Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[Evilgrin]

It's looks bad when you cover yourself with lies.

[redskins5044]

this cap penalty does hurt for this year, but we are not the worst off team when it comes to being over the cap. it might affect how many people we sign in FA this year and may be stuck with some of the same average players on our roster. but if we can restructure some contracts we will be fine, we get Orakpo and Carricker back on D, and if RG3 is healthy i wouldnt count us out of anything.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

Given recent events, I was wondering about that. Yes, that is illegal to do, NFL or not.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

i'm really starting to sour on the NFL's arrogance. This issue aside, yesterday i learned the league, which makes billions of dollars a year, doesnt pay taxes. That just doesnt seem right, especially when the federal government is laying off thousands of workers to cut expenses. Maybe some of those people would still have jobs if the NFL paid taxes like every other sports league in the country.

Yesterday, i also read that several NFL teams asked a player at the combine questions regarding his sexual orientation. I'm pretty sure thats illegal. Can you imagine the uproar if Microsoft, Walmart, or some other large company asked individuals questions about their sexual orientation on a job interview? Yet the NFL does it, and they dont give a crap.

Sooner or later, the arrogant manner they go about conducting business is going to get them in trouble. Theyre going to lose their tax exempt status or get the crap sued out of them for overt discrimination or something else. And i'm going to love it.

To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

To be fair, thats a little misleading to just say the league doesnt pay taxes. The 32 teams do pay taxes, they just have a central office to conduct business among the 32 teams, and that is what does not pay taxes. Basically that results in each team getting a 6-7 mil tax exemption each year for "donating" money to the NFL.

I do agree with you on the big companies part, but for future reference, adding Walmart to these usually does more harm than good to your argument. Walmart considers "above minimum wage" and "health benefits" to be dirty words. They arent exactly known to be worker friendly.

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.

Well, does the League offices make the money, or is it distributed directly and proportionally to all 32 teams. I doubt that the League itself "makes" money, but I don't know. For example on NFL apparel, doesn't that revenue go directly to the teams, based on whatever the agreed split is. I don't think the League gets a separate percentage of sales.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.

I agree with you about whether the NFL should be considered non-profit. But there is a huge difference between saying the NFL doesnt pay taxes as compared to saying the individual teams get a 6-7 mil tax write off each year.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

That is a basic employee hiring law. BUS Law 101

Apparently the government doesn't care when your business is for entertainment and brings in billions of dollars in revenue streams for cities all around the U.S.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Apparently the government doesn't care when your business is for entertainment and brings in billions of dollars in revenue streams for cities all around the U.S.

My guess is that the government would care if such an issue were to be brought to court.

[SBXVII]

I know no one want would want to piss off their fellow owners of a business or piss off board members of a company, but in this situation knowing the fact that the Redskins and Cowboys are two teams that provide the most money toward the pot of money that gets distributed to lesser teams in the organization and have been doing so for years, I find it rather funny those teams would vote to "bite the hand that feeds them" per say.

What does Snyder have to lose? The NFL is not going to kick him out, not going to take the team away from him, so what is there to lose? Snyder is not running for a lead or head position in the NFL so if he pisses off 30 other owners, who cares?

I really hope Snyder has the balls to pull this off. What the NFL did was morally wrong, illegal at the time (collusion). The NFL had ample and I repeat ample opportunity to advise the Redskins that the contracts were not going to be approved because of whatever reason and actually had the duty to do just that. Instead the NFL approved the deals. Clearly the NFL, by not denying them, did not have an issue with how those contracts were structured at the time (prior to the new CBA) so they (the NFL) should not have standing in any claim of damage or possible future damage since they approved them thus no punishment should have been put on anyone.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I know no one want would want to piss off their fellow owners of a business or piss off board members of a company, but in this situation knowing the fact that the Redskins and Cowboys are two teams that provide the most money toward the pot of money that gets distributed to lesser teams in the organization and have been doing so for years,

.

Huh?What do you mean when you say" provide the most money toward the pot pf money that gets distributed to lesser teams",how many years and how much money?

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Whenever revenue sharing started Giantone.

There is no doubt that two of the top three richest franchises in American football have been giving money to lesser teams as far as earnings since the league instituted revenue sharing.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Whenever revenue sharing started Giantone.

There is no doubt that two of the top three richest franchises in American football have been giving money to lesser teams as far as earnings since the league instituted revenue sharing.

Don't mistake the value of the franchise with revenue sharing,a very good portion of the Redskins value is tied up in real estate,same with the Cowboys.