidence" but you fail. It isn't "my claim" that they violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise -- it's a provable fact and as I said the evidence has been put forth in this thread repeatedly. Good luck trying to show everybody here that the Donks had any other legit reason for violating the cap outside of "violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise", as you're going to need it.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by brdempsey69

(A) I'll be frank with you......all you're telling anyone with that is you were obviously raised on Milk of Magnesia, because you're totally full of crap. It's not surprising that you would try to spin the false narrative of "if they didn’t set the money aside, they would not have been able to build the stadium" since you Donks homers live in a world of delusion & false spin.

If you really believe that false narrative, then I've got the Brooklyn Bridge for sale to offer to you. Ain't nobody else buying into that.

(B) You must really believe that fans of other teams are as dumb as both Bowlen and Elway look, as evidenced by the fact that you've already had it pointed out to you that such an expense was non-existant until Nov. 3, 1998.

(C) Nice try with bold-faced lie of "presenting no evidence" but you fail. It isn't "my claim" that they violated the cap in such a way as to have extra or better players than they could’ve had otherwise -- it's a provable fact and as I said the evidence has been put forth in this thread repeatedly.

You’re all hat, no cattle. Your first point is entirely hyperbolic rhetoric without a single intelligible factual point.

And why are you focusing on whether the stadium would be built if they didn’t set aside money. Your claim was that there’s no way they would set aside cash in case the referendum didn’t pass. What was the problem you thought would occur in that case. As I mentioned, and you ignored, having extra cash would not have been a problem.

Let’s try it in reverse. The Broncos had to come up with around 100 million to build the stadium, over and above their usual cash flow. Where do you suppose that money came from?

Furthermore, if it’s a proven fact why is it so hard for you to reference the evidence? You obviously think I’m very, very dumb, so help a brother out.

To be clear about what I’m asking, there are two scenarios in contention.

Scenario (1) let’s say for simplicity sake that Davis was paid 5 million for 1997. Davis was counted as 5 million against the cap, but he was actually paid 2.5 million in 1997 and another 2.5 million in a later year. That’s a cap violation.

Scenario (2) Davis was counted as 2.5 million against the cap in 1997 but actually was paid 5 million by a later payment. That also is a cap violation, and substantially more egregious.

Where is the evidence that scenario 2 is actually what happened.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by manchambo

So your premise is that it is impossible for the Broncos to put funds in place to pay for the stadium before the moment the referendum passed.
?

The "I'm broke...I cant afford to pay two players" is the biggest joke of an excuse. The dude OWNS a NFL Franchise...and had plans on building a new stadium.

Do you actually think he paid for these things out of pocket? Like he went to his bank account and withdrew money? If he needed a few million (he didnt)...he would NEVER to have defer payments. Only an idiot would believe that...he could get access to additional financing in his sleep....banks would be falling over each other.

This was the best excuse the NFL could muster to avoid a PR nightmare...and the Donktards STILL buy it...they HAVE to buy it and adhere to a suspension of disbelief...the only other option is to admit the Elway trophies are illegitimate.

You cheated to keep the two best (and unaffordable) players on your team together....it's as simple as that.

[manchambo]

Originally Posted by BlackOp

The "I'm broke...I cant afford to pay two players" is the biggest joke of an excuse. The dude OWNS a NFL Franchise...and had plans on building a new stadium.

Do you actually think he paid for these things out of pocket? Like he went to his bank account and withdrew money? If he needed a few million (he didnt)...he would NEVER to have defer payments. Only an idiot would believe that...he could get access to additional financing in his sleep.

This was the best excuse the NFL could muster to avoid a PR nightmare...and the Donktards STILL buy it...they have to buy it or admit the Elway trophies are illegitimate.

The cash flow issue is because he didn’t pay out of pocket. He paid it out of the Broncos cash flow. That’s how rich people stay rich.

You’re just all over the place here. The cash flow of the team was strained, when it had to come up with an extra 100 million or so, precisely because Bowlen wouldn’t go into his pocket.

[BlackOp]

Originally Posted by manchambo

The cash flow issue is because he didn’t pay out of pocket. He paid it out of the Broncos cash flow. That’s how rich people stay rich.

You’re just all over the place here. The cash flow of the team was strained, when it had to come up with an extra 100 million or so, precisely because Bowlen wouldn’t go into his pocket.

I'm not the one that's "all over the place" on this topic...I dont have to be. Truth is immovable.

You're the one that's forced to bend into an illogical, rationalizing pretzel to defend impropriety...

Your excuses are on par with a toddler caught with a cookie in his hand...trying to explain that he didnt take said cookie.

[brdempsey69]

Originally Posted by manchambo

You’re all hat, no cattle. Your first point is entirely hyperbolic rhetoric without a single intelligible factual point.

And why are you focusing on whether the stadium would be built if they didn’t set aside money. Your claim was that there’s no way they would set aside cash in case the referendum didn’t pass. What was the problem you thought would occur in that case. As I mentioned, and you ignored, having extra cash would not have been a problem.

Let’s try it in reverse. The Broncos had to come up with around 100 million to build the stadium, over and above their usual cash flow. Where do you suppose that money came from?

Furthermore, if it’s a proven fact why is it so hard for you to reference the evidence? You obviously think I’m very, very dumb, so help a brother out.

To be clear about what I’m asking, there are two scenarios in contention.

Scenario (1) let’s say for simplicity sake that Davis was paid 5 million for 1997. Davis was counted as 5 million against the cap, but he was actually paid 2.5 million in 1997 and another 2.5 million in a later year. That’s a cap violation.

Scenario (2) Davis was counted as 2.5 million against the cap in 1997 but actually was paid 5 million by a later payment. That also is a cap violation, and substantially more egregious.

Where is the evidence that scenario 2 is actually what happened.

TRANSLATED: Hi, my name is manchambo & I can't answer or refute any points made to me, but can only try and dodge them with non-relevant blather -- none of which changes the fact that my Donkeys SUCK and they have no legit SB victories to their credit.