Lucky Luciano

site moderators: i am not going to continue baiting the village idiot after this post, but some things need to be said for those who get their information on how the world works by staring at their cell phone and what it tells them is reality whether it is based on facts and/or common sense or not. 1. for any living being with a brain living in indiana... the state politicians are proposing spending 2-5 BILLION dollars, or a good portion thereof, on a stadium for a billion dollar NFL franchise that is too cheap to build their own unless the state gives them tax breaks no average tax payer would get. hmmmm.... so how does that work? what goes with this building the stadium? it's not free money that indiana is printing, it's what the people/taxpayers of indiana will have to pay for... building not just the actual stadium structure cost, but buy the land (which isn't included supposedly in the 2-5 billion dollar cost), new roads, maintenance costs after the fact, transportation restructure such as airports or train to get to and from the stadium, security such as police and fire protection and probably much, much more. just with these costs alone, you could easily add another billion or two to the taxpayers burden. obviously the mccaskey family won't be paying for it with higher taxes so that leaves your average business and home owner in your state to foot the bills they won't pay. so where does this money come from? normal state expenditures for schools, road maintenance and infrastructure repair. rising costs of security costs for fire and police, normal costs to run an entire state. just how much in the black is indiana's coffers? i wonder how much more the average indiana taxpayer has to pay for this over the next 10-15 years? who is paying the bill? where is that money coming from? how much will this increase your tax burden? you are running your mouth about (and i quote) "Indiana is using it as an investment". show me your hard facts in dollars and cents how this investment works. show me the real money that is gained by your state. it should be not hard to find as you can use your colts, SOMEWHAT, as a springboard for this so called investment (although indianapolis is the LARGEST city in the state and it's capital so what is hammond contributing to the total influx of state money)? explain it in black and white what the actual cost is per citizen and put it on a voters ballot then let's see how happy the citizens are with this proposal. so who is really making the money besides the mccaskey family? the large corporations and realestate developers in indiana. the construction companies building all the crap involved including building roads and so on. the realestate investors selling the lands for the stadium and land used for all the upgrading of the infrastructure. the mega rich hotel magnets and the actual politions who for sure will be getting kickbacks and campaign contributions from the mega rich/corporations. all this at the expense of indiana taxpayers who some don't seem smart enough to pour piss out of their own boots. also, when this nfl franchise decides the stadium is old and they need another new one who pays for that if they even STAY in that state? "It's not the McCaskeys this time." are you freaking kidding? this BILLION dollar franchise owned by a mega rich family has not even paid to build ONE single stadium in the entire time the NFL has been in existence!!! they have used the state of illinois and the city of chicago along with renting out an existing structure from bill wriggley to create a cheap venue to play in all the while increasing their brand and the value of their team. yet they are so cheap they don't want to pay NORMAL tax structures to build one in illinois to help their actual fan base that created their entire value. 2. poor you. cry me a freaking river. the state and the city you hate so much (and the people who live there) built this freakin franchise. i don't remember indiana being involved in anything other that a place for another piece of garbage franchise to screw it's original citizens and fans by giving them a cheap place to move to.

from what i have read and what is out there for information in regards to facts, you are wrong on nearly every thing you sited. 1. Contrary to claims that stadiums generate additional revenue or create new jobs, study after study has found that the construction of a new athletic facility has little to no positive impact on local economies. One economist estimated that the contribution of a professional baseball team is similar to that of a “mid-sized department store,” while a professional football franchise “has even less” of an economic impact.8 Some studies found that publicly funded stadium projects have a detrimental economic impact on the surrounding area.9 The negative impact is magnified when municipalities choose to spend money on a stadium rather than public needs. https://www.cagw.org/fields-of-failure-the-scandal-of-taxpayer-funded-stadiums/ 2. This is an issue because, to an extent people may not realize, stadiums are not automatic cash grabs. Sporting venues "do not come close to generating enough economic activity to pay back the public investment involved in building them," said The Atlantic. This is especially true when they are "coupled with lease agreements that funnel revenue back to owners or allow teams to play in the stadiums rent-free. But "stadiums don't actually do these things," said The Atlantic. Especially for outdoor venues, the "jobs they create are seasonal and low-wage" and they "tend not to increase commercial property values or encourage much in the way of economic activity, besides a bit of increased spending in bars and restaurants surrounding the venue — which is mostly being substituted for dollars that were previously being spent elsewhere."" https://theweek.com/sports/taxpayer-subsidized-stadiums this is corporate welfare at it's worst. cities/states and their taxpayers are paying billions of dollars to shore up a multi billion dollar corporation in the NFL and each mega rich billionaire individual franchise. this ALSO generates federal taxes that would normally be collecting revenue which now they are exempt from tax free bond ventures. like i said before, there is no law for them not to move anyplace they want to go. just leave the name where you got it and let the suckers that want to give up their taxpayers money to billionaires reap what they sow.

1. so what? you believe closer justifies any franchise team leaving their home venue because some neighboring crap state will throw their taxpayers under the bus and bribe the franchise into screwing the taxpayers in the original state or leave? fine, then let them leave the franchise name where they came from just like baltimore did with the browns. chicago keeps the name chicago bears for the next franchise expansion and indiana can have the hammond hemroids or the hammond hamsters for all i care. they deserve the mccaskey family. 2. how are the jets and giants any different? just because they have been doing it longer? they screwed the state that conceived them and supported them so the mega rich owners can get richer. these aren't some mom and pop businesses but multi BILLION dollar corporations owned by millionaire/billionaires who want to squeeze the average taxpayers into paying for their business expenses, build them new stadiums and rework the city/state infrastructure at tax payer expense to accommodate them. why should they get tax breaks you or i wouldn't get? cause they are richer? corporate welfare seems alive and well.

follow the colts then. while you're at it, do the world a favor and never leave the state of indiana.

if i'm chicago and the state of illinois and they do this.... i say F'EM do what the cleveland browns did. go where you want to scumbag vampires but you ain't taking the names with you. if illinois can't take the name 'BEARS' away from them then surely take the 'CHICAGO'. give them NOTHING!! so welcome TRIPLE H to the nfl. Halas's Hammond Hemroids eat SHIT you bloodsucking greedy bastard mccaskey family. you have given NOTHING to this franchise or CHICAGO since mugs halas died.

again, you (or at least i do) have to take into account not just one play, not just a few plays but the whole body of work and also that of our entire receiving core, injury implications and i am sure a few other items. i would assume our new coach address's any problems like this if it is as you say. this is not player love, this is looking at the health of this franchise over the long run. absolutely nothing as been proven with these young players as to the final quality or longevity either. if we had relied on them only this season we wouldn't have even gotten in the playoffs due to injuries and untimely drops. this young WR core needs someone to mentor them that isn't just a coach. i have been watching this team for a long time and this offense has the potential to be better than anything in the our past since the modern age of the NFL came into being. i don't want to get cute and mess too much with that to save some cap money that can be absorbed creatively.

i think you could add to this factor he is a senior voice among the WR's due to age and experience. how much is that worth bringing up short time/rookie receivers in learning the game, playing through injury and how to perform on and off the field? also in my opinion only, how does it look for this organization's loyalty to free agents that are here or ones we want to bring in? to me it sends a message that you better get a very good contract upfront. this is a cap killer anyway with FA's but if you show them it's worth coming in at a discount on an up and rising team i can't see that as a detriment. people mentioned the pats and them turning over players... i seem to remember that brady always had at least one good receiver and gronk. i don't believe they compromised on the OL either very much. if memory serves they never put themselves as a organization at risk for the next season by cutting key components. good FA's gravitated to that franchise and gave the pats a discount because it was a chance for a ring. we aren't at that point yet.

LOL.... chump

ahhhh, the troll calling someone else the troll. guess it's just for fun? just you joking? whatever dude. take your ball and go home. i'm done with you.

are you really this stupid? end of discussion. a waste of time talking to an idiot.

how bout YOU doing the work you are relying on as FACT. how bout YOU back up your mouth with facts and compare what your OPINIONS regard as the ultimate truth. i personally don't give a shite. you bring up these statements as facts like there is no other player on our roster to be used for comparrison who does this or this is the reason that his tenure in chicago is no big loss. do YOUR job and do an accurate assessment of our receiving corp and player comparisons. if he is the only player on our entire roster who takes plays off so be it. just show me or shut the F up.

ok, i have made my opinions on keeping moore in past threads. i don't have the time or resources to go through a 3 year span of his games in chicago but if this is the argument that he quits on plays or is too expensive then someone needs to do the 'receivers' comparison to realistically back up your opinions or they are just a knee jerk reaction. 1. MONEY: this is nearly a mute point with me. good franchises find ways to keep their systems working under the cap every single year. added to this is on every good roster there is at least one high paid receiver. the other 'replacement' receivers are ALL on rookie contracts. our QB is still on his rookie contract. our RB's are low cap hits. so is the savings really that drastic that we replace him? with what? the cap balance is in place for the next 1-2 years. this is how it's done. 2. HEALTH: as i stated in the past, he is tougher than nails. can you guess how many games he has missed since his time in chicago? "0" games missed in THREE YEARS. in his entire career there are only TWO games he has not played in. those were his second and third year in carolina. that makes him a CONSISTENT weapon EVERY game for a qb to count on. he has been battered and bruised and still comes out and plays to a high degree. back injuries, which if anyone knows about them, is no small deal. groin injuries that he was hospitalized after the game in washington, knee injuries plus in my opinion possible concussion from the head slams twice in a row and probably a lot more i didn't list. every one of these would contribute to onfield problems and endurance. so yea, he may take some plays off that supposedly aren't coming to him. i wonder why with all the injuries i listed above? if he screwed up that particular play so be it. a learning experience or just a result of injury conserving himself for a play designed in his direction. now for all you stat monsters out there.... give me the printout of the replacement receivers game logs. we are basically talking about dunze and burden correct? none other come to mind. odunze: missed FIVE GAMES in his 2nd season. foot injury. burden: missed TWO regular season games and limited in some others. concussion, ankle injury, quad injury. have ANY of these receivers proven they can play an entire season yet let alone at a high level? potential? yea, but not proven in the real world. 3. PRODUCTION: face it, he is a clutch receiver when the chips are down. he has good+ hands. can get open on a regular basis. he is a very good WR blocker. he can be used as a RB on sweeps. in other words he can do everything you hope a WR can do and does it well. is he perfect? no. find me ANY WR in the history of the NFL that is perfect every play, every game, every season of their career. to keep him for 1-2 years more while the other receivers and qb are on rookie contracts shouldn't even be a chore to figure out. be fair, go through the game films. did these other players EVER take plays off or slow down on routes where the ball wasn't regulated in their wheelhouse? let me know how those film studies turn out then we can talk turkey. please post your results of indepth analysis of our replacements consistant, never take a play off, results.

not sure if that would work. What if it was a 4th down pass? they would lose possession.

statman: what is the average increase in salary cap per year and the average high end salary for core players by position? every year we see cap strapped teams resigning their key players when we think there is no way possible for them to get under the cap. if they can, why can't we? screw the salary cap. that said... look at mahomes when the quality of his WR's declined to a great degree because they dumped his go to players. the chiefs WR's dropped more balls than anyone i can think of during these seasons. he relied mostly on kelse his TE. if we can't slot two or three key defensive players into our current cap for the future while caleb is in his rookie contract keeping our receiving core we are not trying hard enough. i say we keep our core of receivers and tight ends and think of how our offense would operate if we didn't and a key WR/TE is injured or has a career ending injury. we won't have the higher draft picks to replace them. also, we are not paying a RB top dollar compared to the best in the league. that has to count for something. add to this, we have a starting quality backup QB. if we couldn't get a first round pick out of him in the future i would be amazed.