Vince Wilfork asks to be released

[Kdo5]

The possibility that Wilfork departs on not so good terms hurts but in terms of our defense we will be fine. Kelly back and healthy is an obvious improvement over what we had last season and even then our run D was not a reason we got knocked out of the playoffs. Factor in Revis and the potential for an excellent secondary and stopping the run won't be a tall task. Pass rush? We could work on that area.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Borgy. Mitt Romney earned 10's of millions in 2012 and he paid 14% of it in Federal taxes. Do you really think that any of these guys who have made 20-40MM during their athletic careers are paying 50% on their income. Making that kind of money comes with a different set of rules than you or I.
OOP's I'm ranting

Salary, it's unavoidable you pay taxes. Players pay the same tax rates as you do. Top bracket.
Romney's income was likely capital gains where he risked it all and paid a lower cap gains tax rate.
John Kerry's presidential run tax return were muni-bonds. Tax free.
You have the option of making income from capital gains too. Risk it and reap it, or lose it. You can also play the muni-bond game at 0% tax rate, not big returns these days.

Bottom line is these guys are salaried and paid the old rate of 36% plus MA tax of what 6%. (Yes, MA taxes are deductible but you get the idea.

 

[50-yard-line]

I think we're looking at this wrong. This is the way Vince negotiates.

He's trying to get the best restructure he can by playing hardball. You want to spread that 7.5 out over three years? Okay, then give me a base salary worth that and some more guaranteed money.

If he's healthy enough to play at Vince level, he's worth it.

The Pats will counter by not cutting him, at least not right away. And I haven't seen them pursuing anyone (hatcher is gone, Melton is visiting the Vikings, Sims is visiting the Titans). This is their hardball. Maybe they'll offer him up in trade to Oakland or something, but I don't see them putting a potentially-healthy Wilfork on the market.

This will be a tough negotiation, but this is only the first counter (to the restructure ask).

Of course, if Vince can't really play anymore at high DT level, it's all moot, because they'll just cut him. Oh, and if any Broncos fan has anything snarky to say, tell him Champ Bailey says hi.

 

[SB39]

First of all, I think you are completely missing the point. Most here don't expect Wilfork to stay against his best interests,

Actually, there are tons of people in here who expect athletes to come/stay against their own best financial interests.

rather they expect him to be reasonable and realize he is not going to get anything close to his scheduled salary anywhere else.

Why are so many people hung up on what he is currently scheduled to make this year??!? Vince Wilfork would love to play for the Patriots under his current deal, but he is not going to have that option.

No one will pay Wilfork $7.5 mil - and that includes the Patriots. So he's just saying "please cut me now instead of later" because that helps him find a better deal than if they made him wait.

 

[SB39]

Way too big a cut. State taxes are deducted from Federal taxes, and celebrities can add all kinds of loopholes. Those "foundations" for example, offer HUGE tax breaks because they give the celebrity tax deductible "value" for their name and time.

"Celebrities" is an incredibly vague term, so let me say this:

Athletes are taxed at an extremely high rate because it's all regular income (and not, for example, capital gains). Furthermore, they don't have any "loopholes" whatsoever that you and I don't have and I don't know where you file your taxes, but here in the U.S. there is no tax deduction for someone volunteering time to a charity or foundation. Yes they get to deduct any dollar contributions to various foundations and/or expenses related to same, but their time itself is most certainly not a deduction.

What do you think happens? An athlete says "I make $10,000 an hour and I just volunteered for 3 hours at a soup kitchen, so that's a $30,000 deduction!!"...??

 

[mgteich]

Yes, there are many.

IMHO, there have only been two patriots who have purposely signed contracts against their financial interests: Bruschi and Brady.

Actually, there are tons of people in here who expect athletes to come/stay against their own best financial interests.

 

[SB39]

Borgy. Mitt Romney earned 10's of millions in 2012 and he paid 14% of it in Federal taxes.

This is an irrelevant fact because that tax rate is for long term capital gains. An athlete's pay is all 100% regular income, which is taxed at a much higher rate.

Do you really think that any of these guys who have made 20-40MM during their athletic careers are paying 50% on their income. Making that kind of money comes with a different set of rules than you or I. I'm retired, on SS, plus consulting jobs I do on the side. I paid 24% in federal taxes this year. Its probably around what most people paid. But I'm willing to bet that most people who made in excess of $5MM paid a lot more in dollars, but considerably LESS in percentage.

That's because most people who make that much money are doing it by way of investments and stock options, and not getting a weekly paycheck of $100,000.

Athletes are taxed at the highest rate there is. According to the taxbrackets.org calculator, an single athlete, no kids, making $10 million in income in Massachusetts in 2013 would pay $4,154,053 in federal taxes and $524,769 to Massachusetts. So that's about 46%.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Wilfork also has a "Pension Plan".

The pension allows him to realistically retire. As a result, he could greatly help to avoid Diabetes (by literally losing 150 pounds). Retirement is a real option, if he can't get paid as he wishes.

Taxes are irrelevant.

 

[upstater1]

This is an irrelevant fact because that tax rate is for long term capital gains. An athlete's pay is all 100% regular income, which is taxed at a mich higher rate.
That's because most people who make that much money are doing it by way of investments and stock options, and not getting a weekly paycheck of $100,000.

Athletes are taxed at the highest rate there is. According to the taxbrackets.org calculator, an single athlete, no kids, making $10 million in income in Massachusetts in 2013 would pay $4,154,053 in federal taxes and $524,769 to Massachusetts. So that's about 46%.

While everyone here differentiating between salary and cap gains is right, there are still ways to game it.

For one capital gains aren't always investments. Hedge Funds regularly convert what would normally be considered salary into cap gains. Stock options are considered salary but there are ways to get around it. Hedge funds do it all the time.

 

[SB39]

Yes, there are many.

IMHO, there have only been two patriots who have purposely signed contracts against their financial interests: Bruschi and Brady.

Agreed. And please let the record show that I don't have an ounce of criticism for anyone who makes that decision - nor do I have an ounce of criticism to a player who treats his career like a career and treats the business of football like a business.

We never criticize the Patriots when they act like a business, so I refuse to criticize the players who do the same.

 

[SB39]

While everyone here differentiating between salary and cap gains is right, there are still ways to game it.

For one capital gains aren't always investments. Hedge Funds regularly convert what would normally be considered salary into cap gains. Stock options are considered salary but there are ways to get around it. Hedge funds do it all the time.

True, stock options are taxed as long term capital gains if you hold them for the appropriate amount of time. For example, exercising the options but keeping the stock for >1 year puts it in the category of long term capital gain. You don't need a Hedge Fund to do it because you can just do it yourself.

However, we're talking about athletes here and not a single athlete is paid salary or bonuses in the form of stock options. There's really no way around an athlete paying the top marginal tax rate on the vast majority of their income. Yes, they can deduct career expenses (i.e. their agent) and charitable cash contributions but then that just means their AGI (adjusted gross income) is lower.

Financially speaking, you're better off simply not having any deductions (beyond the standard deduction) but, obviously, you're wise to deduct the expenses you can't avoid.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Wilfork will not budge on re-structure/pay-cut.

My guess is Patriots will release him, but at a later date...

+1 No chance he will re-structure.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Wilfork also has a "Pension Plan".

The pension allows him to realistically retire. As a result, he could greatly help to avoid Diabetes (by literally losing 150 pounds). Retirement is a real option, if he can't get paid as he wishes.

Taxes are irrelevant.

Good point.
Don't know details but the new CBAs pension was a step up from the previous deal.
Players also get healthcare for life. Again, I don't know the specific details.
So they have both income and some lifetime expenses covered even if they'd already spent everything they ever made.

Wilfy needs to make the health/lifestyle/family decision over a couple possibilities that are pure discretionary income/future savings. Any of the deals covers his expenses. it's a matter of how much extra he wants for whatever purposes. A nice choice to have.

 

[50-yard-line]

"Celebrities" is an incredibly vague term, so let me say this:

Athletes are taxed at an extremely high rate because it's all regular income (and not, for example, capital gains).

They're taxed at the same rate I am.

EDIT: Since I'm self-employed, I'm actually taxed higher because I pay both halves of the FICA tax on the first 100-113k, whatever it is this year.

Furthermore, they don't have any "loopholes" whatsoever that you and I don't have and I don't know where you file your taxes, but here in the U.S. there is no tax deduction for someone volunteering time to a charity or foundation. Yes they get to deduct any dollar contributions to various foundations and/or expenses related to same, but their time itself is most certainly not a deduction.

It goes a lot deeper than that - including the "value" of a signed ball, the disappearing funds of the charity, etc. ESPN did some major investigating on this.

What do you think happens? An athlete says "I make $10,000 an hour and I just volunteered for 3 hours at a soup kitchen, so that's a $30,000 deduction!!"...??

Nope. But you can create "value" in other ways.

 

[SB39]

They're taxed at the same rate I am.

I doubt that. I would wager the average athlete has a far greater percentage of their income tax at the highest marginal rate than you do. (In fact, unless you're making $400k, you're not even in the top marginal rate for federal taxes) Also, their standard deduction is most likely a far lower percentage of their income than it is yours.

It goes a lot deeper than that - including the "value" of a signed ball, the disappearing funds of the charity, etc. ESPN did some major investigating on this.

I'd be interested in seeing the article you are talking about because an athlete cannot just sign 200 balls for charity and (legally) deduct $20,000 if that's what they sell for. Technically what he is doing is "creating" $20,000 in value with his signature and then donating the $20,000 to charity, so it's a wash and not a tax deduction.

I do recall an ESPN investigation into various athletes who cheat the system so yes, obviously, if you are going to break the law then certainly you can lower your taxes. But for the sake of argument, I am talking about the legal obligations of someone making $10 million a year.

 

[billdog3484]

This thread has turned into an accounting debate. BORING.

Back on topic

How hillarious would it be if the dopey raiders traded a 2015 1st rounder for wilfork. Id accept a 2019 pick

 

[50-yard-line]

EDIT: Never mind - I agree with the above post!

 

[OhExaulted1]

I don't see any point in making it personal or assigning blame. Wilfork has done nothing wrong here. He signed a deal, he's willing to play that deal out, and he's not willing to make concessions on a deal that he had to play at an elite level and be underpaid for 6 years to get. Can you blame him for that?

Likewise, the Pats are pretty sure that his play this year won't be worth his $7.5M base salary, so they'd rather cut him than keep him at his current deal. They're almost certainly correct in their evaluation of what he'll bring to the table.

It's a crap situation, because I think everyone involved would have preferred that Wilfork remain healthy and playing at a level that would justify his salary this year, but that's not how it worked out. As it is, both Wilfork and the Pats are coming from defensible positions. Neither one of them is wrong. The Pats know he won't be worth his contract, and whatever they offered him in an extension is probably less than he believes he can get on the open market (and I'd bet that he's right). It is what it is.

And no, I don't for a second believe that this has anything to do with the Revis contract. The writing has been on the wall for months, and a ton of us here called something like this happening months ago.

I agree with the notion it's a crap situation, but I'm also going to assign blame. I think both sides could have handled this much better.

For him: Why wait 3 days into FA to make this demand?
The FO: Why not cut him loose before FA started. This ain't Sopoaga were talking about.

 

[SB39]

Almost all of my income is taxed at the highest marginal rate, in the same range as the average NFL player.

Well congratulations on making millions of dollars annually. And, this being an anonymous forum on the internet, I'm sure what you're saying is 100% true.

You have a charity and go to a charity event - a golf tourney in Hawaii. All expenses paid, 5-stars hotel, deluxe accommodations...tax free to the athlete and paid by the charity. There are a million ways to do this.

These free perks can add up into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Do you realize how silly you sound at this point? This scenario is ridiculously lame, at best. I suppose if an incredibly selfish athlete dedicated his entire offseason to obtaining as many "free perks" from various charities that he possibly could, he might be able to get about $50,000 in tax-free benefits. Whoop-de-do.

And I'm sure the average athlete making 7 or 8 figures annually is really obsessed with doing precisely that.

 

[50-yard-line]

Deleted my post - don't want an OT argument with you. Would appreciate it if you'd do the same.