The plan backfired

JnC4GB wrote:Great, now I'm horny. 

JnC4GB wrote:Y'know, I think I've shown many times in the past I have no problem expressing butthurt. When I choose to bitch and whine I own it...and will take whatever shit comes my way. I put it out there after all. 


But this ain't about me or my feelings..
It ain't about ME.

It's simply my take on what's right and what's wrong AND how it will ultimately play out. In reality, you and now, especially, MB seem to be the guys with throbbing nerves screaming in pain about this issue.

Here's another thing, in the MANY posts we've had on this issue I can't remember even one time attacking your character over it. God knows, it is an issue in which I could have...

Just because you and MB disagree with me about this doesn't mean I think you are assholes (knew that already ), we just disagree over the things we think are more important than others.

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Y'know, I think I've shown many times in the past I have no problem expressing butthurt. When I choose to bitch and whine I own it...and will take whatever shit comes my way. I put it out there after all. 


But this ain't about me or my feelings..
It ain't about ME.

It's simply my take on what's right and what's wrong AND how it will ultimately play out. In reality, you and now, especially, MB seem to be the guys with throbbing nerves screaming in pain about this issue.

Here's another thing, in the MANY posts we've had on this issue I can't remember even one time attacking your character over it. God knows, it is an issue in which I could have...

Just because you and MB disagree with me about this doesn't mean I think you are assholes (knew that already ), we just disagree over the things we think are more important than others.

Chill, JnC.  You still have a lot of slack on this board.  Wait until MB calls you a condescending prick and then you'll know you've really hit a nerve.    

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Y'know, I think I've shown many times in the past I have no problem expressing butthurt. When I choose to bitch and whine I own it...and will take whatever shit comes my way. I put it out there after all. 


But this ain't about me or my feelings..
It ain't about ME.

It's simply my take on what's right and what's wrong AND how it will ultimately play out. In reality, you and now, especially, MB seem to be the guys with throbbing nerves screaming in pain about this issue.

Here's another thing, in the MANY posts we've had on this issue I can't remember even one time attacking your character over it. God knows, it is an issue in which I could have...

Just because you and MB disagree with me about this doesn't mean I think you are assholes (knew that already ), we just disagree over the things we think are more important than others.

Chill, JnC.  You still have a lot of slack on this board.  Wait until MB calls you a condescending prick and then you'll know you've really hit a nerve.    

Pearl-clutching is so innocuous... especially when it's so damned reflexive

duck wrote:

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Y'know, I think I've shown many times in the past I have no problem expressing butthurt. When I choose to bitch and whine I own it...and will take whatever shit comes my way. I put it out there after all. 


But this ain't about me or my feelings..
It ain't about ME.

It's simply my take on what's right and what's wrong AND how it will ultimately play out. In reality, you and now, especially, MB seem to be the guys with throbbing nerves screaming in pain about this issue.

Here's another thing, in the MANY posts we've had on this issue I can't remember even one time attacking your character over it. God knows, it is an issue in which I could have...

Just because you and MB disagree with me about this doesn't mean I think you are assholes (knew that already ), we just disagree over the things we think are more important than others.

Chill, JnC.  You still have a lot of slack on this board.  Wait until MB calls you a condescending prick and then you'll know you've really hit a nerve.    

Pearl-clutching is so innocuous... especially when it's so damned reflexive

Great.  Not only am I a condescending prick but a pearl clutcher too.

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

MB20 wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Y'know, I think I've shown many times in the past I have no problem expressing butthurt. When I choose to bitch and whine I own it...and will take whatever shit comes my way. I put it out there after all. 


But this ain't about me or my feelings..
It ain't about ME.

It's simply my take on what's right and what's wrong AND how it will ultimately play out. In reality, you and now, especially, MB seem to be the guys with throbbing nerves screaming in pain about this issue.

Here's another thing, in the MANY posts we've had on this issue I can't remember even one time attacking your character over it. God knows, it is an issue in which I could have...

Just because you and MB disagree with me about this doesn't mean I think you are assholes (knew that already ), we just disagree over the things we think are more important than others.

Chill, JnC.  You still have a lot of slack on this board.  Wait until MB calls you a condescending prick and then you'll know you've really hit a nerve.    

Pearl-clutching is so innocuous... especially when it's so damned reflexive

Great.  Not only am I a condescending prick but a pearl clutcher too.

No, you condescending prick, JnC is the pearl-clutcher.  

JnC4GB wrote:Tell you what, I'll just give you my pearl necklace.

_HD_ wrote:

MB20 wrote:Ugh... maybe I'm on the wrong side of history, but IMO this is the biggest bunch of politically correct horseshit to come down the pike in a long, long time. 

Let's say they do manage to get the name of the franchise changed. What does that actually do to improve the day-to-day reality of many poor, disenfranchised Native Americans? Nothing. From a political standpoint, this is just another of a long, long line of things that feckless, stand-for-nothing Democrats "do" to make it appear that they are actually accomplishing something. Don't worry about shit like the economy or effectively dealing with the criminals on Wall Street or fixing the clusterfuck that Obamacare predictably became- just grandstand a little more because THAT is what the country really needs right now. I fucking hate that party with the heat of a thousand suns. Useless fucking dicks.

And assholes like Florio and Peter King should just get fucked already. What a couple of self-important douchebags. And, like the Democrats whose cause they so fervently back, they are a couple of do-nothing jerkoffs, too. What are they actually doing to improve the day-to-day lives of Native Americans? Writing about how offensive the name of a fucking football team is? Florio should go back to making up stories about how Aaron Rodgers hates cancer patients, and King would be better off writing about his travel and coffee experiences as if anyone gave a shit about them.

Plus, like Snyder and the name of his football team or not, he bought the Redskins' brand when he bought the team. I don't know exactly you can compensate him monetarily for what is such an integral part of his investment. Also, why after decades of the team being the Redskins is the name all of a sudden so offensive? The name hasn't been used as a racial slur in decades.

So, so much about this strikes a raw nerve with me.

Speaking of Donald Sterling--his botex not workin' bimbo did him the grandest of favors by releasing that tape.  $2 BILLION dollars for the Clippers...  Are you fucking kidding me?!!  4X the highest amount the next highest NBA franchise has ever sold for ($500M--Milwaukee Bucks)...  But that's not even the best part.  The best part is he has very astutely put his wife in control of the sale which he, due to the $$$$, is privately geeked over but publicly opposes.  Why?  Forced Sale provision dictates that a full one-half of the sale price is sheltered from the capital gains calculation under a forced sale.  He'll put up a half-assed fight to protect the provision--then relent.  In reality, this is the best fucking thing that could have ever happened to him.  He was probably awake at night wondering how he could ever shelter his heirs from the inheritance tax that would have prevented them from keeping the asset.  Interestingly--that is why Jack Kent Cooke's heirs had to sell the 'skins to Dannyboy to begin with upon his death.

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

JnC4GB wrote:HD, stop being obtuse. "Precendent"? "Jurisprudence"? C'mon man...No way, no how does this ever end up in the court system (barring some tribe trying to get bank in civil court).

And fuck Goodell and the flunky they trotted out you posted on here about. Goodell does what the owners say. He is their employee. He's just a flack doing what he has been instructed.

Bottom line is if, no excuse me, WHEN this thing escalates into something that causes negative monetary effect (even hypothetically) on the League the other owners will give Goodell his marching orders. And there you are correct: Danny will get his money.

We are simply one protesting old tribal chieftan getting pepper sprayed and clubbed in front of the stadium on game day from everything turning on a dime. Dems the facts, Jack.

Whether you like it or not.

_HD_ wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

 I'm guessing by your failure to respond--that you have nothing more to support your position on this than the NFL does in forcing a name change, eh Duck?   

JnC4GB wrote:HD, stop being obtuse. "Precendent"? "Jurisprudence"? C'mon man...No way, no how does this ever end up in the court system (barring some tribe trying to get bank in civil court).

And fuck Goodell and the flunky they trotted out you posted on here about. Goodell does what the owners say. He is their employee. He's just a flack doing what he has been instructed.

Bottom line is if, no excuse me, WHEN this thing escalates into something that causes negative monetary effect (even hypothetically) on the League the other owners will give Goodell his marching orders. And there you are correct: Danny will get his money.

We are simply one protesting old tribal chieftan getting pepper sprayed and clubbed in front of the stadium on game day from everything turning on a dime. Dems the facts, Jack.

Whether you like it or not.

Jesus man--look up into the sky and you'll see the plume of the point streaking over your daft bony ass, Clifford...    

The credible threat of legal action can be VERY effective leverage to compel other's to comply with your wishes--BUT YOU NEED TO MANEUVER YOURSELF INTO A POSITION FIRST where you hold credible legal leverage.  For example, I've spent the better of the past three days in negotiation on a real estate deal primarily leveraging nothing but the implied threat of legal action.  That leverage has resulted so far in about a $40,000 swing in $$$ from their side to my side of the ledger for something they don't even want to do to begin with...and guess what?  I'll be unavailable this evening to discuss it further to extract yet another sleepless night out of this asshole.   The league has ZERO of this.  Dannyboy has 100--if it ever comes to legal posturing.      

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

 I'm guessing by your failure to respond--that you have nothing more to support your position on this than the NFL does in forcing a name change, eh Duck?   

You raise a valid point, HD.  Snyder will no doubt get a sweet payoff in this.  I've always acknowledged that.

However I stick my my central point that political -- and more importantly, economic -- pressure on the NFL will induce them to pressure/negotiate with Snyder to change the name.

It's gonna happen.  The question is when and how.  You're too astute not to realize that.  Stop being so stubborn about it.

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

 I'm guessing by your failure to respond--that you have nothing more to support your position on this than the NFL does in forcing a name change, eh Duck?   

You raise a valid point, HD.  Snyder will no doubt get a sweet payoff in this.  I've always acknowledged that.

However I stick my my central point that political -- and more importantly, economic -- pressure on the NFL will induce them to pressure/negotiate with Snyder to change the name.

It's gonna happen.  The question is when and how.  You're too astute not to realize that.  Stop being so stubborn about it.

If you're shifting your position to now arguing that the name could be changed because eventually the league could make it in Dannyboy's financial best interests to do so...then we have no debate.  You, however, were initially arguing that the league could somehow COMPEL a change of the name (like the NBA compelled action from Sterling)--and that, as I've detailed, just isn't in play here...

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

 I'm guessing by your failure to respond--that you have nothing more to support your position on this than the NFL does in forcing a name change, eh Duck?   

You raise a valid point, HD.  Snyder will no doubt get a sweet payoff in this.  I've always acknowledged that.

However I stick my my central point that political -- and more importantly, economic -- pressure on the NFL will induce them to pressure/negotiate with Snyder to change the name.

It's gonna happen.  The question is when and how.  You're too astute not to realize that.  Stop being so stubborn about it.

If you're shifting your position to now arguing that the name could be changed because eventually the league could make it in Dannyboy's financial best interests to do so...then we have no debate.  You, however, were initially arguing that the league could somehow COMPEL a change of the name (like the NBA compelled action from Sterling)--and that, as I've detailed, just isn't in play here...

Let's just call it that.  I prefer to pick and choose my battles and this is one I am not heavily invested in.

In any case, let's just sit back and watch what happens.  I guarantee you that, however it plays out, the Washington Redskins will have a new name within a couple of years.

I smell a good *C* note bet to help you overcome the one you lost by not backing up your resolve on Randy this last time around...     

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:Anyone up for some pancakes?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sometimes the entire culture evolves, and as people who exist within the culture, we evolve along with it. The evolution can be seismic—making films with derisive attitudes toward women, gay people, or minorities less palatable, for example.

Duck was correct in saying that it's "only a matter of time." 
Whether you choose to be out in front of it, go along with it when it occurs, or to stand on your porch, shaking your fist and yelling at kids to get off your lawn is entirely up to you.

Change can be difficult to accept, especially when it is forced upon us. It's why I always try to keep this Bob Dylan line in mind: Those not busy being born are busy dying.

Old dogs CAN learn new tricks, my friends.

You make a good point about cultures evolving, JnC.  The mindset of Americans is completely different in 2014 than it was in 1914 (before the advent of WW 1) and no doubt will be completely different in 2114.  Our perceptions of women and minorities, for example, have changed dramatically since the post-Teddy Roosevelt era.  It's entirely possible that in 2114 white Americans will be a scorned minority group.

As I've said many times before, I do not see the compelling need to change the name of the Redskins.  I don't think the term is meant in a derogatory sense and the graphics on the team logo are dignified and in no way insulting or provocative.  (In contrast, I feel the Cleveland Indians' logo is indeed a racist caricature.)  Many Native Americans have no issue with the name of the Washington Redskins and if Snyder is throwing some money at Indian causes, where's the beef?  Much ado about nothing, IMHO.

Having said that, I also don't understand the rigid RESISTANCE to change the name.  Teams move to different cities all the time and often change names in the process.  Uniform changes are a dime a dozen.  What's the big deal about changing the name from the Redskins to the Bravehearts or whatever?  Especially if the NFL picks up the tab for any related marketing costs and throws a few extra dollars in Snyder's pocket.

Is this where you draw the line in the sand??  I think not.

Rightly or wrongly, Snyder is going to be pressured into making the change.  
Really?  I must have missed something, Duck...  Just exactly how might they go about that and prevail?  What force of leverage do they have to *pressure* Dannyboy realistically?

I think he should just negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL... and just get on with it.

Again--you've got it all backwards...  Negotiate the best deal he can from the NFL?  Dannyboy doesn't have anything he needs to be proactive about negotiating.  His position is from a footing of strength--the precedent...the status quo...  Can't you see the NFL has zero--ZIPPO--nada.  Why? 80 years of precedent...and the whole foundation of american jurisprudence is founded on precedent.  Dannyboy will hold out until the NFL sweetens it's offer over and over if it's that important to them.  It's like money in the bank to him.  Finally, at some point, Dannyboy will score his number and possibly relent--of course being outwardly packaged as *sacrificing for the right and better way* thus scoring all the goodwill and political capital he can with it, but no mistake...Dannyboy doesn't do anything in business that doesn't make the ass cheek tingle that presses against his wallet in the ass of his pants...     

Maybe in 2114 he can rename the team to the Whiteskins.  

 I'm guessing by your failure to respond--that you have nothing more to support your position on this than the NFL does in forcing a name change, eh Duck?   

You raise a valid point, HD.  Snyder will no doubt get a sweet payoff in this.  I've always acknowledged that.

However I stick my my central point that political -- and more importantly, economic -- pressure on the NFL will induce them to pressure/negotiate with Snyder to change the name.

It's gonna happen.  The question is when and how.  You're too astute not to realize that.  Stop being so stubborn about it.

If you're shifting your position to now arguing that the name could be changed because eventually the league could make it in Dannyboy's financial best interests to do so...then we have no debate.  You, however, were initially arguing that the league could somehow COMPEL a change of the name (like the NBA compelled action from Sterling)--and that, as I've detailed, just isn't in play here...

Let's just call it that.  I prefer to pick and choose my battles and this is one I am not heavily invested in.

In any case, let's just sit back and watch what happens.  I guarantee you that, however it plays out, the Washington Redskins will have a new name within a couple of years.

I smell a good *C* note bet to help you overcome the one you lost by not backing up your resolve on Randy this last time around...     


Two years from today--June 3, 2016, I'll say the name of the team is still officially the Washington Redskins.  Say we're on...

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:HD, stop being obtuse. "Precendent"? "Jurisprudence"? C'mon man...No way, no how does this ever end up in the court system (barring some tribe trying to get bank in civil court).

And fuck Goodell and the flunky they trotted out you posted on here about. Goodell does what the owners say. He is their employee. He's just a flack doing what he has been instructed.

Bottom line is if, no excuse me, WHEN this thing escalates into something that causes negative monetary effect (even hypothetically) on the League the other owners will give Goodell his marching orders. And there you are correct: Danny will get his money.

We are simply one protesting old tribal chieftan getting pepper sprayed and clubbed in front of the stadium on game day from everything turning on a dime. Dems the facts, Jack.

Whether you like it or not.

Jesus man--look up into the sky and you'll see the plume of the point streaking over your daft bony ass, Clifford...    


The point is LEVERAGE...as in NOBODY HAS ANY to force shit upon Dannyboy.  The play on leverage of the courts here is not the league or anyone else initiating a credible action in the courts to compel desired action by Dannyboy, BUT DANNYBOY USING IT IN LEVERAGE TO THWART any unilateral action taken by the league--as such a move would be baseless and contrary to precedent.  


The credible threat of legal action can be VERY effective leverage to compel other's to comply with your wishes--BUT YOU NEED TO MANEUVER YOURSELF INTO A POSITION FIRST where you hold credible legal leverage.  For example, I've spent the better of the past three days in negotiation on a real estate deal primarily leveraging nothing but the implied threat of legal action.  That leverage has resulted so far in about a $40,000 swing in $$$ from their side to my side of the ledger for something they don't even want to do to begin with...and guess what?  I'll be unavailable this evening to discuss it further to extract yet another sleepless night out of this asshole.   The league has ZERO of this.  Dannyboy has 100--if it ever comes to legal posturing.      

PackFanKnowItAll wrote:

_HD_ wrote:

JnC4GB wrote:HD, stop being obtuse. "Precendent"? "Jurisprudence"? C'mon man...No way, no how does this ever end up in the court system (barring some tribe trying to get bank in civil court).

And fuck Goodell and the flunky they trotted out you posted on here about. Goodell does what the owners say. He is their employee. He's just a flack doing what he has been instructed.

Bottom line is if, no excuse me, WHEN this thing escalates into something that causes negative monetary effect (even hypothetically) on the League the other owners will give Goodell his marching orders. And there you are correct: Danny will get his money.

We are simply one protesting old tribal chieftan getting pepper sprayed and clubbed in front of the stadium on game day from everything turning on a dime. Dems the facts, Jack.

Whether you like it or not.

Jesus man--look up into the sky and you'll see the plume of the point streaking over your daft bony ass, Clifford...    


The point is LEVERAGE...as in NOBODY HAS ANY to force shit upon Dannyboy.  The play on leverage of the courts here is not the league or anyone else initiating a credible action in the courts to compel desired action by Dannyboy, BUT DANNYBOY USING IT IN LEVERAGE TO THWART any unilateral action taken by the league--as such a move would be baseless and contrary to precedent.  


The credible threat of legal action can be VERY effective leverage to compel other's to comply with your wishes--BUT YOU NEED TO MANEUVER YOURSELF INTO A POSITION FIRST where you hold credible legal leverage.  For example, I've spent the better of the past three days in negotiation on a real estate deal primarily leveraging nothing but the implied threat of legal action.  That leverage has resulted so far in about a $40,000 swing in $$$ from their side to my side of the ledger for something they don't even want to do to begin with...and guess what?  I'll be unavailable this evening to discuss it further to extract yet another sleepless night out of this asshole.   The league has ZERO of this.  Dannyboy has 100--if it ever comes to legal posturing.      

YEAH!!!!!!!  HD wins yet again!!!  That's 1,548,654,181,312,416 in a row now for you, isn't it???  AWESOMEAMUNDO!!!  High five, HD!!  Parker fans are the BEST!!!  YEAH!!!!  We never lose at ANYTHING and know EVERYTHING!!!!  It's soooooo GREAT to be us, isn't it?  And also to have this bored to rub it in all the other fans faces, especially those Farty Whiner (not a typoe) wanna be fans?  ISn't that swell too??? Amirite!!  Speaking of them, you were TOTALLY right about the contract they just gave Mr. One Read!!!  It was HORRIBLE for the team!!  ER MER GERD!!!!  You had insider details on it that NO ONE else had, and you NAILED exactly how the Whiners were bent over and Kaplernick's team gave it to them good!!!  The Whiners are TOTALLY screwed by it!!  HAHAHA!!!  AWESOMEAMUNDO!!!  I can't believe how SPOT ON you are with EVERY SINGLE TAKE!!!  It's AMAZING!!!  No wonder you are King of the innerweb bored!!!  High five, HD!!!  Guys like us are the BEST FANS I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!  YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least you're right as it related to one of us, PFKIA...  Guess which one?   But really--the praise isn't necessary, good buddy...  

Here you go, Duck.  Here's a journalist who gets it...  They thought they were punishing him.  Instead--they just made Sterling's day everyday for the rest of his life...  In fact--that fucker's sterling no longer.  His name is now Donald Golden...    

• [url=https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fdonald-sterlings-last-laugh-tax-231100454.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory&caption=L.A. Clippers owner%C2%A0Donald Sterling%C2%A0seems to be sitting pretty. With these high numbers and Sterling%E2%80%99s advanced age%2C income and estate taxes look bleak%2C but are they%3F First%2C let%E2%80%99s take income tax. Mr. Sterling only paid %2412.5 million for the Clippers in 1981.&source=http%3A%2F%2Fl3.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2Fd4_X2HMLDdRlGjhWobtWkA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA--%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2F04b4b6daf8a92c15560f6a7067001a66.jpg][/url]
  

_HD_ wrote:Here you go, Duck.  Here's a journalist who gets it...  They thought they were punishing him.  Instead--they just made Sterling's day everyday for the rest of his life...  In fact--that fucker's sterling no longer.  His name is now Donald Golden...    

[size=35]Donald Sterling's last laugh: Tax-free $2 billion Clippers sale[/size]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
By Robert W. WoodJune 5, 2014 11:19 AM

• [url=https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fdonald-sterlings-last-laugh-tax-231100454.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory&caption=L.A. Clippers owner%C2%A0Donald Sterling%C2%A0seems to be sitting pretty. With these high numbers and Sterling%E2%80%99s advanced age%2C income and estate taxes look bleak%2C but are they%3F First%2C let%E2%80%99s take income tax. Mr. Sterling only paid %2412.5 million for the Clippers in][/url]
  

L.A. Clippers owner [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] seems to be sitting pretty. Sure, he endured bad press and probably would not have sold the team were it not for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He may not even get to do his own negotiating, since the NBA stepped in. But a $2 billion sale to Microsoft’s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]isn’t half bad.





Still, taxes could eat a big piece of his outsize profit. With these high numbers and Sterling’s advanced age, income and estate taxes look bleak, but are they? First, let’s take income tax.
Mr. Sterling only paid $12.5 million for the Clippers in 1981. The Clippers are apparently a corporation, but is it a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]? C corporations pay corporate taxes, S corporations don’t. The legal owner is the Sterling Family Trust, though that trust could just be a living trust that avoids probate but is not taxable.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Since Mr. Sterling is probably well advised, the corporation is likely an S corporation. That means whether Mr. Ballmer buys stock or assets, there should be no corporate tax. If the corporation had to pay tax on the $2 billion sale, corporate taxes alone could be $700 million! Then Mr. Sterling would have to pay tax himself when the remaining $1.4 billion was distributed! The two taxes combined could be over 50%.
Assuming the S corporation structure, though, Mr. Sterling and his wife Rochelle would just pay taxes on the deal personally. With a federal long-term capital gain rate of 20%, that’s approximately $397.5 million. It seems unlikely that Mr. Sterling will pay the Obamacare 3.8% net investment income tax. If the Sterlings spent over 500 hours per year on team-related management activities, it should mean the 3.8% tax wouldn’t apply.
What about California taxes? Unless the Sterlings try to quickly move to Nevada, Texas, or another no-tax state, California will collect nicely. The Golden State's top rate rose from 10.3% to 13.3% in 2012. That makes the California income tax on the sale over $264 million. Notably, California doesn’t give any break to long-term capital gain.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[size=16]Sterling to Sell Clippers to Ballmer, Drop LawsuitPlay Video
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/size]
Some say that’s the worst part of the state’s tax law, making California capital gain taxed among the highest in any state—or country—in the world. See[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It is one reason California is constantly pursuing people who exit right before making a sale.
In all, federal and California income taxes total about $662 million, about a third of the $2 billion sale price. Estate taxes are another matter. It is likely that the Sterlings have an estate plan, and it may in part rely on the team structure. Such things can materially reduce an estate tax bill. But cash is harder, and the sale could be a big hit to the Sterlings’ estate plan.
If the sale nets $2 billion, and the Sterlings pay $662 million in income tax, that leaves $1,338,000,000. Mr. and Mrs. Sterling each get only $5.34 million tax-free, leaving estate tax of over $500 million. Maybe. After all, it's likely that Mr. Sterling has good tax advisers, so don’t look for this check to be written just yet.
First, recall that he is suing the league and claiming $1 billion in damages. That could be an offset. He might even try to report his gain on sale as capital gain, but deduct losses as ordinary! Yet latest reports say Mr. Sterling is dropping his suit, agreeing to the sale.
That could mean Mr. Sterling will try to roll over his gain into other investments. How is that possible? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA.
What's more, Mr. Sterling wouldn’t have to buy another team, as long as within 2 years, he invests the money in similar or related investments. Those standards are pretty loose, allowing him to diversify his investments.
Incredibly, Mr. Sterling might even do some estate planning at the same time. Assuming his basis in the Clippers is only the $12.5 million he paid, it would also be his basis in the replacement investments. Upon death, there’s a step up in basis to market value. That could mean that by dying, his $662 million income tax bill just goes away!
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Sure, he might face estate taxes, but the basis step up prevents paying income taxes and estate taxes at the same time. Mr. Sterling’s age could give his cadre of advisers big reasons to try Section 1033 treatment. Other ideas might be a structured sale or installment sale deal that would stretch out payments over time. That can work well but may not be ideal for someone of advanced years.
In that sense, the Section 1033 involuntary conversion idea could be a bonanza. If successful, it could eliminate not only the federal income taxes, but California's painful taxes as well. That's right, California replicates Section 1033. Sure, the IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board could disagree. Sure, he or his estate might have to go to court. But Mr. Sterling might enjoy that and there's plenty at stake.
Bottom line? The NBA may be doing Mr. Sterling a big favor.
May be?  Duh?

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:Here you go, Duck.  Here's a journalist who gets it...  They thought they were punishing him.  Instead--they just made Sterling's day everyday for the rest of his life...  In fact--that fucker's sterling no longer.  His name is now Donald Golden...    

[size=35]Donald Sterling's last laugh: Tax-free $2 billion Clippers sale[/size]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
By Robert W. WoodJune 5, 2014 11:19 AM

• [url=https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fdonald-sterlings-last-laugh-tax-231100454.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory&caption=L.A. Clippers owner%C2%A0Donald Sterling%C2%A0seems to be sitting pretty. With these high numbers and Sterling%E2%80%99s advanced age%2C income and estate taxes look bleak%2C but are they%3F First%2C let%E2%80%99s take income tax. Mr. Sterling only paid %2412.5 million for the Clippers in][/url]
  

L.A. Clippers owner [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] seems to be sitting pretty. Sure, he endured bad press and probably would not have sold the team were it not for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He may not even get to do his own negotiating, since the NBA stepped in. But a $2 billion sale to Microsoft’s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]isn’t half bad.





Still, taxes could eat a big piece of his outsize profit. With these high numbers and Sterling’s advanced age, income and estate taxes look bleak, but are they? First, let’s take income tax.
Mr. Sterling only paid $12.5 million for the Clippers in 1981. The Clippers are apparently a corporation, but is it a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]? C corporations pay corporate taxes, S corporations don’t. The legal owner is the Sterling Family Trust, though that trust could just be a living trust that avoids probate but is not taxable.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Since Mr. Sterling is probably well advised, the corporation is likely an S corporation. That means whether Mr. Ballmer buys stock or assets, there should be no corporate tax. If the corporation had to pay tax on the $2 billion sale, corporate taxes alone could be $700 million! Then Mr. Sterling would have to pay tax himself when the remaining $1.4 billion was distributed! The two taxes combined could be over 50%.
Assuming the S corporation structure, though, Mr. Sterling and his wife Rochelle would just pay taxes on the deal personally. With a federal long-term capital gain rate of 20%, that’s approximately $397.5 million. It seems unlikely that Mr. Sterling will pay the Obamacare 3.8% net investment income tax. If the Sterlings spent over 500 hours per year on team-related management activities, it should mean the 3.8% tax wouldn’t apply.
What about California taxes? Unless the Sterlings try to quickly move to Nevada, Texas, or another no-tax state, California will collect nicely. The Golden State's top rate rose from 10.3% to 13.3% in 2012. That makes the California income tax on the sale over $264 million. Notably, California doesn’t give any break to long-term capital gain.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[size=16]Sterling to Sell Clippers to Ballmer, Drop LawsuitPlay Video
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/size]
Some say that’s the worst part of the state’s tax law, making California capital gain taxed among the highest in any state—or country—in the world. See[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It is one reason California is constantly pursuing people who exit right before making a sale.
In all, federal and California income taxes total about $662 million, about a third of the $2 billion sale price. Estate taxes are another matter. It is likely that the Sterlings have an estate plan, and it may in part rely on the team structure. Such things can materially reduce an estate tax bill. But cash is harder, and the sale could be a big hit to the Sterlings’ estate plan.
If the sale nets $2 billion, and the Sterlings pay $662 million in income tax, that leaves $1,338,000,000. Mr. and Mrs. Sterling each get only $5.34 million tax-free, leaving estate tax of over $500 million. Maybe. After all, it's likely that Mr. Sterling has good tax advisers, so don’t look for this check to be written just yet.
First, recall that he is suing the league and claiming $1 billion in damages. That could be an offset. He might even try to report his gain on sale as capital gain, but deduct losses as ordinary! Yet latest reports say Mr. Sterling is dropping his suit, agreeing to the sale.
That could mean Mr. Sterling will try to roll over his gain into other investments. How is that possible? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA.
What's more, Mr. Sterling wouldn’t have to buy another team, as long as within 2 years, he invests the money in similar or related investments. Those standards are pretty loose, allowing him to diversify his investments.
Incredibly, Mr. Sterling might even do some estate planning at the same time. Assuming his basis in the Clippers is only the $12.5 million he paid, it would also be his basis in the replacement investments. Upon death, there’s a step up in basis to market value. That could mean that by dying, his $662 million income tax bill just goes away!
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Sure, he might face estate taxes, but the basis step up prevents paying income taxes and estate taxes at the same time. Mr. Sterling’s age could give his cadre of advisers big reasons to try Section 1033 treatment. Other ideas might be a structured sale or installment sale deal that would stretch out payments over time. That can work well but may not be ideal for someone of advanced years.
In that sense, the Section 1033 involuntary conversion idea could be a bonanza. If successful, it could eliminate not only the federal income taxes, but California's painful taxes as well. That's right, California replicates Section 1033. Sure, the IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board could disagree. Sure, he or his estate might have to go to court. But Mr. Sterling might enjoy that and there's plenty at stake.
Bottom line? The NBA may be doing Mr. Sterling a big favor.
May be?  Duh?

No argument here.  You sold me on the concept when you explained the advantages of a forced sale.

Sterling did indeed take a PR beating and he will be forever remembered for his rambling racist rant.  However, financially he wins big for the incident.

_HD_ wrote:

duck wrote:

_HD_ wrote:Here you go, Duck.  Here's a journalist who gets it...  They thought they were punishing him.  Instead--they just made Sterling's day everyday for the rest of his life...  In fact--that fucker's sterling no longer.  His name is now Donald Golden...    

[size=35]Donald Sterling's last laugh: Tax-free $2 billion Clippers sale[/size]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
By Robert W. WoodJune 5, 2014 11:19 AM

• [url=https://www.tumblr.com/share/photo?clickthru=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fdonald-sterlings-last-laugh-tax-231100454.html%3Fsoc_src%3Dmediacontentstory&caption=L.A. Clippers owner%C2%A0Donald Sterling%C2%A0seems to be sitting pretty. With these high numbers and Sterling%E2%80%99s advanced age%2C income and estate taxes look bleak%2C but are they%3F First%2C let%E2%80%99s take income tax. Mr. Sterling only paid %2412.5 million for the Clippers in][/url]
  

L.A. Clippers owner [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] seems to be sitting pretty. Sure, he endured bad press and probably would not have sold the team were it not for the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He may not even get to do his own negotiating, since the NBA stepped in. But a $2 billion sale to Microsoft’s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]isn’t half bad.





Still, taxes could eat a big piece of his outsize profit. With these high numbers and Sterling’s advanced age, income and estate taxes look bleak, but are they? First, let’s take income tax.
Mr. Sterling only paid $12.5 million for the Clippers in 1981. The Clippers are apparently a corporation, but is it a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]? C corporations pay corporate taxes, S corporations don’t. The legal owner is the Sterling Family Trust, though that trust could just be a living trust that avoids probate but is not taxable.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Since Mr. Sterling is probably well advised, the corporation is likely an S corporation. That means whether Mr. Ballmer buys stock or assets, there should be no corporate tax. If the corporation had to pay tax on the $2 billion sale, corporate taxes alone could be $700 million! Then Mr. Sterling would have to pay tax himself when the remaining $1.4 billion was distributed! The two taxes combined could be over 50%.
Assuming the S corporation structure, though, Mr. Sterling and his wife Rochelle would just pay taxes on the deal personally. With a federal long-term capital gain rate of 20%, that’s approximately $397.5 million. It seems unlikely that Mr. Sterling will pay the Obamacare 3.8% net investment income tax. If the Sterlings spent over 500 hours per year on team-related management activities, it should mean the 3.8% tax wouldn’t apply.
What about California taxes? Unless the Sterlings try to quickly move to Nevada, Texas, or another no-tax state, California will collect nicely. The Golden State's top rate rose from 10.3% to 13.3% in 2012. That makes the California income tax on the sale over $264 million. Notably, California doesn’t give any break to long-term capital gain.
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[size=16]Sterling to Sell Clippers to Ballmer, Drop LawsuitPlay Video
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/size]
Some say that’s the worst part of the state’s tax law, making California capital gain taxed among the highest in any state—or country—in the world. See[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. It is one reason California is constantly pursuing people who exit right before making a sale.
In all, federal and California income taxes total about $662 million, about a third of the $2 billion sale price. Estate taxes are another matter. It is likely that the Sterlings have an estate plan, and it may in part rely on the team structure. Such things can materially reduce an estate tax bill. But cash is harder, and the sale could be a big hit to the Sterlings’ estate plan.
If the sale nets $2 billion, and the Sterlings pay $662 million in income tax, that leaves $1,338,000,000. Mr. and Mrs. Sterling each get only $5.34 million tax-free, leaving estate tax of over $500 million. Maybe. After all, it's likely that Mr. Sterling has good tax advisers, so don’t look for this check to be written just yet.
First, recall that he is suing the league and claiming $1 billion in damages. That could be an offset. He might even try to report his gain on sale as capital gain, but deduct losses as ordinary! Yet latest reports say Mr. Sterling is dropping his suit, agreeing to the sale.
That could mean Mr. Sterling will try to roll over his gain into other investments. How is that possible? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the tax code allows you to defer taxes when your property is taken involuntarily, like eminent domain. Mr. Sterling can argue the Clippers sale was forced on him by the NBA.
What's more, Mr. Sterling wouldn’t have to buy another team, as long as within 2 years, he invests the money in similar or related investments. Those standards are pretty loose, allowing him to diversify his investments.
Incredibly, Mr. Sterling might even do some estate planning at the same time. Assuming his basis in the Clippers is only the $12.5 million he paid, it would also be his basis in the replacement investments. Upon death, there’s a step up in basis to market value. That could mean that by dying, his $662 million income tax bill just goes away!
[More from Forbes: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]
Sure, he might face estate taxes, but the basis step up prevents paying income taxes and estate taxes at the same time. Mr. Sterling’s age could give his cadre of advisers big reasons to try Section 1033 treatment. Other ideas might be a structured sale or installment sale deal that would stretch out payments over time. That can work well but may not be ideal for someone of advanced years.
In that sense, the Section 1033 involuntary conversion idea could be a bonanza. If successful, it could eliminate not only the federal income taxes, but California's painful taxes as well. That's right, California replicates Section 1033. Sure, the IRS or the California Franchise Tax Board could disagree. Sure, he or his estate might have to go to court. But Mr. Sterling might enjoy that and there's plenty at stake.
Bottom line? The NBA may be doing Mr. Sterling a big favor.
May be?  Duh?

No argument here.  You sold me on the concept when you explained the advantages of a forced sale.

Sterling did indeed take a PR beating and he will be forever remembered for his rambling racist rant.  However, financially he wins big for the incident.

It's unfortunate that in this day/age someone as privileged as Sterling would harbor such ignorance and distemperance toward a whole race of people, as he apparently does...and yes, there are those out there who if given a gun with two bullets in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden and Sterling--they'd pump both of them into Sterling.  However, what he said was said in private behind closed doors and illegally recorded.  Had this sale not worked out for him so overwhelmingly financially--he would have undoubtedly followed through with a multi-billion $$$$ suit against the league, and guess what chances he would have had to prevail?  The NBA Commissioner made a bold move--no doubt.  However, next to Sterling himself--he's got to be the happiest of all that this went down the way it did because I think it's fairly clear that a court would rule he overstepped his bounds by a wide margin here and exposed the NBA to potentially BILLIONS of punitive damages...not to mention the prospective billion or two in actual damages...  There are things called wiretapping laws in this country.  In varies from state to state as to where one or both parties to a conversation must consent to a recording--but in this case apparently--what she did was illegal.  What do you think the chances are that a judge would find Sterling was offered anything in the way of due process by the league in relying exclusively on an illegal recording that wasn't even yet conclusively established to be Sterling's voice in taking action of the magnitude they did?


Finally, I'm not excusing what Sterling said, but let's not be hypocrites--we ALL say things behind closed doors that are not intended for public consumption and we'd be embarrassed by if becoming public.  You, me, Ghandi, EVERYBODY.  The biggest scumbag of all in this whole deal is the little bimbo twat who breached any sense of integrity and certainly trust in making the recording and putting it out in public to begin with, in my humble opinion...