Vikings RB Adrian Peterson indicted for child abuse; deactivated for Pats game at Minnesota

[mgteich]

The league office is not for profit.
Contributing public funds for stadium construction does not equal the league being funded by the government. The municipalities do it for their own benefit

The teams are indeed profit making ventures. And while MINN obviously thinks that it will get something back, it seems reasonable to think that they are contributing to the team. Consider if Kraft could have built the new stadium with none of his own money, and without having to pay the money back. Surely that would be a contribution to the team.

 

[mgteich]

I'm saying what I feel is appropriate.
I think goddell for it wrong with 2 games and right with 6.
Had he handled it right to begin with rice would be suspended and never have been released IMO

fair enough

 

[primetime]

The league office is not for profit.
Contributing public funds for stadium construction does not equal the league being funded by the government. The municipalities do it for their own benefit

That's what I said, the league office receives tax-exempt status.

Research is unconditional in finding that the costs of public stadium funding always far outpace any returns on that investment. It's a case of socializing costs and risk and privatizing vast profits.

 

[mgteich]

That's what I said, the league office receives tax-exempt status.

Research is unconditional in finding that the costs of public stadium funding always far outpace any returns on that investment. It's a case of socializing costs and risk and privatizing vast profits.

All you seem to be saying is that we should vote against public subsidies of stadiums. Obviously, many voters disagree with you.

 

[primetime]

All you seem to be saying is that we should vote against public subsidies of stadiums. Obviously, many voters disagree with you.

Voters are rarely consulted. When there have been plebiscites (like in Seattle and Minnesota) funding a stadium or arena is almost always voted down.

The issue becomes that owners can hold cities hostage, like Seattle wouldn't vote for a new arena so ownership headed to Oklahoma City. Same for Hartford with the Whalers, and the Vikings threaten to move to Los Angeles.

My point is that there is some responsibility implicit in socialized cost for capital, but such responsibility is rarely if ever acted upon because there's little accountability for it.

 

[Ring 6]

That's what I said, the league office receives tax-exempt status.

And you are wrong. The league is not tax exempt. The league makes no profit, therefore pays no tax.
Not for profit means you do not generate profit, not that you generate profit and don't get taxed.
The teams are taxed. There is nothing to tax the league on. There is no favorable treatment here whatsoever.

Research is unconditional in finding that the costs of public stadium funding always far outpace any returns on that investment. It's a case of socializing costs and risk and privatizing vast profits.

Disagree. Its a case of tax payers, including the businesses that benefit from it (since they are large tax payers bearing the brunt of that cost) and citizens wanting to have a sports team in their community, so they agree it is an acceptable use of tax dollars.

 

[Ring 6]

Voters are rarely consulted. When there have been plebiscites (like in Seattle and Minnesota) funding a stadium or arena is almost always voted down.

The issue becomes that owners can hold cities hostage, like Seattle wouldn't vote for a new arena so ownership headed to Oklahoma City. Same for Hartford with the Whalers, and the Vikings threaten to move to Los Angeles.

My point is that there is some responsibility implicit in socialized cost for capital, but such responsibility is rarely if ever acted upon because there's little accountability for it.

This is an issue of government spending, not an issue of the rights of the NFL being impeded by being 'government funded'. I know its a catch phrase that people like to misuse, but there are no restrictions on the NFL like there are on other organizations, such as colleges that receive Federal grants.

 

[Pats-Phan]

Honestly, I don't think they're inherently pieces of **** for caring more about their bottom line than making a moral stand. That makes them amoral at best and immoral at worst, but welcome to corporate America. Ethics only matters to these people when being unethical costs you money.

I just wish they would be honest about it. I wish that one single owner would come out and say "look, our players are a bunch of 20-30 year old men who play a violent sport. A lot of them do dumb, morally reprehensible stuff and get arrested for it. But we're not in the business of putting the most ethical team out on the field every week: we're in the business of trying to win, because winners make more money. So we'll play any player who helps us win and who is allowed--both the league and by the law--to play."

I would respect that owner 100x more than I'd respect someone who claims that he's trying to "do the right thing" when they conveniently unsuspend their admitted child-beating best player.

That'd be a great strategy for a team that actually won; like say the Ravens. The Vikings should stick to "doing the right thing"

 

[mgteich]

The MINN stadium needed separate approvals by the city council and by the state legislature.

I apologize if I suggested that we are like Switzerland giving the public the right to legislate.

When hundreds of millions are allocated, it usually requires the approval of a state legislature, and sometimes by a city government entity.

If I understand you correctly, you don't believe that your interests are served by the various government entities.

Voters are rarely consulted. When there have been plebiscites (like in Seattle and Minnesota) funding a stadium or arena is almost always voted down.

The issue becomes that owners can hold cities hostage, like Seattle wouldn't vote for a new arena so ownership headed to Oklahoma City. Same for Hartford with the Whalers, and the Vikings threaten to move to Los Angeles.

My point is that there is some responsibility implicit in socialized cost for capital, but such responsibility is rarely if ever acted upon because there's little accountability for it.

 

[SB39]

The inconsistency isn't necessarily relative to other domestic abuse arrests. It's relative to discipline related to player conduct. If a couple of weed tests are worth a year, then beating your wife should be worth more.

That's a good point, but it should be noted that punishments for drug violations are set in stone and have been collectively bargained.

And separately, Goodell has now rewritten the rules on domestic abuse anyway, and even then he's failed to apply them in subsequent cases. No matter how you feel about the handling of the Rice and Peterson fiascos, it's impossible to argue that there was any consistency to the punishments that were given.

Adrian Peterson has not yet been punished by the league, and I refuse to criticize them for taking a reasonable amount of time to gather all possible evidence available. So let's see what he actually gets from the league and then we can decide how inconsistent the league has been.

 

[SB39]

shmessy said: ↑
SB39 thinks the Patriots did not act as quickly and decisively with Hernandez...........



Accuse someone of lying and then say you are 'letting this matter drop'. Like egging someone's home and running away.

Not a single one of my posts said what you claimed I have said. You're either deliberately lying or you just aren't reading what I wrote. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're just not reading what I wrote.

All I am asking you is to stop misrepresenting what I said.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

^^^ you don't need this case to see how inconsistent the NFL is

 

[Joker]

Obviously we have an overweight and undersmart I.Q. 39 infesting this thread with his total insanity.

Shmessy is 100% correct in his interpretation of your "posts". I also notice you stated:

People (unfortunately) have short memories. By next season this won't be as much of a hot button issue because we all will have moved on.

Now do I really have to open my SB39 folder on my desktop and SHOW YOU the posts YOU made stating as fact that "this will all blow over in 24 hours....you're an idiot if you think otherwise".

The truth is you do NOT know what the hell you're even talking about, you're spinning in circles and you're BURYING yourself in your own lies.Amazingly, you claim you're a huge Patriot fan ,have six seasons tickets, extremely handsome and well off and possess a prodigious penis....and every one of your "friends" agree with everything you say.

I think you live in a padded cell with mirrors on all four walls.

 

[SB39]

Now do I really have to open my SB39 folder on my desktop and SHOW YOU the posts YOU made stating as fact that "this will all blow over in 24 hours....you're an idiot if you think otherwise".

Wow. I really do live rent free in that empty head of yours, don't I?

The truth is you do NOT know what the hell you're even talking about, you're spinning in circles and you're BURYING yourself in your own lies.Amazingly, you claim you're a huge Patriot fan ,have six seasons tickets, extremely handsome and well off and possess a prodigious penis....and every one of your "friends" agree with everything you say.

Like I said. $100 goes to Miguel if you can ever provide a post where I said anything about that last one. You haven't put up anything so everyone knows you're just a gutless wonder totally obsessed with and also making stuff up.

 

[Joker]

yeah...what's wrong with me...I assumed you were making a defacto point about YOUR big package when you tried to humiliate Kontra with your snarky "tiny ****" insults. What was I thinking...tell ya what, forget about it, I'll be over it in 24 hours.

 

[primetime]

This is an issue of government spending, not an issue of the rights of the NFL being impeded by being 'government funded'. I know its a catch phrase that people like to misuse, but there are no restrictions on the NFL like there are on other organizations, such as colleges that receive Federal grants.

Right, I'm not saying they're impeded. There's no strings attached, and there are big problems with that. It's the neoliberal trick of socializing risk and privatizing profit, which you see in a lot of spheres (banking being the most obvious). That's why I'm saying any social obligation is implicit, but I also understand that unless you attach those strings, it's not going to happen because capital only fulfills a social obligation when that obligation and profit motive do not run at cross purposes.

And you are wrong. The league is not tax exempt. The league makes no profit, therefore pays no tax.
Not for profit means you do not generate profit, not that you generate profit and don't get taxed.
The teams are taxed. There is nothing to tax the league on. There is no favorable treatment here whatsoever.

Disagree. Its a case of tax payers, including the businesses that benefit from it (since they are large tax payers bearing the brunt of that cost) and citizens wanting to have a sports team in their community, so they agree it is an acceptable use of tax dollars.

The league receives dues from ownership, which are not taxed. Non-profit does not mean you do not generate revenue, it means that you are not permitted to take any running profit out of the organization except through staff and overhead outlays. The NFL does what non-profits all do, reinvest their money in the organization, and the NFL does it by using the old non-profit tactic of paying executives like Roger Goodell exorbitant sums. The money generated from such a tax would admittedly be fairly small, since the league office is usually only about $100m in the black, but that's not really the point. Roger Goodell's $44m paycheck is itself subsidized by the taxpayer.

 

[Ring 6]

The league receives dues from ownership, which are not taxed. Non-profit does not mean you do not generate revenue, it means that you are not permitted to take any running profit out of the organization except through staff and overhead outlays. The NFL does what non-profits all do, reinvest their money in the organization, and the NFL does it by using the old non-profit tactic of paying executives like Roger Goodell exorbitant sums. The money generated from such a tax would admittedly be fairly small, since the league office is usually only about $100m in the black, but that's not really the point. Roger Goodell's $44m paycheck is itself subsidized by the taxpayer.

This is abjectly wrong. Corporations are not taxed on revenue they are taxed in profits.
Payroll is in fact a deduction for every corporation in America. No corporation would pay tax on what they pay roger goddell. But goddell pays tax on it. That's the way it works.
By your argument your paycheck is subsidized by the tax payer because the company you work for doesn't pay tax on it.

 

[mayoclinic]

Nice read from Michael Rosenberg:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/17/minnesota-vikings-adrian-peterson-zygi-wilf-rick-spielman

 

[primetime]

This is abjectly wrong. Corporations are not taxed on revenue they are taxed in profits.
Payroll is in fact a deduction for every corporation in America. No corporation would pay tax on what they pay roger goddell. But goddell pays tax on it. That's the way it works.
By your argument your paycheck is subsidized by the tax payer because the company you work for doesn't pay tax on it.

Corporations are taxed on profits. A non-profit entity isn't taxed on profits because it's expected that all profits will be re-invested in the organization. The NFL league office does run a profit every year because inlays exceeds outlays. The profit is only about $100m. They distribute some of it back to teams (which is then taxed) and then use some to pay overhead and salaries.

My paycheck isn't $44m. Compared to the corporate tax rate (which would be paid by the league office itself, and not the employees of the league office), the personal income tax rate - even for the highest earners - is still lower. This is largely because of the regressive nature of payroll taxes, which stop after $117,000 (which Goodell hits towards the end of the first day of the fiscal year). If not for the tax-exempt status of the league office, Roger Goodell would simply not be making $44 million; the same could be said for many non-profits, where the executive and board members would not be making such a high salary if not for the tax-exemption.

Ultimately, I'm playing devil's advocate here because I don't expect the NFL to do anything more than it has to in order to protect its image, and the cheaper the better. Such is the nature of capital.

 

[Ring 6]

Corporations are taxed on profits. A non-profit entity isn't taxed on profits because it's expected that all profits will be re-invested in the organization. The NFL league office does run a profit every year because inlays exceeds outlays. The profit is only about $100m. They distribute some of it back to teams (which is then taxed) and then use some to pay overhead and salaries.

My paycheck isn't $44m. Compared to the corporate tax rate (which would be paid by the league office itself, and not the employees of the league office), the personal income tax rate - even for the highest earners - is still lower. This is largely because of the regressive nature of payroll taxes, which stop after $117,000 (which Goodell hits towards the end of the first day of the fiscal year). If not for the tax-exempt status of the league office, Roger Goodell would simply not be making $44 million; the same could be said for many non-profits, where the executive and board members would not be making such a high salary if not for the tax-exemption.

Ultimately, I'm playing devil's advocate here because I don't expect the NFL to do anything more than it has to in order to protect its image, and the cheaper the better. Such is the nature of capital.

Well I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. Your argument adds up to the owners give goddell 44 million because if they kept the 44 mill they would have to pay tax on it so they would only net something like 30 mill.
Hand over 44 mill because zero is better than 30 mil? That is non sensical.

The league is a not for profit because it operates for a purpose other than profit. Just like your HMO for example. The league SUPPORTS for profit entities who pay the tax burden. There is no profit no matter how many times you want to say there is.