dgreco

After a home run, a player must use jazz hands when hig-fiving teammates at home After a home run, a player must use jazz hands when high-five-ing teammates at home.

Glad to see a player take the deal avoid going to arbitration.

the employer taxes are FICA and then FUTA and SUTA. Also, if they are an LLP it is a pass-through entity so they will not pay any taxes, but the partnership will file a K-1 for each partner and the partner then pays the taxes on their individual 1040. Now if it is a Corp, which was on their annual report with the state (but again - I am not 100% sure because it wouldn't make much sense for them to file that way) they would pay corporate taxes.

I'm pretty sure that it will change by 2012. This is just a concept. I hope so. I'd like to see a more realistic marlin, maybe with light up eyes or something, rise out of REAL water, with some fountains around it. Still a bit over the top, but it be more traditional and certainly not as gaudy as this concept video. They style won't change if Red Grooms stays. His style is modern, hectic, disproportionate and colorful art. I think it will stick to that, mostly. The changes will not change the style of the work.

Thursday, December 17 Indianapolis at Jacksonville (8:20 PM) Saturday, December 19 Dallas at New Orleans (8:20 PM) Sunday, December 20 Cleveland at Kansas City (1:00 PM) Houston at St. Louis (1:00 PM) Miami at Tennessee (1:00 PM) Arizona at Detroit (1:00 PM) Atlanta at N.Y. Jets (1:00 PM) New England at Buffalo (1:00 PM) Chicago at Baltimore (1:00 PM) San Francisco at Philadelphia (1:00 PM) Cincinnati at San Diego (4:05 PM) Oakland at Denver (4:05 PM) Green Bay at Pittsburgh (4:15 PM) Tampa Bay at Seattle (4:15 PM) Minnesota at Carolina (8:20 PM) Monday, December 21 N.Y. Giants at Washington (8:30 PM) 8-8

I think it is extremely ugly looking. And the poll hanging out of the water, with the large ugly bulbs, looks like a 1993 carnival attraction.

Had to bring in the A's to finalize the deal, but it seems to be official now. Phillies get: RHP Roy Halladay (from Toronto) RHP Phillippe Aumont (from Seattle) OF Tyson Gillies (from Seattle) RHP Juan Ramirez (from Seattle) $6 million cash (from Toronto) Marines get: LHP Cliff Lee (from Philadelphia) Blue Jays get: C Travis d'Arnaud (from Philadelphia) RHP Kyle Drabek (from Philadelphia) 1B/3B Brett Wallace (from Oakland) A's get: OF Michael Taylor (from Philadelphia via Toronto) so the Phillies give up two high prospects, but do receive the Mariners two best pitching prospects

A bus stops and 2 Italian men get on. They sit down and engage in an animated conversation. The lady sitting next to them ignores them at first, but her attention is galvanized when she hears one of them say the following: Emma come first. Den I come. Den two asses come together. I come once-a-more! . Two asses, they come together again. I come again and pee twice. Then I come one lasta time.' The lady can't take this any more. 'You foul- mouthed sex obsessed pig,' she retorted indignantly. "In this country. we don't speak aloud in Public places about our sex lives." 'Hey, coola down lady,' said the man. "Who talkin' abouta sex? I'm a justa tellin' my frienda how to spell ' Mississippi '."

Anyone catch this show? I DVR'd the first two episodes and had the chance to watch them. I thought it was going to be funnier, but I think it is a pretty good drama and worth checking out.

It is near the Christmas break of the school year. The students have turned in all their work and there is really nothing more to do. All the children are restless and the teacher decides to have an early dismissal. Teacher: "Whoever answers the questions I ask, first and correctly can leave early today." Little Johnny says to himself "Good, I want to get outta here. I'm smart and will answer the question." Teacher: "Who said 'Four Score and Seven Years Ago'?" Before Johnny can open his mouth, Susie says, "Abraham Lincoln." Teacher: "That's right Susie, you can go home." Johnny is mad that Susie answered the question first. Teacher: "Who said 'I Have a Dream'?" Before Johnny can open his mouth, Mary says, "Martin Luther King." Teacher: "That's right Mary, you can go." Johnny is even madder than before. Teacher: "Who said 'Ask not, what your country can do for you'?" Before Johnny can open his mouth, Nancy says, "John F. Kennedy." Teacher: "That's right Nancy, you may also leave." Johnny is boiling mad that he has not been able to answer to any of the questions. When the teacher turns her back Johnny says, "I wish these bitches would keep their mouths shut!" The teacher turns around: "NOW WHO SAID THAT!?" Johnny: "TIGER WOODS. CAN I GO NOW?"

Maybe by signing Chapman it would allow them to give up Buchholz as part of a deal to get Adrian Gonzalez from SD, as their interest has been rumoured. Since it looks like they will not get Matsui, Holliday, or Bay I think that might be what they are doing. I think they would be smarter to get Gonzalez instead of a Beltre especially if Cameron is their LF (which it seems like now)

Considering they, with the signing of Lackey, now have 6 legit starters I say this is a move for the future.

rotation of Beckett Lackey Lester ------- Matsuzaka Wakefield Buchholz Tazawa Red Sox look like they are in good shape. If everyone doesn't get hurt like last year they have a strong 5 and good arms for the bullpen.

They're trading more than Lee... but will it be anyone that has as big of an impact as Lee or even half the impact of Lee?

Gotta feel bad for the Angels they lose out on Halladay and Lackey signs with the Red Sox. Halladay is going to have a dominate season moving to the NL.

Why shouldn't the entity be "for profit"? Not being a lawyer I would assume the entity exists in part to shield the officers of the company from personal liability. I would guess a number of the limited partners also hold their interest in similar vehicles for just the same reason. not talking about the for-profit section, but the annual report lists them as a for-profit corporation. It doesn't say lp, llp, llc etc...

^Unless I am looking in the wrong place it says according to their Annual Report that they are a for-profit corp. with a Loria CEO and Samson as president. That is their 2009 filing. Also, on an offnote I can't believe how many inactive Double Play entities their are in florida.

I think Stark is missing a lot of information that prevents his case from being convincing. For example, he is making accusations (indirectly) but he provides no accounting information for other operating expenses outside of team payroll. He likely doesn't have access to this, nor should he. It seems like he's supeficially assuming that the team is handed $80 M from the league, earns several million in ticket sales, pays out $30-$40 million for talent and pockets the rest. The Marlins have to fund an entire minor league system, pay Dolphin Stadium rent, airfare, hotels, etc. This in itself is probably in the tens of millions of dollars. This is a pretty bad accounting exercise. It's the same reason why those yearly Forbes studies for the "most profitable" franchises is nonsense. Well if he wanted to do actual reporting he could request an audited report. Anyone can call and ask for an audited report. Also, to support Marlins if you do not know about accounting it is hard to justify what you are saying. Would this be possible before Sarbanes-Oxley? Possibly and only then. I am sure any of Deloitte, PwC, E&Y or KPMG are doing their personal books and would not risk the backlash to help out Loria. None of the Big4 want to end up like Arthur Andersen. Like stated earlier, retaining some of those earnings is possible, but unless they are a consolidated/affiliated group they are paying ridiculous high taxes for retained earnings that are higher than the allowable threshold. edit: Spike, figured if you didn't know SOX you could read up on it. So I added the link : http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ204/html/PLAW-107publ204.htm So many experts. Sure, for a private company like the Marlins, just call up their auditors and ask for a copy of the financials. OK, who is in line for a lawsuit for releasing confidential client information. End of that theory. Maybe you think you can call the IRS and get a copy of the tax audit-NO. Next, as I have read, the Marlins are a partnership and Loria is the "managing partner". Guess what, there is no tax on partnerships, only the partners based on the partnership agreement as to the method of allocation of taxable income, assuming there is partnership income. If there is a loss, the partners then report the loss based on the agreement, not even necessarily on their proportionate ownership interest. Whether they "retain" the earnings in the business or distribute it to the partners does not matter for tax purposes. Thus, the statement about "riduculously high taxes" is totally false in the context of a partnership. Companies have to release their audited reports done by the auditee of their accounting firm. You cannot call the IRS and ask for their audit. And as for the retained earning tax... read up on Accumulated Earnings... http://www.irs.gov/publications/p542/ar02.html And if they are an LLC, LLLC, LLP, LLLP etc... they cannot just whip out retained earnings because of allocation. Read the Anderson v. Anderson case (required that whoever received the retained earnings had to claim that source of income---So if he did that would be obvious that he was pocketing any money in excess of ordinary salary) Other than a few people, we are about to put everyone to sleep. Your reference to publication 542 is specific to corporations-again, contrary to the matter about partnerships. And of course, if Loria was taking distributions that were in excess of what was called for in the partnership agreement, then he would have an issue. I was not really discussing anything to do with a partner violating his fiduciary responsibility, simply indicating that there is no tax at the partnership level for retaining the earnings, as was implied. There is no excess retained earnings tax in a partnership-you can accumulate all the earnings you want if whatever amount without ever spending it, at least for tax purposes. The other partners may want to see some cash if it is available, especially since they are taxed on the earnings even if they do not get it. Semantically, there is no such thing as "retained earnings" in a partnership either, that is a corporate term. The code deals with it specifically for corporations. You are correct since a partnership is a passthrough entity, but the point still holds that any excess earnings would be seen. So if he were taking the excess income and not distributing properly it would bring about red flags. What I am not sure about is whether or not they are part of an affiliated group, if they are and the parent/brother company then it would be different. For example, the Red Sox have an ownership group, but it is a subsidiary of the larger corporation that owns the Boston Globe and a part of the NY Times. If they are strictly a partnership then what you say is completely right, I was just throwing out the corporation side of the argument.

I think Stark is missing a lot of information that prevents his case from being convincing. For example, he is making accusations (indirectly) but he provides no accounting information for other operating expenses outside of team payroll. He likely doesn't have access to this, nor should he. It seems like he's supeficially assuming that the team is handed $80 M from the league, earns several million in ticket sales, pays out $30-$40 million for talent and pockets the rest. The Marlins have to fund an entire minor league system, pay Dolphin Stadium rent, airfare, hotels, etc. This in itself is probably in the tens of millions of dollars. This is a pretty bad accounting exercise. It's the same reason why those yearly Forbes studies for the "most profitable" franchises is nonsense. Well if he wanted to do actual reporting he could request an audited report. Anyone can call and ask for an audited report. Also, to support Marlins if you do not know about accounting it is hard to justify what you are saying. Would this be possible before Sarbanes-Oxley? Possibly and only then. I am sure any of Deloitte, PwC, E&Y or KPMG are doing their personal books and would not risk the backlash to help out Loria. None of the Big4 want to end up like Arthur Andersen. Like stated earlier, retaining some of those earnings is possible, but unless they are a consolidated/affiliated group they are paying ridiculous high taxes for retained earnings that are higher than the allowable threshold. edit: Spike, figured if you didn't know SOX you could read up on it. So I added the link : http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ204/html/PLAW-107publ204.htm So many experts. Sure, for a private company like the Marlins, just call up their auditors and ask for a copy of the financials. OK, who is in line for a lawsuit for releasing confidential client information. End of that theory. Maybe you think you can call the IRS and get a copy of the tax audit-NO. Next, as I have read, the Marlins are a partnership and Loria is the "managing partner". Guess what, there is no tax on partnerships, only the partners based on the partnership agreement as to the method of allocation of taxable income, assuming there is partnership income. If there is a loss, the partners then report the loss based on the agreement, not even necessarily on their proportionate ownership interest. Whether they "retain" the earnings in the business or distribute it to the partners does not matter for tax purposes. Thus, the statement about "riduculously high taxes" is totally false in the context of a partnership. Companies have to release their audited reports done by the auditee of their accounting firm. You cannot call the IRS and ask for their audit. And as for the retained earning tax... read up on Accumulated Earnings... http://www.irs.gov/publications/p542/ar02.html And if they are an LLC, LLLC, LLP, LLLP etc... they cannot just whip out retained earnings because of allocation. Read the Anderson v. Anderson case (required that whoever received the retained earnings had to claim that source of income---So if he did that would be obvious that he was pocketing any money in excess of ordinary salary)

Would this be possible before Sarbanes-Oxley? Possibly and only then. Nope. Sarbox has nothing to do with this, Sarbox applies to publicly-traded securities. The Marlins are not a publicly held company, they issue no equity securities required to be registered and, just like every other private company, they are not required to provide any financial reporting whatsoever to the public. They are a private company, which is why Stark has no idea about what he is yapping about as he has no financial information other than basic revenue-sharing data that MLB has chosen to make public. Just as the various know-nothings on this board who scream "Loria is pocketing millions" have no idea what they are talking about. SOX is used by all major companies now. Just because it is written for publicly traded companies doesn't mean the Big4 do not require it for all their audited companies. It has also spread heavily into the NPO world--no longer is the 990 enough.

I'll leave you with one last thought. The Detroit Tigers put 2.5 million fannies in their seats last season, get revenue from every imaginable source, concessions, parking, merchandising, advertising, etc., and yet with all that dough (there's a pun in there) they are hemorrhaging like a dozen other major league baseball franchises. The Yankees, the Red Sox are cutting costs and they both have huge cable networks backing them up and are merchandising machines and sell-out almost every game. It's expensive and getting moreso running a baseball team, it's a lot more than onfield payroll and paying minor leaguers, I'm guessing even you know that. So let's say they got $80 in this supposed deal. Average ticket price was $18 million, times 2.5 million is $45 million. Concessions, parking, merch, whatever. I'm not doing an audit. Add that. So at minimum, we're looking at the supposed $80 million in "revenue sharing" and makes $45 million, plus who knows. Payroll was $115 million. Running the organization, who knows how much the farm and other payroll costs. Using this data, we can easily show that Detroit is receiving in $125 million plus beer sales/etc. I think it's pretty reasonable to think, mere beer sales and some other stuff is not going to cover all the other expenses in 'running the organization.' Your example doesn't support the argument the Marlins aren't bank rolling. Marlins get $80 million, have $16.50 average ticket times $1.3 million fans is say $21 million. Marlins are making let's say $100 million just based on "sharing" and gate. Our payroll is $35 million. Is it costing the Marlins $65 million to run everything else? I find that hard to believe. The Marlins have a much better chance of making a profit than the Tigers based on these numbers. Granted, I don't know how much the Jacksonville Suns costs the Marlins, and neither does anyone. But it seems to me after eliminating payroll and coming up with a very basic ticket sales price, the Tigers are spending to much and that's their problem. So this really leads to the core issue Is this $80 million figure correct? If it is, Loria is without a doubt making profit. Hopefully which is all going into the stadium, but I can't speculate what he does with it. For the most part, I tend to agree with you that Loria isn't "that bad" and he's doing what he can with the lack of revenue. But if these figures are even remotely true, even half way, it pretty much shows the Marlins are more than likely making a profit. I don't know how you can argue against that. Do not forget they are leasing at Dolphin Stadium and every figure that has ever been made public is that they are only receiving between 1 and 2 million dollars in profit. If that is so you are looking at $81.5 million total with a payroll of $35 million, that leaves the team at about $45 million to run the rest of the system. Not only are they running the system but they are paying everyone who is employed with them also. So when the Jacksonville Suns have a person cleaning the stadium afterwards they are paying. I know that is a de minimis in nature, but when you add it all up it does build. You then have scouts, a gm, other executives, a legal team, an accounting team. That all adds up and out of that $45 million if they only end up with 10% to 15% of that it really isn't drawing a profit.

I think Stark is missing a lot of information that prevents his case from being convincing. For example, he is making accusations (indirectly) but he provides no accounting information for other operating expenses outside of team payroll. He likely doesn't have access to this, nor should he. It seems like he's supeficially assuming that the team is handed $80 M from the league, earns several million in ticket sales, pays out $30-$40 million for talent and pockets the rest. The Marlins have to fund an entire minor league system, pay Dolphin Stadium rent, airfare, hotels, etc. This in itself is probably in the tens of millions of dollars. This is a pretty bad accounting exercise. It's the same reason why those yearly Forbes studies for the "most profitable" franchises is nonsense. Well if he wanted to do actual reporting he could request an audited report. Anyone can call and ask for an audited report. Also, to support Marlins if you do not know about accounting it is hard to justify what you are saying. Would this be possible before Sarbanes-Oxley? Possibly and only then. I am sure any of Deloitte, PwC, E&Y or KPMG are doing their personal books and would not risk the backlash to help out Loria. None of the Big4 want to end up like Arthur Andersen. Like stated earlier, retaining some of those earnings is possible, but unless they are a consolidated/affiliated group they are paying ridiculous high taxes for retained earnings that are higher than the allowable threshold. edit: Spike, figured if you didn't know SOX you could read up on it. So I added the link : http://www.gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ204/html/PLAW-107publ204.htm

do not have much to say except that the heat look horrible. To be getting blown out by this much to not-so-great memphis team is disappointing.

I do not think the movie looks great and I am not big on future syfy reruns, but I think the cgi looks amazing in this movie. Seeing previews in the theater I think their is nothing to really complain about. I also like how well they use performance capture (at least from the previews). I am not a fan of it in the Zemeckis films, I think they are a little freaky, but it looks really cool in this film.

Here's politics in terms you can understand: They take your money and your freedom, with They = Republicans and Democrats. It's really that simple. government is intrusive by nature, unfortunately the only people who follow the constitution, as a whole and consistently, are students who are part of the Federalist Society. Unfortunately people in politics do not want that because if the people have too much control they do not have the control they seek.