Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah, but what about Eli Manning running a counterfeit merchandise scam?

 

Quote

According to the New York Post, New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning was involved in a scheme with the team’s equipment manager to sell fake gear that could be advertised as “game used” based on game-worn gear.

The Post obtained court papers that show Manning sending an email to Joe Skiba, the team’s equipment manager, asking for “helmets that can pass as game used,” which Manning was forced to turn over last week in connection to a civil racketeering suit. It alleges that Manning and the Giants worked in conjunction to bilk collectors into purchasing what they believed were authentic gear that was used in NFL games.

Three memorabilia dealers are suing Manning, Skiba, the Giants, team owner John Mara and others in the case. The emails were filed on Tuesday at Bergen County (N.J.) Superior Court.

In one email from 2010, Manning’s marketing agent, Alan Zucker, asked Manning to give him “2 game used helmets and 2 game used jerseys,” and Skiba replied to Manning: “Let me know what your looking for I’ll try to get something down for you … ”

Manning reportedly responded by saying, “2 helmets that can pass as game used. That is it. Eli.”

Lawyers for the Giants issued a statement: “The email, taken out of context, was shared with the media by an unscrupulous memorabilia dealer and his counsel who for years has been seeking to leverage a big payday.”

It continued: “The email predates any litigation, and there was no legal obligation to store it on the Giants server …

“Eli Manning is well known for his integrity and this is just the latest misguided attempt to defame his character.”

Manning was named co-winner of the 2016 Walter Payton Man of the Year Award — given annually to the “NFL player for his excellence on and off the field” and “who has had a significant positive impact on his community” — along with Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald. Manning also was a 2015 finalist for the award.

Another lawsuit, filed in 2014, alleged that Skiba sold former Giants Hall of Famer Michael Strahan’s actual game-worn jersey from Super Bowl XLII and gave Strahan a fake jersey that was made to look real, “even adding Gatorade stains to the fabric.” That same suit alleged Manning was involved in keeping his own game-worn gear and passing off other items as legitimate, although some of those claims have been dismissed since then.

 

Everyone involved with this sounds like a big jerk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest from Las Vegas.

 

Some key points:
 

Quote

 

Post-relocation approval enthusiasm: The Raiders launched a deposit campaign for personal seat licenses (PSLs) the day after NFL owners approved the team’s move to Las Vegas. Roughly 23,000 people put down $100 deposits on the first day, and that number has doubled since then, Raiders President Marc Badain said. The deposit essentially reserves a spot for people interested in purchasing a PSL and season tickets at the forthcoming Las Vegas stadium. (The Minneapolis StarTribune reported that PSLs at the Vikings’ new stadium, which opened last year, ranged in price from $500 to $9,500 per seat.) The list includes a good chunk of Las Vegas-area residents as well as people from neighboring states such as California, Utah, Arizona and more distant locals, including Canada, Badain said.

 

A rent-free tenant: The Raiders will pay no rent for occupying the stadium, according to the new draft of the lease agreement. The initial draft of the lease had called for a $1 annual rent payment by the Raiders. Stadium Authority Chairman Steve Hill said the no-rent policy shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone following the stadium discussions over the last year.

 

A revenue win for the Raiders: While the no-rent clause has garnered much public criticism, the line directly below it in the lease outlines an arguably better advantage for the team: The Raiders will receive all revenue generated within the stadium.  The draft lease states that the team has “all naming, signage, marketing, entitlement, trademark, copyright and other rights” and will retain “all revenues generated or derived” from the premises.

 

Unresolved issues: The Stadium Authority and Raiders still are working through a number of issues that appear in the lease agreement. Chief among them is how to ensure the facility provides the greatest return on investment to the community. The public benefits, in theory, if the stadium hosts frequent events and draws new visitors to town as a result. The question being negotiated by the two parties boils down to this: If the Stadium Authority’s performance goals aren’t being met, what happens?

“It’s one of the toughest items because the law says the Raiders will have full operational control of the stadium,” Hill said after the meeting.

The Raiders and Stadium Authority staff are drafting language of that concept, Arnold said.  The parties also need to hash out cost projections for stadium maintenance and capital improvements that will be necessary over time. The Raiders will be responsible for the bulk of that expense, but the Stadium Authority will have some hotel tax revenue to contribute toward that effort.

 

 

All issues regarding UNLV still need to be ironed out, mainly the rent/revenue, as SB1 included a line which "reasonable rent" can be charged, but also things like locker rooms, signage, and making it look like UNLV's stadium.  More importantly, there are serious construction timeline concerns for a 2020 opening.

 

Link to Draft Lease Agreement from yesterday:  http://www.lvstadiumauthority.com/docs/2017/04/20/Stadium Lease Agreement (Las Vegas Raiders) Working Draft_April 20 SAB Meeting.pdf

 

Edited by dfwabel
added more UNLV info and draft lease
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So gross. We're doing all the wrong things when it comes to pro sports. The NFL has blitzed through any pretense of good citizenship and straight to craven money-grabbing.

 

It sucks that San Diego lost the Chargers but at least the community did the right thing by voting down the Convenstadium (or whatever dumb name it had).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DG_Now said:

So gross. We're doing all the wrong things when it comes to pro sports. The NFL has blitzed through any pretense of good citizenship and straight to craven money-grabbing.

 

It sucks that San Diego lost the Chargers but at least the community did the right thing by voting down the Convenstadium (or whatever dumb name it had).

The main reason for no rent is that the bonds which the state will issue the bonds through the state actor, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority and that prohibits them from receiving revenue as a tax-exempt organization. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

The main reason for no rent is that the bonds which the state will issue the bonds through the state actor, the Las Vegas Stadium Authority and that prohibits them from receiving revenue as a tax-exempt organization. 

 

That's crazy.  What kind of tax-exempt organization is prohibited from receiving revenues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's crazy.  What kind of tax-exempt organization is prohibited from receiving revenues?

Apparently, it is

 

 
Quote

 

With the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress attempted to do away with the tax exemption for bonds
financing sports stadiums by eliminating it from the category of private activity bonds exempt from
federal taxation. TRA86 categorized a bond as private if it met two conditions: (i) more than 10
percent of the bond proceeds were to be used by a nongovernmental entity
, and (ii) more than 10
percent of the debt service was secured by property used directly or indirectly in a private business.
The first condition is known as the “private business use test,” and the second condition is known
as the “private payment test.” While there remained a list of private activities specifically exempt
from federal taxation, stadiums were excluded from that list. TRA86 also capped the total volume
of such exempt bonds that could be issued by a state to the greater of $50 per resident or $150
million.
3
Under the prevailing law of TRA86, a stadium bond can remain exempt from federal taxation if
it violates either the private business use test or the private payment test. Stadium bonds will
undoubtedly pass the private business use test, since professional sports teams will almost always
consume more than 10 percent of a stadium’s useful services. Therefore, in order to be eligible for
federal tax exemption, a stadium bond issue must be structured so that no more than 10 percent
of its debt service is secured by the property used directly or indirectly by the sports franchise.
This sets up a kind of matching incentive, an “artificial financing structure” (U.S. Department of the
Treasury, 2015, p. 85), whereby federal tax exemption is granted if the state or local government
is willing to finance at least 90 percent of the debt service for the bonds.
Additionally, since this
90 percent of financing cannot come even indirectly from private activity if tax exemption is to be
maintained, the state and local government cannot rely on stadium-generated revenue, such as a
tax on entry tickets to the stadium or event, or even rent collected from the team as tenants.
TRA86 effectively requires that, in order to receive the federal subsidy, a state or local government
must finance the bulk of the stadium, and it must rely on tax revenue unrelated to the stadium
for the financing, such as general sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, lotteries, or taxes
on alcohol and cigarettes. The most common type of tax imposed to finance sports stadiums is
known as a “tourist tax,” which is a tax levied on hotel stays and rental cars; this is a particularly
attractive option for local authorities because they can advertise to the public that the tax burden
will fall primarily on nonresidents. In addition to the inefficiencies of federal subsidies for stadiums
described earlier, this prohibition on using even indirect stadium revenue to finance the bonds
violates a common criterion of fairness, known as the “benefits-received principle.”
This principle
holds that a publicly provided good or service should be paid for by people in proportion to the
benefits they receive from the good or service.
4

 

It is page 7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does somebody in Vegas think UNLV will get an invite to join the Pac-12 or something? Because I don't ever see it happening. Pretty sure a deal could have been made that excluded UNLV altogether.... Then again, I was also sure a deal could have been made for the Raider's Vegas stadium to be built with entirely private funds.

 

Also. What happens to Sam Boyd Stadium once UNLV football moves into the Raider's stadium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4_tattoos said:

Does somebody in Vegas think UNLV will get an invite to join the Pac-12 or something? Because I don't ever see it happening.
 

 

Many people have that belief, especially since they are to open a Medical School in July.  Those folks are mistaken.

 

Quote

Pretty sure a deal could have been made that excluded UNLV altogether.... Then again, I was also sure a deal could have been made for the Raider's Vegas stadium to be built with entirely private funds.

The Nevada Legislature included UNLV since they would not give them any money for the previous decade for a stadium/retail/housing project. 

 

Quote

Also. What happens to Sam Boyd Stadium once UNLV football moves into the Raider's stadium?

 

Ask Desiree Reed-Francois when she starts as Athletic Director and the university gave her full authority over the stadium and the Thomas & Mack Center.

Until then, read this.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/raiders-nfl/future-of-sam-boyd-stadium-up-in-the-air-with-raiders-relocation-to-las-vegas/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Thanks!

 

And sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you meant the stadium authority itself cannot take in revenues, not the bonds.

That's OK.

 

Personally, I did experience a parallel issue regarding tax-exempt bonds used for construction.

 

In the late 90's-early 00's, I worked at a private university. Historically, they never borrowed money for new construction: Academic, Athletic, or Residential.  They would just fundraise  in full or in rare cases, would transfer endowment returns from the general fund to the start of a project knowing by the time the building is ready, it'll be paid for.. But in 1999, they made a decision to build a residential life building with tax free bonds, a new rec center.

 

The old building was open to both alumni and the general public so in order to generate additional revenue, administration just rolled over the previous policy and increased prices.

 

It was great for five years after opening, a general audit within the Controller's Office as the accounting firm noticed the revenue from alumni and public memberships. Apparently, for the bonds to remain tax-exempt, no more than 5% of revenues could be attained from private use, which meant members who weren't students or faculty/staff. Secondary (minor children 16+) were immedially canceled, membership applications were frozen and existing members could immediately renew for an additional year paid in full, or just have their current term expire with no renewal opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today is the first Galaxy game I've seen on TV since the Chargers announcement. It's a beautiful soccer stadium but a tiny NFL one.

 

I just did a search for a Chargers/StubHub mockup and found this:

CHARGERS.STUB_.HUB_.jpg

 

Looks like that sweet interlocking LA logo was indeed planned for more than just a Twitter account. It's a such a shame they didn't have the courage to keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DG_Now said:

Looks like that sweet interlocking LA logo was indeed planned for more than just a Twitter account. It's a such a shame they didn't have the courage to keep it.

Dean was faced with a decision. He made the wrong choice, as is tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, 4_tattoos said:

Forgive me if it's been stated already, but how long are the Chargers legally obligated to be in LA?

 

I think it's ten years, although I suspect that if he wanted to move back to SD he could convince the other owners to make an exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I think it's ten years, although I suspect that if he wanted to move back to SD he could convince the other owners to make an exception. 

 

The relocation fee is spread over ten years, however the agreement with the Rams is not public regarding its length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.