Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,407
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    It's where you work that usually indicates your state income tax, not where you live. This is why many players from visiting teams pay taxes to the visiting state.

    The jobs created add a lot more to the economy then just income tax.

    You should also account for the spending the players/employees and workers associated with the stadium fork out in the Minneapolis area. Sales tax for the city, property tax for the state along with profits for the local businesses.

    People having jobs is what makes a city tick. High income jobs are even that much better.
    That's not true. My good friend works in Connecticut but pays NY State taxes.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  2. #12
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,815
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mac D View Post
    That's not true. My good friend works in Connecticut but pays NY State taxes.
    I believe it does differ from state to state, but I think it is common to pay state income tax to the state in which you were employed. You may still need to file your resident state income, but there is commonly a credit given for your out of state taxes.

    Commuting to Another State For Work

    If you commute into another state to work, you may have to file a resident tax return in your home state and a nonresident tax return in your work state. On your resident tax return you would include all of your income, even the income you made in your work state. This is because most states tax a residentís income from all sources, even those from out of state. On your nonresident state tax return in your work state, you would only include the wages you made in that state. In most states, youíll be able to take a tax credit on your resident tax return for the taxes you paid to your work state.

  3. #13
    vikinggreg's Avatar
    vikinggreg is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    4,734
    Quote Originally Posted by tastywaves View Post
    It's where you work that usually indicates your state income tax, not where you live. This is why many players from visiting teams pay taxes to the visiting state.

    The jobs created add a lot more to the economy then just income tax.

    You should also account for the spending the players/employees and workers associated with the stadium fork out in the Minneapolis area. Sales tax for the city, property tax for the state along with profits for the local businesses.

    People having jobs is what makes a city tick. High income jobs are even that much better.
    That does get interesting, I remember about 10-15 years ago I think it was Alberta was going to try and tax NHL players that played games in Edmonton and Calgary (visitors) for the earnings of those games and some players started stating they played those games for free and made their money elsewhere

    I guess the flipside is many of the players that are trying to go after the league for long term injuries (concussions) are trying to do it through California's worker comp and had to have played or practise there during there career as the employee comp rules has a longer time frame for seeking compension for cumulative trauma...LINK

  4. #14
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275
    Each state is different, and every situation is unique, but in general if you are paid for work done in Minnesota you must file a minnesota tax return and pay taxes on all income earned in Minnesota.
    My understanding is that players pay Minnesota income tax on all game checkfor games in Minnesota(including apposing players), and all camp bonuses for attending training camp, and doing work in minnesota. Signing bonuses are often paid in the resident state(florida) to avoid paying state income tax.
    Then there are deductions for mortgage interest, charity, job expenses, investment expenses, retirement contributions, exemptions for kids and on and on.
    I honestly have no idea how much money the players pay to Minnesota in income taxes.

  5. #15
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    I like the part where the Metrodome generated $319.3 mil in tax revenue alone after initial public investments of only 33.6 mil too.


    I hope you also like the part that you failed to mention.:

    Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission Revenue Sources and Expenditures Generated by the
    Metrodome (all sporting and non-sporting events held at the Metrodome)
    So this shows the total revenue raised compared to the operating costs of the dome. This includes taxes on food, liquor, state and local taxes as well as income taxes.

    ē The total revenue derived from Metrodome events, tenants and other non-public sources since its
    inception through 2009 totals $476,200,000.
    That is a big number. In fact if you look at it without consideration to what the dome costs to operate that number looks damn good. But, just as I would love to only look at the revenue side of my business if I could ignore the expense side, reality is you need to look at them both. So lets look at the operating costs and see what we come up with.

    ē The total cost of operating the Metrodome through 2009 (including construction funding, debt service
    and capital improvements) has totaled approximately $509,800,000. These include:
    o Construction funding/
    debt service $ 186,400,000 36.6%
    o Capital Expenditures 72,300,000 14.2%
    o Other 5,700,000 1.1%
    o Operating Expenses 245,400,000 48.1%
    Total $ 509,800,000 100.0%
    Now, it looks like after you factor in the operating costs the revenues don't really look that good. Now, on top of that throw on another 1 billion dollars of debt ( And also understand that the numbers above include the dome having the gophers and Twins for the vast majority of that time) and please pencil in for me how the situation is going to improve. Heck, I want a new stadium and to keep the team here but I cannot just blindly accept speculative numbers that have no basis in fact. So, please show me the hard data on how the new stadium will be able to operate in the black.You do that and i am right there with you.

  6. #16
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    I hope you also like the part that you failed to mention.:


    So this shows the total revenue raised compared to the operating costs of the dome. This includes taxes on food, liquor, state and local taxes as well as income taxes.


    That is a big number. In fact if you look at it without consideration to what the dome costs to operate that number looks damn good. But, just as I would love to only look at the revenue side of my business if I could ignore the expense side, reality is you need to look at them both. So lets look at the operating costs and see what we come up with.



    Now, it looks like after you factor in the operating costs the revenues don't really look that good. Now, on top of that throw on another 1 billion dollars of debt ( And also understand that the numbers above include the dome having the gophers and Twins for the vast majority of that time) and please pencil in for me how the situation is going to improve. Heck, I want a new stadium and to keep the team here but I cannot just blindly accept speculative numbers that have no basis in fact. So, please show me the hard data on how the new stadium will be able to operate in the black.You do that and i am right there with you.
    Do you have hard fact numbers on operating costs for the dome for 2010 & 2011?

    While it's true that one would need to deduct revenue generated for the Twins & Gophers, One would also need to deduct the operating costs for when the twins & Gophers played there as well.

    The Twins alone utilized the dome a factor of 8 times more than the Vikings did So a major chunk of those operating expenses are a direct result of the Twins playing there. Do the math.

    Yet the greatest amount of the revenue generated was from the Vikings.
    Last edited by singersp; 04-25-2012 at 07:43 AM.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  7. #17
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Purple Floyd View Post
    Now, it looks like after you factor in the operating costs the revenues don't really look that good. Now, on top of that throw on another 1 billion dollars of debt ( And also understand that the numbers above include the dome having the gophers and Twins for the vast majority of that time) and please pencil in for me how the situation is going to improve. Heck, I want a new stadium and to keep the team here but I cannot just blindly accept speculative numbers that have no basis in fact. So, please show me the hard data on how the new stadium will be able to operate in the black.You do that and i am right there with you.
    To be fair, the stadium itself is NOT $1 billion. The proposed stadium bill is $945 million. I know that $55 million might seem insignificant to the overall picture, but it is still $55 million.

    Also, the bill does not just include the stadium. It also includes money for the Target Center, $1.3 million over 20 years for a St Paul Saints stadium, etc.

    Add to that the $415+ million that the Vikings are going to pay, and that brings the public contribution for the stadium down to much closer to $500 million. Still a lot of money, but not the $1 billion that you were claiming. Half of that in fact.

    You can't complain about people using speculative numbers for operating income with the numbers you are using for expenses have little basis in fact either.

    I don't have the hard numbers, nor do I expect to get them, so the best we can do is speculate at this time. Hopefully the people in the legislature are looking at these numbers. The report that you linked showed aggregate numbers, not current year numbers, so it is hard for us to extrapolate them to a 30 year projection, but we can try.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  8. #18
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by NodakPaul View Post
    To be fair, the stadium itself is NOT $1 billion. The proposed stadium bill is $945 million. I know that $55 million might seem insignificant to the overall picture, but it is still $55 million.
    To be fair I don't believe that number is cast in stone and to also be fair these projects never come in on budget so I will stick with my numbers thank you.

    Also, the bill does not just include the stadium. It also includes money for the Target Center, $1.3 million over 20 years for a St Paul Saints stadium, etc.
    So, go ahead and extract that amount, reformulate it and get back to me with the numbers that show it will cash flow. I have been waiting for that for years.



    Add to that the $415+ million that the Vikings are going to pay, and that brings the public contribution for the stadium down to much closer to $500 million. Still a lot of money, but not the $1 billion that you were claiming. Half of that in fact.
    Not really. I never said that the whole number was coming from the state. I merely stated that at that amount, no matter who pays it, the revenue created does not look like it is going to cover the costs. As I said before, feel free to throw some figures together for me that show what the costs will be, what the ticket prices will be and what the expenses will be based on your data. I am not unreasonable. Although I am not gullible wither....



    You can't complain about people using speculative numbers for operating income with the numbers you are using for expenses have little basis in fact either.
    Yeah, but I never claimed them as fact and even went so far a to point that out. If by chance you have a copy of the projections from Bagley and company by all means either pass them on or put the data together for me that shows how this is going to work.

    Just the point that we are 14 years into the process and the Vikings have yet to put any of these projections together just clarifies how incompetent bagley has been in the process. It is far easier to convince the state to go along with you if you show them the potential of the revenue. Show me the money Jerry- Show me the money lol.



    I don't have the hard numbers, nor do I expect to get them, so the best we can do is speculate at this time.
    And yet you call me out for speculating? At least I had the initiative to look at similar stadiums, what they cost, how many they seat and what they charge to get my data. While it is not my preferred method if you can get me some better numbers to work with I am all for it.

    Hopefully the people in the legislature are looking at these numbers.

    Which ones? The ones that show the dome cost more to operate that it generated in revenue or the ones for the new stadium that haven't been produced?

    The report that you linked showed aggregate numbers, not current year numbers, so it is hard for us to extrapolate them to a 30 year projection, but we can try.
    Well, if you want year by year numbers all you have to do is go to the states legislative website, look up the MSFC and they have the numbers for the dome for every year in PDF form. I have posted them many times in the past but since they all indicate the dome was negative in it's revenue after operating costs were considered it generally didn't get much of a response around here. But hey, the numbers are there for you to hash over.

  9. #19
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    Do you have hard fact numbers on operating costs for the dome for 2010 & 2011?

    While it's true that one would need to deduct revenue generated for the Twins & Gophers, One would also need to deduct the operating costs for when the twins & Gophers played there as well.

    The Twins alone utilized the dome a factor of 8 times more than the Vikings did So a major chunk of those operating expenses are a direct result of the Twins playing there. Do the math.

    Yet the greatest amount of the revenue generated was from the Vikings.
    Lol. I have posted those numbers several time in the past, well, maybe not 2011's because those numbers, if even available yet, are pretty fresh but if you think there is going to be some amazing change you will be disappointed. The revenue stream has dried up since the Twinkies and Gophers left so the dome is even less solvent than it usually was, which brings into question how that is going to be a good argument for a new stadium with only the Vikings as a tenant.

    You just need to go into newshound mode and look at the state legislature site and find the yearly operating reports for the MSFC. They will have all the information you could ever ask for.

  10. #20
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by singersp View Post
    Do you have hard fact numbers on operating costs for the dome for 2010 & 2011?
    Here is 2010. Not sure 2011 is out yet but you probably aren't going to like it.
    http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/...her/110632.pdf
    Representative Michael Beard, Chair
    Members of the Legislative Audit Commission
    Mr. Ted Mondale, Chair
    Members of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission
    Mr. William Lester, Executive Director
    Page 2
    The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Metropolitan
    Sports Facilities Commission will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the
    financial statements and further explained in Managementís Discussion and Analysis, due to the
    loss of two primary tenants, the Commission has had a significant reduction in total revenues and
    incurred an operating loss.
    The lone remaining major tenant is in the final year of its operating
    use agreement with the commission. These circumstances raise substantial doubt about the
    Commissionís ability to continue as a going concern in the future. The financial statements do
    not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.


    singersp While it's true that one would need to deduct revenue generated for the Twins & Gophers, One would also need to deduct the operating costs for when the twins & Gophers played there as well.
    You do realize that the greatest number of expenses are fixed don't you? The removal of the twins and gophers was not a positive one for the stadium in any way shape or form.


    singersp
    The Twins alone utilized the dome a factor of 8 times more than the Vikings did So a major chunk of those operating expenses are a direct result of the Twins playing there. Do the math.
    You math doesn't work very well for you in this case. many of the operating costs, as I indicated above are fixed and happen no matter how much it is used. There is no way that things get better by removing large chunks of revenue and hoping the bottom line gets better because there was less activity.


    singersp Yet the greatest amount of the revenue generated was from the Vikings.
    Well, guess what. Now ALL of the revenue has to be generated by the vikings. That is not a positive thing for your argument.


    METROPOLITAN SPORTS FACILITIES COMMISSION
    STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
    For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010
    Exhibit B
    12
    ili 2 917 287
    Operating revenues:
    Concessions $ 8,211,352
    Admission tax 4,810,211
    Rent 5,289,046
    Charges for services 940,332
    Advertising 295,458
    Parking 80,588
    Other 268,914
    Total operating revenues 19,895,901
    Operating expenses:
    Concession costs 4,509,914
    Tenants share of concession receipts 1,238,429
    Facilities cost credit 4,293,708
    Personal services 2,465,130
    Professional services 375,033
    Contractual services 2,260,888
    Audio-visual services 215,036
    Travel and meetings 20,178
    Supplies, repairs and maintenance 797,164
    Utilities 2,917,287
    Insurance 495,053
    Communications 70,378
    Facilities planning, research and public information 354,426
    Event costs 578,031
    Marketing and advertising 154,701
    Miscellaneous 76,855
    Depreciation 2,633,710
    Roof restoration costs 569,337
    Total operating expenses 24,025,258
    Total operating loss (4,129,357)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •