MOU - - You decide - - signed copy

Lady-T I disagree Ill. State fee should be the same, no changes, The ATA is in the drivers seat, IDNR/State broke the lease and lost the SCTP teams, IDNR has cost the WSRC money, IDNR cannot meet the losses already lost. If I were the ATA I would walk-a-way

GB.................................DLS

 

If ... "The ATA is in the drivers seat", the view out of the windshield must look like they are driving upside-down underwater.

 

The ATA will be underwater regardless of the outcome, best is to walk-a-way


GB........................DLS

 

I got a feeling the increases are going to be a lot more than most people anticipated unless they are offset by the ATA or Co Sponsor assuming part of the fees ... The losses from previous years broken down to either monthly or quarterly plus, plus, plus will dictate the increases ... It will not be a cheap vacation by any means ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Why is that WPT? Not saying you're wrong but just because ATA is going to operate the Grand for a few weeks doesn't mean they have to bear the burden of the entire facility's operations. Certainly doesn't seem appropriate to say the cost would be equal to a pro-rata portion of previous year's annual losses. The state has fixed costs, any income will be an improvement. There will be new costs for opening, electric, etc. that maybe ATA has to take over. We will see.

 

Bat,

The lease is still in effect, the only thing that will change (without a state budget) is if the ATA will take over all shooting aspects, then the INDR will have to compensate the ATA for their service, not the other way around.

Keep in mind the state workers are still there doing what they've always done, except they aren't doing anything as it relates to the shooting.

Apparently, this is a very hard concept to understand.

 

WOW .... that's all I have for that .... WOW

 

Yes, I understand that the lease might not be void if ATA does not enforce the default provision. That is why I said earlier they would likely start out at the same $3 per entry rental charge as in the lease. The lease will not automatically apply (assuming the April 15th date is not met) unless that is what comes out of the IDNR/ATA negotiations pursuant to the MOU. I'm not sure what incremental costs the ATA will be taking over, if any, just don't see it having any base in a pro-ration of the WRSC past annual operating losses, as I keep reading here.

I don't find it far-fetched that there could be some additional costs to ATA involved, but not to the level of what's being thrown around here.

 

I agree, but what's not being talked about is, if you look at how the ATA has been paying the IDNR, why wouldn't those figures, for everything go down if the ATA takes a larger role in all the shooting aspects? If I'm understanding you correctly, you have figured out the ATA isn't going to be running the whole park, just the shooting part.

 

What do you think the "whole park" is ?????? The Carp fishing was not affected by the "shut down" .... so "shooting aspects" and camping is the "whole park". You should know this by your attending the "Grand".

 

Bat,
Do you seriously think the State of Illinois is going to assume any loss what so ever in entering into a temporary lease or rental agreement with anyone ..? You say the ATA IS going to operate the grand for a few weeks yet nothing has been posted confirming (absolute) that unless you have inside information that is not or has been made available and announced to any of the other members ... The grand is still in limbo based on what the ATA has in writing (nothing) except a MOU which could be written on toilet paper for all its worth, except the paper would probably be softer ... The States "Fixed Costs" escalate every year if for no other reason cost of living increases, please tell me what fixed costs you are talking about so I can verify them before making any statement to the contrary ... The State is only interested in separating itself from any undo liability for what ever time they let (the facility) it out to whom ever they let it out to ... The WSRC costs the State of Illinois (approx) 3 Million annually to maintain, the State has cited safety issues on all of the States recreational parks to one degree or another , which is part of public record and includes the WSRC to the tune of over $250,000 with some much needed road repairs ... If the State rents, leases or lets the facility out to anyone and these safety issues that have been cited go unchecked it would "probably" be grounds for one hell of a law suit, though I have not confirmed that but it did come up in a conversation with a retired Attorney friend of mine ... The lease has been defaulted (technically), by the State of Illinois, the ATA served notice of same, but all of the Genius's on the EC, ED, and BOD have zero recourse because of the way it was written and agreed to initially , and then extended an additional 10 years in writing (legal documentation) and going to go no place because they will not pursue legal actions against a State that has pretty much exempted itself from legal action because of the financial situation its in ... If a Civil,Municipal or Federal Judge looked at the records of generated income for the facility and they see it shows accumulated losses of over 22 million dollars over an 11 year time span , it would prove to the court that it would only ADD to the financial burdens (deficit) already being faced by the residents (tax payers) and State of Illinois and it would be thrown out of court post haste ... I do not see the pretty picture you obviously are looking at, but time will tell ... The State of Illinois site as of yesterday does not anticipate any form of a budget for possibly more than a year or two due to the democratic organization not being willing to compromise ... We will see, will not effect my life one way or the other other being a Life Member of an organization that can put members money at risk if they screw it up again like they have until now ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT, a fixed cost is a cost that is not a variable cost. The state's costs don't disappear just because the place is closed. It appears the facility is losing money every year. The ATA does not need to assume any of these losses for it to make sense since any income from the ATA is better than nothing and the loss will be smaller than it was. Do you know that IL lost money on the Grand activities each year, I haven't seen that stated anywhere. If you are losing money every year, and then shut down during the only 3 week period you have any significant revenues, you will likely lose more.

I will agree with you that ATA can't assume some huge amount of costs for this. I've seen some hints at that here, but those posters are intentionally vague about it. I just don't see IL taking the position that ATA has to cover some pro-rata allocation of annual losses, that makes no sense for either party.

 

If you look at the posted electric bill it shows a per-month usage, you can "pro-rata" the proper month for the two weeks of the "Grand". If you look at the provided "ATA reports" you can see what they paid the IDNR as a result of the "3 dollar per-event" money. Then you can look at "camping" revenue paid to the IDNR and "pro-rata" this to a two week period. I have not seen a water and waste water cost, but I am sure it is not "free". Add any "seasonal labor" and "event security" that may involve off-duty or over-time pay, that is only required for the "Grand". There is also needed maintenance and repairs that may only have to happen if they "open" the place.

Take this information, twist it, turn it, spin it, or whatever makes you happy .... but I doubt the IDNR will overlook any of it.

 

User,

All those expenses you talk about are paid for by the DNR. If for some reason the DNR can't pay for them during the period the ATA is looking to lease, the amount of money paid to the DNR will decrease to cover the ATA's cost.

In a worst case, the ATA will crunch the numbers, and if the Grand loses money this year, because shooter turnout and what ever concessions DNR will have to give them, doesn't turn a profit,then they take a one time loss, and look for a better deal somewhere else, which I would think is already being done.

 

I guess that makes sense to you ... but, what do you think will happen if the "negotiations pursuant to the MOU" start, and the "ATA" says we are going to give you "less", because it will cost us "more" ?????

 

That is what I think will happen.

 

The state and IDNR have bailed. They threw out the old lease. The old lease is null and void. They are also specific saying they will not agree to fund anything. Please someone tell me what is so darn confusing about the quoted posts.

 

622,

The lease is still in effect. Because the non defaulting party was the ATA, it is in their rights to demand the default to be cured in sixty days, that's why the ATA sent the letter to IDNR, and the ATA can extend the deadline as they see fit, which they have.

Because we live in America, some are of the opinion things will go one way, others say it will go the other way, even though everyone is looking at the same words on paper.

 

Just for the sake of letting you look goofy duff please tell the world where the ATA extended the deadline. Please do not say the mou extends the deadline as it does not. The mou clearly states the ATA is free to look elsewhere. If the lease was still being enforced they would not be able to do that.

And yes I asked an attorney.

(am I the only one that thinks on occasion bat sounds like Dufff. Hmmmm)

 

What do you and your lawyer think the MOU is? Even so, by the ATA's inaction of not vacating the facility within 120 days, that in itself is an extension.

Also, ask another lawyer his opinion. If lawyers always agreed, there would be no lawsuits.

(There's another conspiracy you can work on)

 

Over the years I kept figures in articles from newspaper reporters and the Illinois Policy Center. I can't verify these figures except to say I recorded them from those past reports and they seem to be in line with the reported $1.5 million average. I haven't seen any annual loss figures since 2012.

Statements contained in a news report in May 2014 by Dianne Placko, a Fox News investigative reporter state :

"Illinois State Senator Dan Kotowski is among a number of lawmakers questioning the payoff on the state's $50 million investment.

"Since opening in 2006, the World Shooting Complex has lost money every single year, totaling nearly $11 million in red ink."

"It's a giant white elephant and we need to take a shotgun to it and put it out of its misery,"


WSRC Annual Losses
2006 – $552,976
2007 – $2,685,807
2008 – $1,521,706
2009 – $1,437,283
2010 – $1,523,421
2011 – $1,633,498
2012 – $1,867,785
2013 – $
2014 – $
2015 – $

 

HB,

There is an article in the USA today about the maintenance backlog in the US parks, that's really something.

 

No the lease is not in effect. The state voided the lease either through a " for convenience clause" or a "force majeure" clause. There is not a single contract entered into by a government entity anywhere that does not contain both clauses. These clauses allow the government entity to back out of the contract.

There is no MOU as such a document requires that the IDNR have such authority to enter into such an arrangement and that went out the door with the voiding of the lease under the Governors "line item" veto powers.

 

No I was commenting on your post in regards to the high probability that the ATA would increase their fees to cover costs that they may have to bear if by some miracle the State and the ATA get their act together. In other words I fully expect to see a fee increase this year as a result of this mess that the ATA is now in with Sparta.

 

The state has not invoked anything. The only point when the contract is broken, is when the state says, in writing, no Grand will be here.

 

Duff,
You mistakenly posted that on the wrong site, I mean "REALLY" you cannot be serious ... I have a warehouse I will lease you, you cannot enter or get in the building, nor use it for its intended purpose but you can hold onto the lease until the 12th of Never and see what happens after that, then we can re do the lease and extension of same and make its rental agreement ... We can make a lease, then a tentative agreement, then a probable agreement, then a possible agreement, then I will issue you an MOU, you can hang on to that or hang it on the wall and throw darts at it ... Come on Man, Earth to Duffer ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

If I lease your warehouse for fifteen days in August, why would I go to it in February?

 

Some people just don't get it. There is an MOU, no question about that. What it represents though is basically nothing in the scheme of things. All it says is IDNR and ATA agree to negotiate in good faith if the April 15 passes without WRSC being opened. That's it, nothing more. No promises at all. ATA retains power to look elsewhere and to terminate the lease, and IDNR makes no promises about the terms of any future negotiations, nor potential future funding.

There is a distinction between a contract being in default, and same contract being terminated. I have not seen anything saying the lease has been terminated. The ata says the state is in default, and the ATA may move to terminate it in accordance with the contract. Doesn't sound like they have done this yet, but they can.

 

BAT: Are you Neil Winston is Disguise, N1H1 you sound just like him in almost every aspect.

Gary Bryant...............................Dr.longshot

 

Bat,

The funny thing is, there is an MOU attached to both the original lease and the extension. It's was OK to use one there, but now they mean nothing.

 

No Gary, not him.

I just don't get what you are upset about in that post of mine? Do you understand what I said? What specifically in that last post of mine do you take issue with?

It would seem to me you'd agree with me that the MOU in discussion is not much more than a "feel-good" move to get something out there during the "quiet-time" until the April 15th date. It's just something put out there for the sake of having something out there. Technically it serves very little purpose.

 

Bat,
Didn't the ATA already negotiate in good faith when they signed the original lease and them an extension of same ..? The lease is a Legal document, as you say an MOU is virtually nothing, I say its a disguise to having an agreement to negotiate which is what they already had and have done (THINK LEASE) ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

Trying to explain it to Duffer, you might just as well to the toaster, he don't get it ...

 

WPT, I didn't say an MOU is "virtually nothing", they serve a purpose. I said this particular MOU doesn't do much of anything, other than saying they intend to negotiate. I don't think its a disguise of anything. Certainly it is an agreement to negotiate, but as I think you are saying, they already had that right. All it is doing is rehashing items that actually already exist.

 

An MOU is just a formal "gentleman's" agreement. Nothing in the contract or lease world is set in stone.

WPT thinks, sign a lease, it's binding. Well let me tell you, there is always a way out of any lease or any contract. There is always a cost or repercussion, but you can always get out of one, think pro athlete sitting out until the team renegotiates his signed contract.

The way most of the posters here are posting, you'd think this is the first time a contract came under scrutiny.

 

You can put any "SPIN " on it you want say it one way or say it another ... They negotiated and re negotiated (extension of the lease) , signed, sealed, and delivered same to no avail, being as the only agreement they have is to negotiate an agreement which has already been done ... The State can walk away at anytime with ZERO recourse and there is NOTHING the ATA can do about it other than stand there and say but we agrreed, we got an MOU , with their mouth hanging open, looking stupid as they drool all over them self talking about all they have done to improve the State of Illinois financial situation by generating 10/20 millions dollars to the local economy and region and how they are headed in a "FANTASTIC DIRECTION ... Gist wate and see... (just wait and see ) ...
The ATA should hire you as the ASSISTANT TALKING HEAD TO GIPSON, just in case he runs out of breath ...
I talked to a very well versed, highly intelligent friend who was a prominent Attorney (retired) who is also a Life Member of the ATA, he says "an MOU means no more than "virtually nothing", kind of like tentative, probable, possible, agreement being as it would never stand up in court " ... I put a little bit of faith on what he says after him serving as a Legal Council and Adviser for a Major Corp for over 40 years , he was director of the entire legal dept for same for almost 30 years , so I would say he (his opinion) has earned some degree of respect ... Nuff said ..........We will see, all of us ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

WPT, the ATA can walk away whenever they want too.

 

Come on Duff ... put a little meat on the bone.

How much should the IDNR "pay" the "ATA" to run the Big Black Hole. You know, something like a dollar figure.

Tell us about all the trips you have made to the Grand in Sparta ... you know things like the banks you prefer to shoot, where you stay ... things like that.

You post a lot, and say little. Stop telling people HOW you feel, and tell everyone WHY you feel that way. You must have a reason other than being the "banana man" to the "dead wood" in your "comedy duo".

 

Is it required to shoot at any particular venue, in order to be able to understand the situation, or have an opinion?

I was unaware of any such qualifiers on the "open forum".

 

The "open forum" allows people to "have an opinion" and post them.

When their posts show ignorance, they shouldn't be offended by being questioned on their "motives".

 

Not if there is a binding lease agreement. there is not.

And if they wanted to walk away where would these guys walk?

NO ONE WANTS THE CORRUPTION!

Cardinal Center - NO!

No one wants these guys. NO ONE!

The best fit is the state of corruption.

 

I know it's wonderful to argue, especially when most everything at this point is just conjecture. I'm pretty sure the IDNR will have no way to finance the 2016 Grand. They may be able to rent the facility and allow the ATA to do as they wish but in my opinion there's no way the ATA will be able to accomplish their goal without making a substantial investment. The IDNR will not be providing anything but if anyone has evidence to the contrary I'll be happy to listen.

 

Trap Wife has a plan. Be patient!

 

Stelts, good point my mistake.

 

The problem is they do not have enough common sense and have not reasoned it out enough to walk away and seek greener pastures to stabilize the future of the Association for all involved ... Not thinking right or not thinking at all adds up to the same when all is said and done ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

Anybody want to venture the amount the ATA might pay for use of the WSC and how much they will take in? Still trying to figure out where all the money will come from besides the shooters daily expenses. The campsites are far from full and I'm still trying to find a signed vendor lease for the vendor buildings. I'm sure the interest will grow once the final decision is announced somewhere around May or June. Will probably be Hampton, Townsend, Trap Wife and Gipson riding around in golf carts assuring everyone how great things are and to stay away from the CC and those terrible Ohio and Pennsylvania shooters.

 

Cost : Fees, insurance, payroll, electric, sewer, water, EC and some of the BOD expenses, (plus the presidential gun ) clean up: 2 Million plus ...

Generated revenues : Less than 1/2 million ($400,000)

Net loss : .......... ATA member money ... $1.6 million ... (plus)

This is if all goes right and they pack the place , plus the local resident shooters of course (all 4 of them ) ... WPT ... (YAC) ...

 

I spoke with Monica Brackman, IDNR, today at 2:02 pm. She confirmed that the MOU is the only agreement in place.

 

Things are moving forward at a wickedly fast pace. A couple building vendors have signed one year agreements. So, yes, now there are a few signed vendor agreements in hand. Things are looking up financially for the ATA and IDNR. The financial loss may now be in the "acceptable" range.

 

A Silver Lining?

Yours in Sport
Gary Bryant.............................Dr.longshot