The W
Views: 99405680
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.10.14 0146
The W - Baseball - Yanks want to build a new stadium, and the other 29 teams will pay for it
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.43
Pages: 1
(950 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.34
Seems like a good use of the CBA.

Read it for yourself:
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3293



Thank you for your irrelevant opinion.

Doe, Ray, Me, Fa, So, La, TITO SANTANA!
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42


I don't think this is really a bad idea, if all teams are allowed to do it. Basically, the team pays for half the cost, and the rest is split among the rest of the teams. It certainly beats expecting the citites to pay for it, if you ask me.
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3266 days
ICQ:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.26
Yes, but it really sticks it to all the teams that have recently built parks without dipping into the pockets of the other teams. And, since it seems to be the poor teams getting new stadiums built lately (Seattle, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee come to mind), now really isn't the time to change the rule.

As for it being better than having cities pay for them...Average Joe living in Milwaukee gets more benefit from the Brewers having a new park (at least in theory) than does the owner of the Oakland A's. You want it, you pay for it.



The beatings will continue until morale improves.
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2820 days
Last activity: 2548 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.93
I despise the Yankees. That's really all I can say about this crap.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1248 days
Last activity: 1045 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
A+ for devising the scheme...but fuck him.



jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 77 days
Last activity: 7 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.87
    Originally posted by Grimis
    A+ for devising the scheme...but fuck him.
Is this really a scheme? Unless I am misunderstanding, isn't this article explaining that he can basically count the cost of the new stadium as a "stadium operations expense," thus decreasing his luxury-tax payment? Don't corporations do this constantly as they build new sites or expand?

Lets think about this. No other team has come across this, probably because of all the teams who have recently built a stadium, how many were paying a luxury tax in the first place? The Pirates with their 123 dollar payroll? San Fran? Cincinatti? Houston's payroll ballooned after they had the park, right? Isn't a new stadium something to increase revenue? If not, why bother (outside of falling concrete at Wrigley)? Ok, Steinbrenner doesn't have a glaring need for more revenue, but who wouldn't want more revenue if they could get it (insert your "he wants a payroll in the trillions" comment here __ )? If it's a stadium operating expense, then its a deduction, as an accountant will probably be able to tell you. If a company spends a few hundred million to put up a few new buildings, certainly they aren't paying taxes on the money they just spent, correct? I think it would be interesting to find out if Boston deducted the money that they spent putting the new seats on The Monster from their tax, if they had to pay the tax, that is. If they didn't, they should have. Why not? If you can save money while improving your product, it will all come back. Once the Yanks finish their stadium and increase their revenue, they can finally have that $400 million payroll, and their tax paid to the other teams double, which will certainly cover for what they don't shell out now, or soon.

This article is a bunch of shit. If I didn't read it properly, I certainly do apologize, but the way it seems, anyway, is very "hey, here's another reason to say "FUCK YOU STEINBRENNER!" There are enough reasons as it is, aren't there?



"I'm very sorry the government taxes their tips, that's fucked up. That ain't my fault. It would seem to me that waitresses are one of the many groups the government fucks in the ass on a regular basis. Look, if you ask me to sign something that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it, put it to a vote, I'll vote for it, but what I won't do is play ball. And as for this non-college bullshit I got two words for that: learn to fuckin' type, 'cause if you're expecting me to help out with the rent you're in for a big fuckin' surprise."
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3386 days
Last activity: 3167 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by jfkfc
      Originally posted by Grimis
      A+ for devising the scheme...but fuck him.
    Is this really a scheme? Unless I am misunderstanding, isn't this article explaining that he can basically count the cost of the new stadium as a "stadium operations expense," thus decreasing his luxury-tax payment? Don't corporations do this constantly as they build new sites or expand?

    Lets think about this. No other team has come across this, probably because of all the teams who have recently built a stadium, how many were paying a luxury tax in the first place? The Pirates with their 123 dollar payroll? San Fran? Cincinatti? Houston's payroll ballooned after they had the park, right? Isn't a new stadium something to increase revenue? If not, why bother (outside of falling concrete at Wrigley)? Ok, Steinbrenner doesn't have a glaring need for more revenue, but who wouldn't want more revenue if they could get it (insert your "he wants a payroll in the trillions" comment here __ )? If it's a stadium operating expense, then its a deduction, as an accountant will probably be able to tell you. If a company spends a few hundred million to put up a few new buildings, certainly they aren't paying taxes on the money they just spent, correct? I think it would be interesting to find out if Boston deducted the money that they spent putting the new seats on The Monster from their tax, if they had to pay the tax, that is. If they didn't, they should have. Why not? If you can save money while improving your product, it will all come back. Once the Yanks finish their stadium and increase their revenue, they can finally have that $400 million payroll, and their tax paid to the other teams double, which will certainly cover for what they don't shell out now, or soon.

    This article is a bunch of shit. If I didn't read it properly, I certainly do apologize, but the way it seems, anyway, is very "hey, here's another reason to say "FUCK YOU STEINBRENNER!" There are enough reasons as it is, aren't there?


Agreed. I don't understand why they are griping. Steinbrenner figured out the local tv revenue game before anyone else. Steinbrenner also realized how arbitration would destroy the game before anyone. Yeah, he is an ass but he is a very smart businessman. Other owners, like the Cubs and Braves, have been raping baseball through the tv revenues for years. How much revenue do you think the Braves realized through the TBS deal? Not much, but TBS's income statement probably looked pretty nice. For all the luxury tax that Steinbrenner will be writing off he will be making 10X that in luxury suites, premium seats, etc. When that stadium gets built he will be making more money than anyone realizes and he will keep it all to himself.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the other owners for leaving loopholes like this open.



Are you a professional halfwit or talented amateur?
BigVitoMark
Lap cheong








Since: 10.8.02
From: Queen's University, Canada

Since last post: 3356 days
Last activity: 3266 days
ICQ:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.28
Agreed (with waldo, that is). I'm much more bothered by the fact that George wants to take the Yanks out of Yankee Stadium, and kill the tradition along with it, than I am by the fact that he's going to make himself another fortune in doing so.



Screw Ricky
BOSsportsfan34
Pepperoni








Since: 2.1.03
From: MA

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.86
    Originally posted by BigVitoMark
    Agreed (with waldo, that is). I'm much more bothered by the fact that George wants to take the Yanks out of Yankee Stadium, and kill the tradition along with it, than I am by the fact that he's going to make himself another fortune in doing so.


The players and the teams make the tradition, not the building they play in. Hopefully, the Red Sox management will take the same opportunity to finally build a new stadium and drop a bomb on Fenway Park.



Thread rated: 4.43
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Players' music
Next thread: Roger Clemens thrown out of a Little League game
Previous thread: Simmons on Nomah's Departure.
(950 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Free agent Joe Kennedy died suddenly (sports.espn.go.com) at his in-laws' in Florida today. He was 28.
- drjayphd, Joe Kennedy (1979-2007) (2007)
Related threads: Yanks get a Loaiza, (a year too late) - Giambi has Benign tumor, goes on DL - Jason Giambi - More...
The W - Baseball - Yanks want to build a new stadium, and the other 29 teams will pay for itRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.115 seconds.