What's new
By:

Lockout!!!

Colton

I thought it was even more ridiculous. I don't think teams are amortizing the purchase price (I don't think that is possible legally). Teams are including financing costs of the loans they took to purchase the teams as a cost of doing business. I really don't think that is a problem at least as far as the IRS goes. The real problem with the amortization, at least according to some of the articles I've read, is that some teams are amortizing players. Teams are treating players like they do inventory on a shelf. The legality of this is questionable and according to reports not every team is doing it. Those that do better have good lawyers to explain it to the IRS.
 
InGameStrategy said:
The high player share is a much bigger problem than a hard cap as long as a "luxury tax" is in place. The profitable teams should also look at the amount of money that would subsidize the unprofitable ones would make sense.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I would like to see the luxury tax be changed from $1 for every $1 over the cap, to $2 for every $1 over the cap. If would force teams to exercise caution before going over the cap and create additional sharing of revenues as long as those funds are being distributed back to teams under the soft cap.
 
oldtimer said:
Colton

I thought it was even more ridiculous. I don't think teams are amortizing the purchase price (I don't think that is possible legally). Teams are including financing costs of the loans they took to purchase the teams as a cost of doing business. I really don't think that is a problem at least as far as the IRS goes. The real problem with the amortization, at least according to some of the articles I've read, is that some teams are amortizing players. Teams are treating players like they do inventory on a shelf. The legality of this is questionable and according to reports not every team is doing it. Those that do better have good lawyers to explain it to the IRS.
Click to expand...

I've read this too. If you listen to the podcast, Stern mentions that not all expenses listed on their taxes are being used as a calculation of losses for CBA negotiations. They may use the technique you mention for IRS purposes and tax benefits, but they aren't for the CBA negotiation. From the interview, while Stern didn't quote an exact number, it sound like the "agreed upon" loss between the players union and the owners is somewhere between $200-$300 million.

I remember reading the same article you are referring to, and the two things that bothered me were that the Audited Tax Reports that these reporters got there hands on were old (one was from 2005 and the other 2008 if I remember correctly), and they did no follow up to determine if these final numbers were the same numbers that the NBA was reporting for CBA negotiation purposes. Lazy reporting or just plain biased.
 
northeast said:
5 million a year is more than enough pay for anybody to do anything
Click to expand...

Sure, at least as long as someone else who wants that person to do the same thing doesn't offer them 6 million, then someone else offer them 7 million...

Funny how that works.
 
First Stern said teh offer would decrease if there was no deal by July 1. Now, another decrease? Or the same decrease?
 
NUMBERICA said:
So owners should be capped to that figure on how much they can make owning a team, and the rest goes to...?
Click to expand...

There you go again. I did not say I wanted to cap anybody. I would think that most owners are set up as corporations or partnerships. However, if we want to set up a cap for every person of 5 mil a year, there are plenty of people who could use jobs with all that excess profit. It could go to hiring a lot of people in the organizations. Not a bad idea at all. 5 mil cap for everybody until everybody in the country has a job. I would support that.
 
...so what is this guy ACTUALLY saying? That NBA owners, who are mostly white, are tired of paying millions of dollars per year and hundreds of thousands of dollars per game....to black athletes who drastically underachieve while fornicating with multiple women, and then spend half their salaries on tattoo's and the other half on child support payments? Could that be the subliminal message in this column? Actually, I was just trying to get some more movement on this thread....and thought this might do it!

https://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6874079/psychic-benefits-nba-lockout
 
Pretty entertaining story. Bet the players would love it and the owners would hate it ... even if it were all true.
 
northeast said:
There you go again. I did not say I wanted to cap anybody. I would think that most owners are set up as corporations or partnerships. However, if we want to set up a cap for every person of 5 mil a year, there are plenty of people who could use jobs with all that excess profit. It could go to hiring a lot of people in the organizations. Not a bad idea at all. 5 mil cap for everybody until everybody in the country has a job.
Click to expand...
After all, corporations are people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiggvxQgfLM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top