Occupy Ralph Wilson???

[MattF2000]

Am I reading the posted articles in correctly or are players only paying tax on these checks for the number of days they're in that city? That seemed to be how it was explained in the LA Times article. If it's only two days then it would seem the state or city gets a little bit of money but most of their income tax would still be paid where they spend 181 days of the year. This article seems to shwo that also http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/a-taxing-day-for-nfl-players.html

 

Thoughts?

 

I think the state generate a boat load of money from the Buffalo Bills and paying $100 million is well worth it. While one can easily argue that government should not be supporting private businesses, the fact is the states are competing with eachother for these teams. If one state is willing to provide similar or better stadium improvements/construction then New York has to compete to keep its sports teams. This is no different than a state providing businesses with tax incentives to come and set up shop in their state. NYS will make a profit on this deal. The writer is clueless.

[NoSaint]

Am I reading the posted articles in correctly or are players only paying tax on these checks for the number of days they're in that city? That seemed to be how it was explained in the LA Times article. If it's only two days then it would seem the state or city gets a little bit of money but most of their income tax would still be paid where they spend 181 days of the year. This article seems to shwo that also http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/a-taxing-day-for-nfl-players.html

 

Thoughts?

 

I think the state generate a boat load of money from the Buffalo Bills and paying $100 million is well worth it. While one can easily argue that government should not be supporting private businesses, the fact is the states are competing with eachother for these teams. If one state is willing to provide similar or better stadium improvements/construction then New York has to compete to keep its sports teams. This is no different than a state providing businesses with tax incentives to come and set up shop in their state. NYS will make a profit on this deal. The writer is clueless.

 

The one article is baseball - 3 day series is 3 game checks. They used days/games loosely if I remember correct.

 

As far as I know, you get 16 game checks- Which means 16 days work. I don't think you see different cash if you are cut Monday or Friday. It's about being on a roster Sunday.

Edited October 26, 2011 by NoSaint

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Am I reading the posted articles in correctly or are players only paying tax on these checks for the number of days they're in that city? That seemed to be how it was explained in the LA Times article. If it's only two days then it would seem the state or city gets a little bit of money but most of their income tax would still be paid where they spend 181 days of the year. This article seems to shwo that also http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/a-taxing-day-for-nfl-players.html

 

Thoughts?

 

Based on the following December 13, 2010 article (written by a tax partner in a Buffalo law firm) that gives specific examples under NY state tax law, I think you're correct about the 2/181 - - although my off-the-cuff guess is that total "duty days" for an NFL player might be closer to 210 than 181:

 

http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/Practice_Areas/Alphabetical_Listing/State_Local_Tax/NoonansNotes/TheMultistateTaxQuandaryForProfessionalAthletes

 

Many states have promulgated detailed regulations directed at allocating and apportioning the income of professional athletes. Under New York’s rules, for instance, the New York-source income of a nonresident individual who is a ‘‘member’’ of a ‘‘professional athletic team’’ is calculated by multiplying the athlete’s compensation for services rendered to the team by a fraction the numerator of which is the number of ‘‘duty days’’ spent rendering services in New York and the denominator of which is the total number of duty days spent rendering services everywhere.13 Duty days include all team work days, including practices, team meetings, training camp, and so on. The rules also apply to any employee of the team who travels with the team and performs services on a regular basis. That includes coaches, managers, and trainers. New York’s rules track the uniform rules recommended by the Federation of Tax Administrators and followed by most other states.14

 

Let’s look at a fairly simple example. On December 26 the Patriots are scheduled to square off with the Bills in Buffalo. Even though, given the Bills’ record, this may be a meaningless game in the standings, it will nonetheless have some consequences — tax consequences, to be exact! The Patriots’ players, many of whom may be residents of Massachusetts, normally pay taxes to Massachusetts. When they travel to Buffalo, each player, along with the coaches and trainers, will be treated as having earned income in New York on December 26. And assuming they get into town a couple days before the game, those pre-game days will also count as New York duty days. Accordingly, Tom Brady and Bill Belichick will be coughing up a portion of their salaries to pay up to New York on that day no matter who wins the game (stop laughing — the Bills could win). But the next time Ryan Fitzpatrick, C.J. Spiller, and Jairus Byrd take the field in Foxboro, they’ll be returning the favor to Massachusetts’s tax coffers, paying taxes on the percentage of time spent in the state on duty days.

 

For players who play in lots of different states, compliance is a real concern, because most states have a similar sort of duty day rule. Thus, professional athletes will generally be responsible for filing tax returns in perhaps a dozen or more states, and their tax returns will be as thick (and as difficult to follow) as a legal treatise. That makes compliance difficult and complex, to say the least. Some states, like New York, try to ease the administrative burdens by allowing nonresident athletes to elect to be included on a group-nonresident return filed by the team — as opposed to filing their own separate nonresident returns.15 Even so, professional athletes need the assistance of competent tax advisers.

 

One final note on these nonresident allocation issues: Often we’ve found creative ways to structure a player’s signing bonus to minimize the applicable state taxes. That has been increasingly important in recent years, because teams have tried to use signing bonuses both as a way to compensate star players and manipulate salary caps. The planning opportunity arises because many states have a rule like New Jersey’s, which restricts its ability to tax a nonresident’s signing bonus if some criteria are met. Under N.J. Admin. Code 18:35-5.1(b)(4)(iv), a signing bonus is not included in a nonresident’s taxable compensation if the payment of the signing bonus is not conditional on the signer playing any games for the team, or performing any subsequent services for the team, or even making the team; the signing bonus is payable separately from the salary and any other compensation; and the signing bonus is nonrefundable. Thus, if a player can structure a signing bonus to cover those criteria, he’ll get to keep a much bigger chunk of the bonus.

 

So if a "visiting" NFL player gets good tax advice, (1) he may not have to pay NY state income tax on any of his signing bonus if he maintains his domicile in FL, TX, TN, WA or NV, and (2) he may need to pay NY state income tax on about 1% of his base salary.

 

So even though 2 teams play each game at RWS, players on the visiting team pay a lot less in NY state income taxes than the Bills players do for the same game.

Edited October 26, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[billsfreak]

Weird. So that's what he meant by "HALF the earnings are taxable in NYS"? That seems fishy to me. If I (mere working man) work in PA and am sent to a site visit in OH for a week, I don't pay OH taxes...

 

I'd be curious to know what they do for the London and Toronto games.

Not sure about the Canadian games, but I do remember hearing years ago that a big reason why players didn't want to sign with the Expos or Bluejays in MLB was because of the high taxes. Maybe NYS is pissed at Ralphy Boy for moving a game to Canada, he gets the extra millions for his pockets and NYS loses one game worth of income tax?

[Cereal]

Not sure about the Canadian games, but I do remember hearing years ago that a big reason why players didn't want to sign with the Expos or Bluejays in MLB was because of the high taxes. Maybe NYS is pissed at Ralphy Boy for moving a game to Canada, he gets the extra millions for his pockets and NYS loses one game worth of income tax?

Welp, the Wilson article "ripping Toronto" cites the following:

 

Aside from the lack of fan support, Wilson also noted the players pay an additional Canadian tax - over and above a New York state tax - to play in Toronto.

http://nationalpost.stats.com/fb/story.asp?i=20111026131634782764508

 

And I agreed initially that NYS may be pissed at Ralphie boy for taking away the cincome tax for one game, but let's look roughly at the numbers:

 

Bills' total payroll is around the median, $111M. The personal income tax is around 8%

 

The taxes the state gets for the one game a year would be ~$111M/team/year * 2 teams/game / 16 games/year * ~0.08 = ~$1.11M

 

Is that ~$1.11M a lot of money to the state? I don't know.

 

EDIT: That Salary link is from 2009 apparently. So it could be a bit more than that now.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Cereal

[Mr. WEO]

NYS will make a profit on this deal. The writer is clueless.

Is NYS making a profit on all the tax money they take from the Bills now?--without 100 million in stadium refurbishment? NO! They spend every penny that comes in--from you, me, the Bills. All that player income tax from this year, next year, 2013---it's already been spent. It's gone.

 

So how can they make "a profit" if they are bringing in the same amount in taxes from the Bills (and me and you) AND they have to give 100 million back to the Bills in the form of a newer stadium? Where did that extra 100 mil come from?

 

Clueless?

[Sanners]

That's CRAZY! PA is around 3% falt rate.

But who wants to live in the commonwealth of pennsyltucky!!!

[Cereal]

Is NYS making a profit on all the tax money they take from the Bills now?--without 100 million in stadium refurbishment? NO! They spend every penny that comes in--from you, me, the Bills. All that player income tax from this year, next year, 2013---it's already been spent. It's gone.

 

So how can they make "a profit" if they are bringing in the same amount in taxes from the Bills (and me and you) AND they have to give 100 million back to the Bills in the form of a newer stadium? Where did that extra 100 mil come from?

 

Clueless?

The answer people are stating is that: without the $100M, the stadium is not good enough to support the team, and the Bills will have to move out of Buffalo.

[weehawk]

Oh boy. Here we go again. Sports teams generate so much income for the State that taxpayers should be glad to hand over their money to support them. blah blah.

 

Let's think about it and use the Bills as an example...

 

The Bills leave and...

 

1) Everyone stops drinking

2) No one drives anywhere anymore

3) Economic activity in the State is devastated by the loss of Bills merchandise sales

 

There have been tons of well-researched articles that show that the economic benefits of sports teams do NOT offset huge investments by State governments in said teams. i.e., http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

 

It's real simple...Joe Six-pack has X amount of dollars to spare on Bills-related spending every year. The Bills leave and he simply spends his money on other things. He still drives. He still drinks. He buys Sabres merch instead, etc, etc. Disposable income will be spent regardless of whether it's on a sports team, on trips to NYC, or on a new car. The only counter-argument is if Joe starts taking out-of-state vacations with that money and NY loses out.

 

This is exactly what people like RW want you to believe. Take care of me or else I'll take the team away and your economy will be devastated. BS people! The only people that truly get screwed are the part-time vendors at the stadium. Labatts will still sell tons of beer and Sahlens will still sell tons of hot dogs. If your job is not impacted, then you still have the same amount of money you had before they left and you will spend that money on something else if not the Bills.

 

Start insisting on accountability from your State govt or else the economy of the State will be devastated and not from the loss of the Bills. On a side note, I agree that the State needs to invest "some" money on stadium upkeep. However, $50-$100 million is not upkeep. It's improvements.

 

 

 

It isn't just the income tax on the players. It is the full slate of economic activity generated by the Bills that makes the $100 million more than worth it for the state. Sales taxes, gas taxes, alcohol taxes etc all produce revenue for the state. Most of the folks talking on the radio just repeat tired old talking points which are often devoid of hard facts. Don't listen to them any more as I get too frustrated when there is a lack of facts in the discussion.

[NoSaint]

Oh boy. Here we go again. Sports teams generate so much income for the State that taxpayers should be glad to hand over their money to support them. blah blah.

 

Let's think about it and use the Bills as an example...

 

The Bills leave and...

 

1) Everyone stops drinking

2) No one drives anywhere anymore

3) Economic activity in the State is devastated by the loss of Bills merchandise sales

 

There have been tons of well-researched articles that show that the economic benefits of sports teams do NOT offset huge investments by State governments in said teams. i.e., http://www.fieldofschemes.com/

 

It's real simple...Joe Six-pack has X amount of dollars to spare on Bills-related spending every year. The Bills leave and he simply spends his money on other things. He still drives. He still drinks. He buys Sabres merch instead, etc, etc. Disposable income will be spent regardless of whether it's on a sports team, on trips to NYC, or on a new car. The only counter-argument is if Joe starts taking out-of-state vacations with that money and NY loses out.

 

This is exactly what people like RW want you to believe. Take care of me or else I'll take the team away and your economy will be devastated. BS people! The only people that truly get screwed are the part-time vendors at the stadium. Labatts will still sell tons of beer and Sahlens will still sell tons of hot dogs. If your job is not impacted, then you still have the same amount of money you had before they left and you will spend that money on something else if not the Bills.

 

Start insisting on accountability from your State govt or else the economy of the State will be devastated and not from the loss of the Bills. On a side note, I agree that the State needs to invest "some" money on stadium upkeep. However, $50-$100 million is not upkeep. It's improvements.

 

The other things being of course out of state revenue coming in, and publicity for the city.

 

I don't claim to know figures, but will admit it's a pretty complex equation.

[Mr. WEO]

The answer people are stating is that: without the $100M, the stadium is not good enough to support the team, and the Bills will have to move out of Buffalo.

The stadium has been good enough to support the team since the last renovation in the late 90's. What has changed since then that would make the Bills "have to move out of Buffalo"?

 

Even Jacksonville's owner ponied up 30 mil to help with remodeling before he signed a 27 year new lease on his stadium. Why can't the Bills toss the taxpayers a bit here? Ralph has this money in his pocket right now--why won't he invest in his businesses future in Buffalo just a tiny bit?

[Meark]

"I haven’t been to a game at the Ralph in probably 10 years. But, from what I remember about the place, it’s a perfectly fine venue at which to watch a football game. " - Bob Confer

 

He hasn't been to the Ralph in a decade but yet he believes the stadium doesn't need upgrades. What a tard. But hey, he's gonna get a lot of traffic because of his purported stance on the issue.

 

Dude must have been like 14 last time he went there.. he looks like he just graduated from college.

[weehawk]

Absolutely. There are intangibles. I have no issue with keeping the place up in order to keep the team viable. I just think it's obvious that RW is playing up the City's love for the Bills to get more than is needed.

 

Let's keep the infrastructure sound. Let's improve the bathrooms. I'm even for adding permanent bathrooms to the tailgating scene. However, basic infra, and inside and outside toilets dont come close to costing $50-$100 mil. I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of what they intend to do. Either way, they want improvements that go far beyond the basics to keep the place in decent shape.

 

LET'S GO BILLS!!

 

 

 

The other things being of course out of state revenue coming in, and publicity for the city.

 

I don't claim to know figures, but will admit it's a pretty complex equation.

[BiggieScooby]

To me Ralph should be able to qualify for an insanely low construction bond with a low interest rate and finance this on his own. But if the NYS tax payers finance we can force the Bills into a long-term lease with a high lease break clause. It makes sense to go all in the tax-payer financed route given Ralph's age.

[weehawk]

You're right. If you've never read the Field of Schemes site, you should check it out. There are tons of examples of billionaires trying to fleece the public to finance sports buildings based on the argument that they fill government coffers for the benefit of all. They dont.

 

I'm not some radical hippie. I'm a sports fan and a season ticket holder. I believe in the community spirit of sports and I'm willing to pay my fair share. However, I think the veil has been pulled back and the time has come to call the bluff of these guys. The days of blackmailing cities is over. Where will the Bills go? Toronto? LA? HA!. LA cant get a stadium built and the NFL wont give TO a team unless they commit to a new building. Aint gonna happen in my opinion.

 

Let's take the NHL. I suppose Hamilton would steal the Sabres in a heartbeat. But where else? Quebec? No arena. KC? Yeah, right. Portland? Come on.

 

The NBA. OMG, that league is in trouble with what they have now.

 

MLB? Where? That league is maxed out. Oakland plays in a dump and Tampa is a playoff team with the worst attendance in the league. They're toast.

 

I have no agenda. I dont work in a union and I dont work for the govt. I say F**k RW. If BUF is not good enough, leave. Take all of the EXPENSES that go with the team with you. That's right. It costs us money to keep that stadium going year round and on game days.

 

Look, I know it's fun. I get it. But it's not worth the money compared to so many other UPSTATE needs. F**K downstate. Time to put State money into upstate that will make a difference. $100 mil for RWS? I dont think so.

 

Vote none of the above in 2011/2012.

 

 

 

To me Ralph should be able to qualify for an insanely low construction bond with a low interest rate and finance this on his own. But if the NYS tax payers finance we can force the Bills into a long-term lease with a high lease break clause. It makes sense to go all in the tax-payer financed route given Ralph's age.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

And I agreed initially that NYS may be pissed at Ralphie boy for taking away the cincome tax for one game, but let's look roughly at the numbers:

 

Bills' total payroll is around the median, $111M. The personal income tax is around 8%

 

The taxes the state gets for the one game a year would be ~$111M/team/year * 2 teams/game / 16 games/year * ~0.08 = ~$1.11M

 

Is that ~$1.11M a lot of money to the state? I don't know.

 

EDIT: That Salary link is from 2009 apparently. So it could be a bit more than that now.

I realize that the above calculations are intended to be just a "rough" look at the numbers, but I think you've made several assumptions that make even the $1.11 million figure too high.

 

If we limit the analysis to just income taxes, and use this week's game against the Redskins as a concrete example, then there are three categories of player salaries involved:

 

1. Bills players who are considered residents of NY state for tax purposes;

 

2. Bills players who are considered residents of some other state for tax purposes; and

 

3. Redskins players, all of whom I will assume are residents of some state other than NY for tax purposes.

 

For each category, how much income tax will NY state lose this year because the Redskins game is being played in Toronto rather than in Orchard Park?

 

Category 1:

 

Any Bills player who makes his "permanent" home in NY state falls in this category. But so does any Bills player who rents a house or apartment in NY state and spends more than 183 days in NY state during the calendar year:

 

http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/Practice_Areas/Alphabetical_Listing/State_Local_Tax/NoonansNotes/TheMultistateTaxQuandaryForProfessionalAthletes

 

The first issue to arise is residency. We all know that a state can tax its residents on all their income. And if you’re a regular reader of this column, you know that it is difficult to determine where an individual resides for income tax purposes.1 The primary determination of residency is where an individual is domiciled, or in layperson’s terms, where an individual’s permanent home is located.2 An individual may have multiple residences, but he can have only one domicile.

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

Under New York’s rules, an individual who is not domiciled in New York still can be taxed as a resident if he maintains a ‘‘permanent place of abode’’ within the state (which includes any type of dwelling, whether rented, owned, shared, and so on) and spends more than 183 days in New York.5 This is a two-part test, and both elements must be satisfied.

 

So how are the NY state income taxes of Bills players who fall in category 1 affected by moving the Redskins game to Toronto?

 

Arguably, not at all.

 

http://www.hodgsonruss.com/Home/Practice_Areas/Alphabetical_Listing/State_Local_Tax/NoonansNotes/TheInsandOutsofNewYorkNonresidentAllocationIssues

 

The tax computation for New York residents is simple. Residents are taxable on one thing: everything. Nonresidents, however, can be taxed only on income that is derived from or connected to New York sources.

 

So the category 1 guys may see no change in the NY state income taxes they are required to pay, even though the game is played in Canada.

 

Hypothetically, if the Redskins game had been moved to Erie, PA, the category 1 Bills players would have to pay some income tax to PA and would then get a dollar-for-dollar credit for such PA taxes on their NY returns. Is there a similar dollar-for-dollar credit for Canadian taxes? I don't know, but maybe not. Uniformity of tax treatment between NY and Ontario seems less likely than unformity of tax treatment between 2 US states. And does the province of Ontario (as opposed to the Canadian national government) even have an income tax? I don't know. If the extra Canadian tax mentioned by George Wilson is imposed at the Canadian federal level, I could see how NY state might tell George Wilson (if he falls in Category 1) to seek a dollar-for-dollar credit on his US federal taxes, not his NY state taxes.

 

Category 2:

 

The Bills players in this category pay NY state income taxes based on how many "duty days" they spend in NY state. The total number of duty days for the year remains unchanged at let's say 180 days. Moving the Redskins game from Orchard Park to Toronto means these players will spend maybe 2 "duty days" in Canada that they would otherwise have spent in NY. So these players will have to report 2/180 or just over 1% less income to NY.

 

Category 3:

Redskins players will avoid paying NY state income tax at all, because they will have no "duty days" in NY state. But even if the game was played in Orchard Park, the Redskins players would probably have no more than 3 duty days in NY, so they only would have had to report 3/180 or less than 2% of their annual salary as NY income anyway.

[JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS]

But who wants to live in the commonwealth of pennsyltucky!!!

one reason I've stayed Navy . . .

[benderbender]

VA is also a commonwealth. Meaning its common that the government takes your wealth

[8-8 Forever?]

Practically speaking, half the earnings are taxable in NYS. Believe it or not, players must file state income taxes for each state in which they play throughout the course of the season.

And NYS income tax rate is around 10% , not 20%. However the point is made. 150m payroll times 1/2 times 10% is still $7.5m per year just in income tax. Add in the income tax and sales tax from everyone around the team and in the stands and you get to 100m easily over a few years...

[Hammered a Lot]

Absolutely. There are intangibles. I have no issue with keeping the place up in order to keep the team viable. I just think it's obvious that RW is playing up the City's love for the Bills to get more than is needed.

 

Let's keep the infrastructure sound. Let's improve the bathrooms. I'm even for adding permanent bathrooms to the tailgating scene. However, basic infra, and inside and outside toilets dont come close to costing $50-$100 mil. I'd like to see a detailed breakdown of what they intend to do. Either way, they want improvements that go far beyond the basics to keep the place in decent shape.

 

LET'S GO BILLS!!

Bathrooms in the parking lots! When it gets cold they will be packed with "heat seekers". I hope they make them a $$$$ makes charging for per use, selling naming rights per stall. Don't forget now you will have added "game day cost", paid by Erie County, of an restroom attendant. Added cost of maintence, ,repairs , etc. Don't forget to tip the attendant! They will be a "waste" of money.