League fines WFT $10M due to team culture investigation

[DreamKid]

3 hours ago, kramxel said:

What the cheerleaders didn’t know was that another video, intended strictly for private use, would be produced using footage from that same shoot. Set to classic rock, the 10-minute unofficial video featured moments when nipples were inadvertently exposed as the women shifted positions or adjusted props.

Got to imagine the pathetic souls that were behind this 'unofficial video', were the ones who initially suggested a photo/video shoot in the first place. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

The NFL never ceases to amaze me with how incompetent/corrupt they are with these "punishments". Dan Snyder essentially gets to run the team through his wife, WFT loses literally nothing except some pocket change so they can do some positive PR, and the culture won't change one single bit but the NFL gets to say they did their due diligence while everything gets swept under the rug and forgotten about.

I can't imagine being a victim in this situation and seeing this pathetic outcome.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

Whatever it takes to give us the Washington Warthogs, let’s have it. Hopefully we can get two birds with one stone and get a terrible owner out of the league at the same time by forcing him to sell.

Nickname: the Hoggies.

it needs to be done.

Edited July 2, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[MikeT14]

Nothing was going to happen to Snyder without owner support. And these owners don't want to open a can of worms in their own departments. 

[Louis Friend]

8 hours ago, sp6488 said:

This is emblematic of how little people understand the concept of “write-offs.” You still need to part with money on balance to be eligible for a “write-off.” It’s not a net benefit in any way. 
 

I have no opinion on whether this punishment is enough or falls short, but as a financial professional this is a huge  pet peeve of mine. 

I’m not a tax accountant, my tax knowledge comes from two accounting classes in college and speaking to a tax attorney in my practice. So please explain how being able to write of $10 million against federal income tax doesn’t benefit an organization that is arguably in the largest tax bracket. I’m not being argumentative, I’d truly like to know. Yes, he’ll have to part with $10 million, but he’ll get roughly half of that back in untaxable income (from my minuscule knowledge of write offs). 

[MikeT14]

9 hours ago, sp6488 said:

This is emblematic of how little people understand the concept of “write-offs.” You still need to part with money on balance to be eligible for a “write-off.” It’s not a net benefit in any way. 
 

I have no opinion on whether this punishment is enough or falls short, but as a financial professional this is a huge  pet peeve of mine. 

That still doesn't explain how it isn't a net benefit. Yes, you part with $10 million dollars. You're still donating to a charity, and can get an itemized tax deduction.

[Deadpulse]

19 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

That still doesn't explain how it isn't a net benefit. Yes, you part with $10 million dollars. You're still donating to a charity, and can get an itemized tax deduction.

I think Synder is getting fined and the NFL is donating the money. Someone correct me if that is wrong. 

[MikeT14]

2 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

I think Synder is getting fined and the NFL is donating the money. Someone correct me if that is wrong. 

If that's true, that's different. I haven't specifically read anything confirming that, but that would definitely make sense.

[ramssuperbowl99]

17 hours ago, Broncofan said:

 

 

Beth Wilkinson could get a $175k/year job out of high school tbh.

[Matts4313]

18 hours ago, Louis Friend said:

So their punishment is a huge tax write off for charity? 

Its ~20% pending weird accounting loopholes. Still $8m to the bottom line. It isnt going to affect WFT, but its a decent chunk to send a message. 

[pwny]

2 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

That still doesn't explain how it isn't a net benefit. Yes, you part with $10 million dollars. You're still donating to a charity, and can get an itemized tax deduction.

Tax deductions are a reduction of your adjusted gross income, not of your taxes due. He spends $10M towards the charitable givings and his taxes due are decreased by a portion of that, ~the top marginal tax rate on his earnings. There’s other funky stuff with it that are too complex to explain over the internet, but the general idea is you never get back nearly as much as you donate.

 

The bigger issue is that it’s a charitable giving that he chooses the charity. He very likely gives 10M a year through community outreach with the WFT brand name anyway. So literally all they have to do is cut this check and then not cut the normal check, and he and the organization literally lose exactly $0. This isn’t a punishment, it’s a publicity stunt that the NFL uses to give the illusion of a punishment. 

[MikeT14]

2 minutes ago, pwny said:

Tax deductions are a reduction of your adjusted gross income, not of your taxes due. He spends $10M towards the charitable givings and his taxes due are decreased by a portion of that, ~the top marginal tax rate on his earnings. There’s other funky stuff with it that are too complex to explain over the internet, but the general idea is you never get back more than you donate.

Right right. I know that. I think I'm just commenting on the person that said there was no net benefit. There is a benefit.

 

[pwny]

1 minute ago, MikeT14 said:

Right right. I know that. I think I'm just commenting on the person that said there was no net benefit. There is a benefit.

In what way?

If you give away $10M, but get back $3M, you still are out $7M. It’s still, without the other half of my message, a $7M loss to your net worth.

[Matts4313]

10 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

The NFL never ceases to amaze me with how incompetent/corrupt they are with these "punishments". Dan Snyder essentially gets to run the team through his wife, WFT loses literally nothing except some pocket change so they can do some positive PR, and the culture won't change one single bit but the NFL gets to say they did their due diligence while everything gets swept under the rug and forgotten about.

I can't imagine being a victim in this situation and seeing this pathetic outcome.

Apparently Snyder cant take back control without league approval, which could make things interesting if they got divorced.

14 minutes ago, pwny said:

Tax deductions are a reduction of your adjusted gross income, not of your taxes due. He spends $10M towards the charitable givings and his taxes due are decreased by a portion of that, ~the top marginal tax rate on his earnings. There’s other funky stuff with it that are too complex to explain over the internet, but the general idea is you never get back nearly as much as you donate.

 

The bigger issue is that it’s a charitable giving that he chooses the charity. He very likely gives 10M a year through community outreach with the WFT brand name anyway. So literally all they have to do is cut this check and then not cut the normal check, and he and the organization literally lose exactly $0. This isn’t a punishment, it’s a publicity stunt that the NFL uses to give the illusion of a punishment. 

I read on Reddit, which means its probably wrong, that the $10m fine is being used to fund sexual harassment related practices throughout the league. Additionally, arent the typical league fines processed through the NFL General charity fund or whatever? I dont think WFT gets to "pick" the charity. I could easily be wrong though. 

[pwny]

Quote

the Commissioner has decided that, in addition to paying all fees and expenses associated with Wilkinson's investigation, the club will pay $10 million, which will be used to support organizations committed to character education, anti-bullying, healthy relationships and related topics.  They will also fund programs directed more broadly at improving the workplace, particularly for women and other underrepresented groups, and training and development programs throughout the league, with recipients identified with the assistance of respected third-party advisors.  We will solicit recommendations from the club, particularly for organizations based in the Washington metropolitan area.

So to follow up from my above. Typically, fines are given where a team or individual gets to just cut a check to wherever they want. I assumed this was the case here as well, because it always is. It looks like this time, that won’t be the exact case, but instead the team will give recommendations of where to send what is likely to be the most significant portion of the money, as long as they fit into these categories.

The general idea that the team/Snyder can just shift around which charities get funding from them for this is still in play, though. Ultimately, it’s entirely up to Snyder and the organization how much of that $10M affects their bottom line vs just not giving out as much money through other donations.