Author Topic: Ravens  (Read 21396 times)

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Ravens
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2015, 03:14:22 pm »

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Ravens
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2015, 03:16:12 pm »
Is my employer going to cover my terrible eyesight and shitty back for sitting on my ass for 30 years? I think not.

Desk job?

I always figured you worked at a retail store selling hydroponic growing equipment or operated a food truck selling free-range organic falafel.

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 11900
Re: Ravens
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2015, 03:16:26 pm »
Have you watched the Frontline about the "concussion stuff"?

Watch that and then say you're not with me.

I haven't seen it, but once again, when you're being paid to be crushed by a human being and end up with long term injuries and repercussions, I have no remorse.

Yada

  • Member
  • Posts: 11900
Re: Ravens
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2015, 03:17:21 pm »
Is my employer going to cover my terrible eyesight and shitty back for sitting on my ass for 30 years? I think not.

Desk job?

I always figured you worked at a retail store selling hydroponic growing equipment or operated a food truck selling free-range organic falafel.

My six foot dreads made you think that, huh?

Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT

  • Member
  • Posts: 28932
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Ravens
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2015, 03:35:35 pm »
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

How does this differ from the MLB anti-trust exemptions (and taxpayer funded ballparks)?
You know who else has this same non-profit status? The NHL. And the PGA/LPGA. And pro tennis. The sports leagues all have this (but the NBA), but it doesn't stop this chestnut from getting dusted off regularly about how "the NFL's 9 billion dollars isn't taxed," when really it is, except for the $10/mil or so the league office spends on NFL60/generic football promotion stuff.

MLB had the same exemption up until a few years ago when they voluntarily gave it up because writing that money off WAS BETTER FOR THEM.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 03:39:52 pm by Julian, Community ORGANIZER »
LVMH

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Ravens
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2015, 03:41:23 pm »
Is my employer going to cover my terrible eyesight and shitty back for sitting on my ass for 30 years? I think not.

Desk job?

I always figured you worked at a retail store selling hydroponic growing equipment or operated a food truck selling free-range organic falafel.

My six foot dreads made you think that, huh?

Totally.  I'm a big fan of judging books by covers.

K8teebug

  • Member
  • Posts: 4124
Re: Ravens
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2015, 03:53:04 pm »
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

How does this differ from the MLB anti-trust exemptions (and taxpayer funded ballparks)?
You know who else has this same non-profit status? The NHL. And the PGA/LPGA. And pro tennis. The sports leagues all have this (but the NBA), but it doesn't stop this chestnut from getting dusted off regularly about how "the NFL's 9 billion dollars isn't taxed," when really it is, except for the $10/mil or so the league office spends on NFL60/generic football promotion stuff.

MLB had the same exemption up until a few years ago when they voluntarily gave it up because writing that money off WAS BETTER FOR THEM.

Yes, those other organizations have the same exempt status. My guess is the NFL makes more than all of them combined.

And it's fine if the MLB gave it up because it was better for them. But, they still pay taxes.

I understand ballparks are a different story. And MLB has it's problems too. I'm not saying they don't. But, for me, and it was just my personal choice, I just couldn't watch NFL any longer. I lost my enthusiasm. I understand it's still the biggest sport in America. I don't think they miss me. But, I feel better not watching it. That's just me.

Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT

  • Member
  • Posts: 28932
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Ravens
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2015, 04:02:48 pm »
Yes, those other organizations have the same exempt status. My guess is the NFL makes more than all of them combined.
The thing you're not getting is "the NFL" doesn't make a lot of money. The 32 pro football teams that are represented by "the NFL" -- all of whom pay taxes individually -- make a lot of money.

When you're talking about "the NFL" that does not pay taxes, you're not talking about the teams; it is the league office, basically. Any money that comes into the league office is used to promote the industry of football -- basically the business of its 32 tax-paying member teams. The $9billion TV contract people hear about: "the NFL" doesn't get that, the 32 teams do and pay taxes on it.

This is exactly the same as a Chamber of Commerce taking in some money and using it to put out a cool brochure about local businesses. All the money coming into the CoC is used to promote a local industry, the members of which will then pay taxes on their increased business. It makes no sense to tax the CoC because it is not a for-profit entity. Similarly, "the NFL" head office is not - in and of itself - a for-profit entity. It exists to hope to maximize profits for its industry (the 32 teams) all of whom pay taxes.

And the amount of money "the NFL" has that it doesn't pay taxes on is by one recent estimate, less than $10million. Which is dwarfed by thousands of other non-profits.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2015, 04:07:28 pm by Julian, Community ORGANIZER »
LVMH

Re: Ravens
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2015, 08:49:48 pm »
My six foot dreads made you think that, huh?
can we say hyperbole
slack

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21782
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Ravens
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2015, 10:05:25 pm »
Obligatory pic of Brady's wife:

this is the true reason why people hate him.  he's talented, good looking, successful... and his wife is Gisele.

i'm a patriots fan, but when i read all that i start to hate him a little too.
<sig>

K8teebug

  • Member
  • Posts: 4124
Re: Ravens
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2015, 08:17:20 am »
Yes, those other organizations have the same exempt status. My guess is the NFL makes more than all of them combined.
The thing you're not getting is "the NFL" doesn't make a lot of money. The 32 pro football teams that are represented by "the NFL" -- all of whom pay taxes individually -- make a lot of money.

When you're talking about "the NFL" that does not pay taxes, you're not talking about the teams; it is the league office, basically. Any money that comes into the league office is used to promote the industry of football -- basically the business of its 32 tax-paying member teams. The $9billion TV contract people hear about: "the NFL" doesn't get that, the 32 teams do and pay taxes on it.

This is exactly the same as a Chamber of Commerce taking in some money and using it to put out a cool brochure about local businesses. All the money coming into the CoC is used to promote a local industry, the members of which will then pay taxes on their increased business. It makes no sense to tax the CoC because it is not a for-profit entity. Similarly, "the NFL" head office is not - in and of itself - a for-profit entity. It exists to hope to maximize profits for its industry (the 32 teams) all of whom pay taxes.

And the amount of money "the NFL" has that it doesn't pay taxes on is by one recent estimate, less than $10million. Which is dwarfed by thousands of other non-profits.

Seriously, under what rock do you live under that you thinkg "THE NFL" doesn't make any money?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/08/17/how-the-national-football-league-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/

Julian, Bespoke SEXPERT

  • Member
  • Posts: 28932
  • 11x MVP, 1st Posts, HoF, Certified Weblebrity
Re: Ravens
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2015, 09:47:10 am »
Yes, those other organizations have the same exempt status. My guess is the NFL makes more than all of them combined.
The thing you're not getting is "the NFL" doesn't make a lot of money. The 32 pro football teams that are represented by "the NFL" -- all of whom pay taxes individually -- make a lot of money.

When you're talking about "the NFL" that does not pay taxes, you're not talking about the teams; it is the league office, basically. Any money that comes into the league office is used to promote the industry of football -- basically the business of its 32 tax-paying member teams. The $9billion TV contract people hear about: "the NFL" doesn't get that, the 32 teams do and pay taxes on it.

This is exactly the same as a Chamber of Commerce taking in some money and using it to put out a cool brochure about local businesses. All the money coming into the CoC is used to promote a local industry, the members of which will then pay taxes on their increased business. It makes no sense to tax the CoC because it is not a for-profit entity. Similarly, "the NFL" head office is not - in and of itself - a for-profit entity. It exists to hope to maximize profits for its industry (the 32 teams) all of whom pay taxes.

And the amount of money "the NFL" has that it doesn't pay taxes on is by one recent estimate, less than $10million. Which is dwarfed by thousands of other non-profits.

Seriously, under what rock do you live under that you thinkg "THE NFL" doesn't make any money?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/08/17/how-the-national-football-league-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/
Come on, you're better at reading comprehension than this. "The NFL" -- again, the untaxed league office -- will not reach 25 billion in revenues. The 32 teams, when added together, may reach $25 billion in revenues. And those 32 teams all pay taxes at the same rate as anyone else. The ONLY thing tax exempt is the league office.

All that TV money and tickets sales and merchandise sales... that doesn't go to "the NFL," it is split up between the 32 tax paying corporations "the NFL" represents.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2015, 10:07:04 am by Julian, Community ORGANIZER »
LVMH

Cock Van Der Palm

  • Member
  • Posts: 1986
Re: Ravens
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2015, 06:09:14 pm »
Geez...all I said was "Go Ravens...carry on". 

shemptiness

  • Member
  • Posts: 3331
Re: Ravens
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2015, 07:14:15 pm »
Geez...all I said was "Go Ravens...carry on". 

troublemaker

Rogue Riderhood

  • Guest
Re: Ravens
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2015, 07:27:02 pm »