Sort of OT: MSG Can Pay Lebron The most without circumventing the cap
Glenn Greenstein
NY Knick because MSG as of last January can offer Lebron something
that no other NBA team can, the right to purchase stock options as an
employee of MSG. This actually makes the Knicks the team that can
offer him the biggest payout in a combo of salary and stock.
I am wondering if this can be done with the Jets. All woody has to do
is sell the Jets to Johnson and Johnson and Johnson and then spin them
off. It's exactly what Cablevision did with MSG. This allows players
to use their own money to purchase discounted shares in the NY Jets
and sell them at a profit at a later date as a stock option. It
wouldn't be circumventing the cap because we are not paying the
player, he is just using his money to buy stock in something that can
increase because of their star power.
Michael
Interesting...
Extend the discounted stock shaers to season ticket holders too :-)
Johnctx
Glenn, the NFL will never allow an NFL team to be owned by a public
company. The last thing they want is financial scrutiny or a situation
like the Packers that although quaint, doesn't allow them to ever be
marketed.
Glenn Greenstein
John, they can't do that, it isn't legal. They would get slapped with
an anti-trust lawsuit. They may come up with a different reason to
reject them but being a public company isn't one they can use.
Glenn Greenstein
BTW, there is already a precedent for it as you pointed out, the
Packers. You can't allow one franchise to do it not allow the others.
MZ
Doesn't really matter. It would still violate the salary cap, and
probably the union rules. The only reason the NBA is apparently
allowing it is because they choose to. The NFL owners are holding firm
to this salary cap thing, even in the absence of one.
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, you are 100% wrong. The player is investing his own money, he
isn't being gifted the stock options, he has to buy them just like you
or I would. Being a company employee give you access to better deals
than the general public. It is also a risk. i know people who worked
20 years for companies and had a lot of money in stock options that
were worthless when they retired becuase the companies stock had
tanked so it's not even a sure thing.
MZ
He's being gifted a discount, Glenn. It would be illegal if he was an
NCAA athlete. The NFL can (and I'm sure HAS) made it illegal too.
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, you really have no idea what your talking about. I can introduce
you to about 5 different people who work for public companies and were
given exactly what you are saying is not allowed and it is no secret
they get these deals, the whole company knows it. Hell, a cashier at
Wal Mart can get a similar deal.
Ray OHara
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:249ce4de-30bc-4288-994c-
Mark, you really have no idea what your talking about. I can introduce
you to about 5 different people who work for public companies and were
given exactly what you are saying is not allowed and it is no secret
they get these deals, the whole company knows it. Hell, a cashier at
Wal Mart can get a similar deal.
========================================================================
stock options aside, just being in NYC brings personal marketing/endorsement
opportunities worth millions.
MZ
Well, then apparently 32 teams in the league also don't know what
they're talking about. Usenet brilliance hasn't been translated into
reality.
MZ
I think you're confusing my use of the word "illegal". I thought it was
clear that I was talking about against NCAA & NFL regulations, not US law.
Glenn Greenstein
Mark, Woody owns a public company just as Dolan does. Woody can do
what cablevision did. He can buy the Jets through Johnson and Johnson
just as Cablevision bought MSG among other things like Blockbuster and
Radio City and then spin them off as a separately traded companies.
There is nothing illegal about any of this. If there is another owner
who owns a public company he can do the same thing but Woody is the
only one I know of, that's why not every team can do this. Maybe
Snyder can do it, not sure where he made his money.
Glenn Greenstein
First off an NCAA player can't even work in a grocery store let alone
get stock options so there is no argument there. What rule or
regulation does a player break when he is buying stock options that
are offered to him in the same manner as they are offered to thousands
of people that work for public companies.
Please be specific.
And bte, the NBA cap is far more complex the the NFL one so if it
works there I am pretty sure it works in the NFL.
MZ
Then please explain to me why there hasn't been a single team in the NFL
that has offered players stock options to circumvent the salary cap.
I'll tell you why. Because it's against the rules.
Stock options = salary. From the CBA, salary includes "compensation in
money, property, investments, loans or anything else of value to which
an NFL player may be awarded."
Glenn Greenstein
It's because there are no NFL teams except the Packers that are public
and if they were offered stock options it is a private matter or do
you think a player needs to tell the public about his investment
portfolio. For all we know Packer players are offered options, it just
is not in a contract and doesn't have to be because it is a personnel
matter if he buys them. What you are thinking of is when a company
hires a new CEO or CFO and part of his compensation is company stock
as an incentive for him to do a good job. Keep the margins fat and you
get a lot of money but make a lot of bad decisions and those options
are not worth the paper they are written on.
Also what you quoted doesn't address what I am speaking of. I am
talking about a player investing his own money, what you are talking
about is being awarded to the player. Awarded is the key word here, I
am talking about buying.Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
MZ
> is not in a contract and doesn't have to be because it is a personnel
> matter if he buys them. What you are thinking of is when a company
> hires a new CEO or CFO and part of his compensation is company stock
> as an incentive for him to do a good job. Keep the margins fat and you
> get a lot of money but make a lot of bad decisions and those options
> are not worth the paper they are written on.
> Also what you quoted doesn't address what I am speaking of. I am
> talking about a player investing his own money, what you are talking
> about is being awarded to the player. Awarded is the key word here, I
> am talking about buying.Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Glenn, the CBA is clear. I don't know why you're having trouble with
this. Salary is defined broadly. Stock options, or ANYTHING else of
"value to which an NFL player may be awarded", counts against the cap.
Glenn Greenstein
AWARDED MARK, THAT IS THE KEY HERE. THE OPTIONS I SPEAK OF ARE NOT
AWARDED THEY ARE PURCHASED.
MZ
Employee benefits, Glenn. Your healthcare plan, which you PURCHASE, is
still a benefit and is part of your compensation. Even though you can
choose not to take advantage of it.
Again, I point to the fact that nobody's doing this as proof that it
can't be done. You're a smart guy, Glenn, but you're not so much
smarter than NFL GMs that you thought this up while they didn't.
I'll also point to one of the things the Broncos got penalized for
(backroom deals with a player that didn't directly pay him) as proof
that the definition of "salary" includes anything the employer can provide.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:COCdnUsxR8o_cGjW...@giganews.com...
And the healthcare plan does not count against the cap....not even against
taxes..yet...maybe soon.....I think nobody is doing it because nobody wants
to give the gold mine they have to a company and relinquish any control of
it, even in a minor way.....
Johnctx
They have outlawed the Packer version see (b) below.
I think (a) would exclude a publicly traded company. I am not sure what
provision of the anti-trust laws are violated by limiting who can an own
a team.
http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/ourtowns/nflrules.html
a) New members must pledge that their organization is primarily for the
purpose of operating a football team.
(b) Charitable organizations and/or corporations not organized for
profit and not now a member of the league may not hold membership in the
National Football League.
(c) All stockholders in a corporation or persons owning any interest in
a franchise in the National Football League must be approved by a
ten-twelfths (10/12) vote and any transfer of stock or of any interest
in a franchise must also be approved by a ten-twelfths (10/12) vote of
the membership.
Johnctx
> AWARDED MARK, THAT IS THE KEY HERE. THE OPTIONS I SPEAK OF ARE NOT
> AWARDED THEY ARE PURCHASED.
Glenn so he takes his salary & buy J&J at market like you or me? can't
he do that now?
Johnctx
The Packers are a non-profit so the options have no value. If the
Packers ever are sold the $ goes to an American legion Hall.They
probably pay tax on their income under UBIT.
>
What you are thinking of is when a company
> hires a new CEO or CFO and part of his compensation is company stock
> as an incentive for him to do a good job. Keep the margins fat and you
> get a lot of money but make a lot of bad decisions and those options
> are not worth the paper they are written on.
> Also what you quoted doesn't address what I am speaking of. I am
> talking about a player investing his own money, what you are talking
> about is being awarded to the player. Awarded is the key word here, I
> am talking about buying.Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Private companies that has multiple shareholders set the value of their
stock each year as well so most NFL teams could offer options right now.
Johnctx
>> hires a new CEO or CFO and part of his compensation is company stock
>> as an incentive for him to do a good job. Keep the margins fat and you
>> get a lot of money but make a lot of bad decisions and those options
>> are not worth the paper they are written on.
>> Also what you quoted doesn't address what I am speaking of. I am
>> talking about a player investing his own money, what you are talking
>> about is being awarded to the player. Awarded is the key word here, I
>> am talking about buying.Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
>
> Private companies that has multiple shareholders set the value of their
> stock each year as well so most NFL teams could offer options right now.
Glenn, I am wrong on this point. You can't sell options unless a stock
is trade publicly.
I still don't know what advantage buying options holds unless they are
under market & that would be a cap issue.
Glenn Greenstein
So tell me Mark, is $800 or so a year a team spends on a players
health ins. counted as part of his salary and applied to the cap?
Glenn Greenstein
As an employee you get fringe benefits to insider deals and options.
When an option is first coming out it is at a low price and as the
stock goes up the option prices go up as well and visa versa. You
can't buy an option for $20 when the stock is at $40 but employees get
offered them in advance of the general buying public, well at least
that is the way my friends described it to me.
Glenn Greenstein
MZ
I'm willing to bet it is. Isn't it standardized throughout the league
though like the pension is? Maybe they don't count it against the cap
if it's standardized and therefore the same for each player.
Glenn Greenstein
My point is as an employee of the company you are offered a chance to
buy options on stock at lower prices than the general public is, it is
a benefit for working there. You also do not have to buy them, it's
just offered. The player is using his own money so if they count the
options the player buys against the cap that would be like double
taxation because the money the player spent to buy them was already
counted against the cap.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Johnctx
It is a moot point Glenn. A publicly traded company can't own a franchise.
I posted part of the NFL's own rules.
Glenn Greenstein
It is in no way standard, a player who lives in NJ pays less for
health ins than one who lives in NY. A guy that lives in Fl pays even
less. It is also not counted against the cap, that would be pathetic
if it is.
MZ
Why wouldn't it be? It's part of the salary as defined by the CBA.
MZ
BTW, looked into it some more, and health insurance & life insurance are
offered through the NFLPA, so they wouldn't count against the cap. I
think retirement is too, but I haven't found a source yet.
papa.carl44
And if they have an Rx plan...the costs are extremely different around the
country, not only for the plan, but for the medications dispensed.
papa.carl44
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:XYidnX1NcMNkGWvW...@giganews.com...
John, Can you answer this question then. A friend of mine worked for a
large privately held company. They paid him "raises" or "bonuses" by giving
him stock in the company (that was not publicly traded). Then they
downsized and laid him off. Now they are telling him the 80 shares he was
given are really only 40 shares and that it was a clerical error when it was
given. He is still getting paid dividends on the 80 shares. What can he
do? This is a guy who can not afford to lose much more. He asked me...I
have NO clue.
Johnctx
I am not an attorney and have few facts but when I worked for a private
company that issued stock they set the price annually. I don't know how
you go from telling a guy he had 80 shares that he he now has 40 shares.
Reverse split?
If he had any paper work I would look around for an attorney that
specializes in suing publicly traded companies who have issues related
to price declines, options to idiot officers etc. This isn't the same
but securities law is securities law. Private firms have rules too.
They may pay him off to make it disappear especially if they insurance
covering stupidity. The problem is you are giving up 33-50% to an
attorney if he thinks it is an easy case.
Best bet is for him to start doing his homework today and see if it is
worth his time.
Stock in private companies are very illiquid. This is one of many
reasons. I bet he can only sell back the company.
papa.carl44
You are right there...he must sell back to the company and from the letter
he let me read....they want it back and don't want to pay for it. I told
him to get an attorney from out of the area...this company is so connected
to a lot of local politicians it blew my mind...all these local wannabes
have ties to the company. I'm clueless about this but can follow paper
trails and understand basic law if I can read it. Thanks for the input. I
felt like you said, it may cost him more than just negotiating with them to
get what he can.
I worked for a not for profit private hospital foundaton when I became
ill...they have done everything possible to cut my pension to nothing, and
they actually can get away with a lot. I never expected to have them treat
anybody fairly...so I'm not too surprised. Ain't life grand?
Johnctx
> I worked for a not for profit private hospital foundaton when I became
> ill...they have done everything possible to cut my pension to nothing, and
> they actually can get away with a lot. I never expected to have them treat
> anybody fairly...so I'm not too surprised. Ain't life grand?
>
>
Papa, & this is where you realize there are some GOPers you have common
ground.
:)
The lack of competent counsel for average people is mind numbing. It
doesn't matter if it is a situation like this or a DUI. Who you choose
could change your life and they are not all equal or competent. It is
why bad judges at the lower levels in some ways are more dangerous than
the ideologues at the higher level.
Tell your friend, I assume he is out of work & has the time, to call the
nearest law school. They pay those lawyers nothing to teach so they are
there because they are idiots & can't feed themselves or they are there
because they love the law & understand its importance. He may get lucky.
I would also call the secretary of state's office and you may luck out
getting help.
papa.carl44
Good advice....I actually told him to call "the opposition" party lawyers.
So many of the sort of hidden, but not well, principals in this company are
local politicians and unfortunately they are connected to our lovely new
govenor, "Fat Ass." I don't think local and state party affiliation means a
Hell of a lot...NJ seems to find buffoons on both sides of the isle...and a
lot of The Sopranos was fairly accurate regarding corruption I think. The
Dems and the GOPers are both a mess. That said, he should find someone who
has a reason to go after this group. The law school idea is good. As for my
former employer they were a real paradox...they would talk about stuff that
would seem very liberal in terms of supporting healthcare changes that would
bring some bucks to them...but when you talked privately to the CEO and his
buddies they were way to the right of The Tea Party crowd...truly hypcrits.
They fought for every single public contract, wanted all the state money
they can get their hands on....and privately voice disdain for the very
peopel they are treating. I saw this coming, about my pension stuff, and
they did it to a lot of people. The laws that could have protected us
started to erode under Clinton and then the Bush years took away a
lot....not a partisan issue here....I asked one of the "officers" I've
remained friendly with, the one who hired me many years ago, why they do
this stuff? I was told, "Because they can." It is in their personal
financial interests, and it saves the institution money, they also have
adopted a plan to keep staff continually rolling over, don't let anybody get
too comfortable and want to stay, make a career out of it. I think this is
what is going on in much of healthcare today. THAT is creating a huge
problem, the average nurse (RN) is over 50 years old now...when they force
some of these women to change, they find something else to do. I do not see
any good solutions being offered by either party, either side of the isle on
these issues. We need fundamental changes in some core values to make it
all work...and that is not happening. But....call the sec of state....:-)
this is NJ.....
Johnctx
I confirmed with a friend who teaches at a local law school. There
generally is a law clinic or he may find someone like my buddy that
takes pro bono work.
>
As for my
> former employer they were a real paradox...they would talk about stuff that
> would seem very liberal in terms of supporting healthcare changes that would
> bring some bucks to them...but when you talked privately to the CEO and his
> buddies they were way to the right of The Tea Party crowd...truly hypcrits.
I work with many rich guys who toss big $ to insure their piece of the
health care pie isn't cut any smaller. They vote GOP & pray Democrat..
> They fought for every single public contract, wanted all the state money
> they can get their hands on....and privately voice disdain for the very
> peopel they are treating. I saw this coming, about my pension stuff, and
> they did it to a lot of people. The laws that could have protected us
> started to erode under Clinton and then the Bush years took away a
> lot....not a partisan issue here....I asked one of the "officers" I've
> remained friendly with, the one who hired me many years ago, why they do
> this stuff? I was told, "Because they can."
Quite a few advancements have been made because of the system we have
run with since WW2 just because the profit potential caused quite a few
$ to be thrown at problems. Having said that, top to bottom we would be
better off if we had gone with a national plan like the UK did post WW2.
>
It is in their personal
> financial interests, and it saves the institution money, they also have
> adopted a plan to keep staff continually rolling over, don't let anybody get
> too comfortable and want to stay, make a career out of it. I think this is
> what is going on in much of healthcare today.
Basic care should not be line item. The problem papa is with American
is, who will play gatekeeper. We expect that there is no limit $ when
it is someone we love.
>
THAT is creating a huge
> problem, the average nurse (RN) is over 50 years old now...when they force
> some of these women to change, they find something else to do. I do not see
> any good solutions being offered by either party, either side of the isle on
> these issues. We need fundamental changes in some core values to make it
> all work...and that is not happening. But....call the sec of state....:-)
> this is NJ.....
If we want to insure that we have RN's we need to revamp the secondary
education system. Start training people at 14 to be RN's. Like most
professions they want to be "professionals" --like they already were
not--so they started throwing barriers to entry.
papa.carl44
I don't think the barriers to entry and nearly as big a problem as weekend
shifts, night shifts, working on Christmas and every other holiday, low pay
vs. responsibility to start out with, getting stuck repeatedly with doing
double shifts to cover needs, getting called into work when you are supposed
to have a day off, and on and on....young women today just don't want this
life style....and there is little prestiege anymore to being a nurse. Me?
I love 'em....figuratively and literally...my wife is a nurse.
MZ
I think some of that stuff would go away if they expanded the work
force, which goes back to the barrier to entry thing John was saying.
More workers = less overworked.
The alternative is to try to lure more workers in with higher pay. But
we see how that worked out for schooling...
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
The workforce was deliberately lowered too....there are no real barriers to
going into the profession...if you want to be a nurse you can do it...like
any other profession. I'm curious, what are the barriers? Hospitals don't
want to have a lot of fulltime nurses...they pay the same healthcare
benefits if a nurse works overtime to cover a shift or just works her
regular shift...and if she covers they save money on benefits. They like a
bunch of part time nurses too...anything to reduce costs. Where my wife
works...a MAJOR hospital system, they just told all the nurses with a
certain amount of time in that their pensions would be frozen at their
salary for the year 2008...that is encouraging younger nurses to
leave...that is what they like. It's not good care, and it isn't good for
the future, but they are not really interested in that. It is very hard and
demanding work. It's not a job for those who are not into being constantly
up to date on their skills etc. Nurses today have far more responsibility
than ever before...and it is only going to increase in that respect I think.
Some of them do make very good salaries, way better than teachers in many
cases....but the work is very demanding. When I was a patient at The
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for several months I noticed that
a large number of the nurses were agency travel nurses...in other words,
women who were placed by an agency, agreed to work there for a given period
of time...sometimes a year...and then moved on, and really moving
on....going to another city, and even country sometimes. A lot of younger
single women do that. As for barriers to entry...I'm not seeing that. If
you mean not meeting certain requirements to get into nursing school...I
really don't want those folks taking care of me. My wife feels very
strongly that the "college" nurses do not come into the profession as well
trained as the ones schooled and trained at a hospital, but the teaching
hospitals with nursing schools attached are fading away too...and almost all
of this has been driven by insurance companies who call a lot of the
shots...and hospital administrators jump through the hoops when told to.
People like going to see their Dr. and paying that $5, $10or $20 copay...and
then when some services are either not there or poor they can't understand
why.
Johnctx
It is a tough job--3 sisters & two are nurses.
Johnctx
The agency nurses is a product of the shortage. It also is one of the
perks of being an RN if your family can afford for you to stay home or
don't need the benefits. Work when you want.
The barrier to entry I am talking about is exactly what you mentioned
about hospital trained nurses as opposed to college programs. There was
this obsession with nurses have BS in nursing---like most licensed
professionals driven by the nursing education establishment. Ask your
wife how many programs--especially hospital based-- have closed since
the 1970's.
I am not sure why the insurance companies would care as they certainly
don't like what it has done to costs. My knowledge of that decision is
that schools lost or didn't make money for hospitals so they are gone.
So hospitals pay agencies $60,70,80 / hour so they are staffed at proper
levels. Train more nurses & that may help.
papa.carl44
OK...I see what you mean...and yes, some nursing hierarchies helped create
the mess. My experience was that insurance providers created issues about
"credentialed" and "degreed" staff providing services. I think some nursing
schools got it into their heads that they would increase their status by
creating this new level...and it backfired in some ways. My wife just hired
a woman who has her MA in nursing and is completing her PhD...but she still
has to work as a nurse...a hospital nurse. I will agree that academia
created an illusion that the more degrees one has the smarter or more
prepared they were...and that is not the case. My experience in behavioral
healthcare really taught me that. I went into it after a long career in
education, and worked at any job in the trenches to get experience. I
worked late night hours in a crisis center...and I LEARNED! I also had
great psychiatrists who were willing to mentor me and help me. Later on I'd
see some young person come in with a string of degrees and little actual
experience...they were lost and a lot of them became frightened and bailed
out. After I saw things on the late night at an inner city hospital crisis
center..I'd seen it all, and learned a lot too. OJT means a lot.
>