Jeff Bezos & The Bears?

[dplank]

Yea me too, I'd be fine if Bezos bought the Bears. We've just sucked for too long, we need change. Big money would create change, I don't think folks really understand how much it can impact things even though there's a salary cap in place. There's a reason why Dallas fields an all star team every year (regardless of what they do with it lol). There's a reason why the Ravens draft so well (they have invested stupid money into talent acquisition). Big money can do things like pay the best GM in the world 2x what anyone else would pay, or overpay a top shelf coaching staff that otherwise might want to coach elsewhere. Big money can do things like hire in house business managers for players, free resources that help them with their finances, media opportunities, other areas where they can earn more money outside of just their salary and without having to give an agent 20%. Big money could self finance Arlington and make it a huge draw/destination (that impacts players FA decisions - it's small but every bit helps when competing for top FA talent and everyone has the same cap restraints). W already upgraded halas hall thankfully, that was a great move, facilities really do impact a players decision to play here - I've seen that first hand in both college and pro. The list goes on and on.

[wulfy]

I have no idea if Bezos buying the Bears would have an effect on the on-field product - it's off the field where he would make the greatest impact.

SoFi Field would be his starting point on what he would build in Arlington.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

I'm to the point right now where the devil himself could crawl out of the ground and buy the Bears and I'd be perfectly happy with it.

[TheWorldBreaker]

He’s not only competent at running a business but he built one of the most successful businesses in history.

He’d be a huge upgrade over the McCaskey’s and wouldn’t put up with an underachiever like Ted Phillips being in charge for over 20 years despite his lack of accomplishments.

I don’t think there is a person who could drop around 4 billion on a sports team that is a choir boy every one would love.

There are a lot things worse than one of the richest men in the world owning the team.

*fingers crossed*

[Grizzled]

Short of him blowing the McCaskeys out of the water with a truly obscene offer, they ain't selling anytime in the next few years. Just as long as he followed the Paul Allen-Mark Cuban model of ownership but uberwealthy guys, not the Daniel Snyder model.

[Umbali]

Yea me too, I'd be fine if Bezos bought the Bears. We've just sucked for too long, we need change. Big money would create change, I don't think folks really understand how much it can impact things even though there's a salary cap in place. There's a reason why Dallas fields an all star team every year (regardless of what they do with it lol). There's a reason why the Ravens draft so well (they have invested stupid money into talent acquisition). Big money can do things like pay the best GM in the world 2x what anyone else would pay, or overpay a top shelf coaching staff that otherwise might want to coach elsewhere. Big money can do things like hire in house business managers for players, free resources that help them with their finances, media opportunities, other areas where they can earn more money outside of just their salary and without having to give an agent 20%. Big money could self finance Arlington and make it a huge draw/destination (that impacts players FA decisions - it's small but every bit helps when competing for top FA talent and everyone has the same cap restraints). W already upgraded halas hall thankfully, that was a great move, facilities really do impact a players decision to play here - I've seen that first hand in both college and pro. The list goes on and on.

That! Right There!

[RichH55]

Daniel Snyder is worth 4 Billion

The cap is still the cap - the draft is still ordered by Record

[Boris13c]

Daniel Snyder is worth 4 Billion

The cap is still the cap - the draft is still ordered by Record

maybe I am confused, but it seems you are arguing a point that is not being made

I don't think anyone is saying Bezos buying the team would let him use his billions to go beyond the cap ... what his billions would do is allow for improvement in team infrastructure, as in the Bears actually having their own stadium rather than renting one from the city ... or being able to hire better coaches by giving a little bump other teams cannot afford

[dave99]

Daniel Snyder is worth 4 Billion

The cap is still the cap - the draft is still ordered by Record

maybe I am confused, but it seems you are arguing a point that is not being made

I don't think anyone is saying Bezos buying the team would let him use his billions to go beyond the cap ... what his billions would do is allow for improvement in team infrastructure, as in the Bears actually having their own stadium rather than renting one from the city ... or being able to hire better coaches by giving a little bump other teams cannot afford

Or maybe, saints preserve us, hire some competent people to run things, even if it means giving up a slice of the pie.
When Virginia passes on to her reward, her ownership will be stepped up in basis to FMV and most likely result in a giant tax bill, that is when they will sell most or all of the team. It also passes off the cost of construction to the new and probably deep pocketed owner.
I doubt anything happens before then, but I would be surprised if something major didn't happen at that point.

[thunderspirit]

If there's a major tax bill, someone's not doing their job.

I have a lot of criticism for Ted Phillips (some of it personal), but his ability as a finance manager isn't among them.

[Arkansasbear]

If there's a major tax bill, someone's not doing their job.

I have a lot of criticism for Ted Phillips (some of it personal), but his ability as a finance manager isn't among them.

I agree. One of the reason that peoples with a ton of money don't pay a large percentage in taxes is they can afford the best to make sure they do everything than can to avoid the tax man.

[dave99]

If there's a major tax bill, someone's not doing their job.

I have a lot of criticism for Ted Phillips (some of it personal), but his ability as a finance manager isn't among them.

I agree. One of the reason that peoples with a ton of money don't pay a large percentage in taxes is they can afford the best to make sure they do everything than can to avoid the tax man.

Well as someone who has just spent the best part of three years planning for and now administering a nine figure estate, I am here to say not that easy.
There are so-called freezes that involve gifts that always involve surrendering at least some control, but the more control you retain the easier it is to attack.
What many billionaires like Gates do is to create private foundations. This creates a one for one tax deduction but they are designed to hold passive investments such as stock, they cannot be involved in operations. Any self dealing with disqualified persons results in a confiscatory excise tax. They have to pay out a minimum each year in contributions.
So I can't really see how this would work here.
So it is possible that Virginia has done some early planning but most discussions of ownership say that Virginia is empowered to vote the stock for the entire family. A private foundation is limited as to how much voting stock it may own (generally 20%) and holding voting stock makes a freeze very unlikely if not impossible.
But even if they avoid all taxes somehow there is still the step up to FMV at date of death, that pretty much eliminates income taxes to the heirs if they if wish to sell. And they still will need cash for Arlington.

[The Cooler King]

I agree. One of the reason that peoples with a ton of money don't pay a large percentage in taxes is they can afford the best to make sure they do everything than can to avoid the tax man.

Well as someone who has just spent the best part of three years planning for and now administering a nine figure estate, I am here to say not that easy.
There are so-called freezes that involve gifts that always involve surrendering at least some control, but the more control you retain the easier it is to attack.
What many billionaires like Gates do is to create private foundations. This creates a one for one tax deduction but they are designed to hold passive investments such as stock, they cannot be involved in operations. Any self dealing with disqualified persons results in a confiscatory excise tax. They have to pay out a minimum each year in contributions.
So I can't really see how this would work here.
So it is possible that Virginia has done some early planning but most discussions of ownership say that Virginia is empowered to vote the stock for the entire family. A private foundation is limited as to how much voting stock it may own (generally 20%) and holding voting stock makes a freeze very unlikely if not impossible.
But even if they avoid all taxes somehow there is still the step up to FMV at date of death, that pretty much eliminates income taxes to the heirs if they if wish to sell. And they still will need cash for Arlington.

And the NFL ownership rules very well are likely to require a sale anyways, creating some complications too.

Also as you basically said, tax minimization most often doesn't allow liquidity. If some grandkids or whoever want the money, they may not really care about taxes. There's like 13 kids right? So maybe the difference of a 200,000,000 windfall or 360,000,000 windfall? Probably among 3rd Gen wealth heirs, most aren't blinking at that difference even if it's large in % terms.

[RichH55]

Daniel Snyder is worth 4 Billion

The cap is still the cap - the draft is still ordered by Record

maybe I am confused, but it seems you are arguing a point that is not being made

I don't think anyone is saying Bezos buying the team would let him use his billions to go beyond the cap ... what his billions would do is allow for improvement in team infrastructure, as in the Bears actually having their own stadium rather than renting one from the city ... or being able to hire better coaches by giving a little bump other teams cannot afford

People are overrating the impact of $$$ - by a crazy amount (and overlooking that basically every NFL Owner - Crazy well off)

Packers are good - they have the least $$$.

Also - is there ANY evidence that we are missing on Coaches due to $$$? There was a time when Lovie was a top 3 paid coach. Etc. This is JUST NOT A THING (For Pros)

When Vic was a top Coordinator out there - where did he go? Why didn't an Owner with MONEY get him1?!?!?!?!?

The point of the stadium could be awesome? Ok. The Bears training facilities, etc though are NOT subpar. The 80 Pound dumbbells - Those weigh 80 Pounds in most cities folks.

The coolness of the stadium - and owning the land v. Leasing it - How exactly does that make your QB better or your scouting more exact?

And that's before taking the counterfactuals of your Daniel Snyders types where - and hear me out - Sometimes the billionaire comes with just a HINT of an ego


Shad Khan is worth nearly 9 Billion - Jags ummmm Not so good folks


In Baseball it absolutely matters. The NFL is secretly socialism as F - folks

[mmmc_35]

In Baseball it absolutely matters. The NFL is secretly socialism as F - folks

Agree once you reach the right dollar ammount it doesnt matter. I'm free market as fuck, so it's not exactly socialism, but the point is accurate.

Whoever builds a winning team they will get my money

[dplank]

I think you guys are discounting the possibility of the Bears being the first team to play a game in outer space.

[The Cooler King]

I think you guys are discounting the possibility of the Bears being the first team to play a game in outer space.

Finally an opportunity for the Bears to put up big passing stats.

[RichH55]

That made me laugh Dplank

Nicely played

[Yogi da Bear]

Well as someone who has just spent the best part of three years planning for and now administering a nine figure estate, I am here to say not that easy.
There are so-called freezes that involve gifts that always involve surrendering at least some control, but the more control you retain the easier it is to attack.
What many billionaires like Gates do is to create private foundations. This creates a one for one tax deduction but they are designed to hold passive investments such as stock, they cannot be involved in operations. Any self dealing with disqualified persons results in a confiscatory excise tax. They have to pay out a minimum each year in contributions.
So I can't really see how this would work here.
So it is possible that Virginia has done some early planning but most discussions of ownership say that Virginia is empowered to vote the stock for the entire family. A private foundation is limited as to how much voting stock it may own (generally 20%) and holding voting stock makes a freeze very unlikely if not impossible.
But even if they avoid all taxes somehow there is still the step up to FMV at date of death, that pretty much eliminates income taxes to the heirs if they if wish to sell. And they still will need cash for Arlington.

And the NFL ownership rules very well are likely to require a sale anyways, creating some complications too.

Also as you basically said, tax minimization most often doesn't allow liquidity. If some grandkids or whoever want the money, they may not really care about taxes. There's like 13 kids right? So maybe the difference of a 200,000,000 windfall or 360,000,000 windfall? Probably among 3rd Gen wealth heirs, most aren't blinking at that difference even if it's large in % terms.

Dave, there's a couple of ways that I know of to get around this.

The first is done over a long period of time. Considering the condition of the Bears, I imagine they've been doing this for a long time. But you gift shares in the corporation into a trust in the kids' names, with their kids' kids (if they have any) named as remainder beneficiaries. No beneficiary of that trust has any say whatsoever in its governance. Instead, you elect a Board of Trustees from among the beneficiaries to govern the conglomeration of the trusts. As you are gifting shares over time into these trusts. You're gifting them using book value or a very advantageous interpretation of FMV at the time the gifts are made rather than FMV now. These types of trusts have been cracked down on, but many have already been grandfathered in. This is how my ex's family has maintained their wealth. My guess though is that this is how the McCaskeys have managed their wealth since they've been in this position for a long time and are probably grandfathered in before the crackdown. My guess is that Virginia herself probably no longer even owns a single share of the Bears. Trusts for her grandchildren probably do, while the kid beneficiaries have absolutely no say so unless they're appointed to the Board.

The second is through the use of a Charitable Remainder Trust. As far as I know, these are still completely legal. In order to avoid Capital Gains Tax, you can gift your stock into this CRT. You don't have to pay any tax on the asset if you put it into this. You retain the right to control that asset for your life and when you die, the charity (usually a foundation) is established. This is what I guess Warren Buffet was doing when he made all those supposed charitable donations a while back. So somebody like Gates can set up a CRT at the time of a realization event and still control that asset for his life before it goes into a foundation in his name. Or his heirs can set up a CRT at the time of his willing his assets to them and not realize any inheritance tax while they can manage that asset for their life at the end of which it becomes a charity that they can have their heirs appointed to the board of.

[The Cooler King]

And the NFL ownership rules very well are likely to require a sale anyways, creating some complications too.

Also as you basically said, tax minimization most often doesn't allow liquidity. If some grandkids or whoever want the money, they may not really care about taxes. There's like 13 kids right? So maybe the difference of a 200,000,000 windfall or 360,000,000 windfall? Probably among 3rd Gen wealth heirs, most aren't blinking at that difference even if it's large in % terms.

Dave, there's a couple of ways that I know of to get around this.

The first is done over a long period of time. Considering the condition of the Bears, I imagine they've been doing this for a long time. But you gift shares in the corporation into a trust in the kids' names, with their kids' kids (if they have any) named as remainder beneficiaries. No beneficiary of that trust has any say whatsoever in its governance. Instead, you elect a Board of Trustees from among the beneficiaries to govern the conglomeration of the trusts. As you are gifting shares over time into these trusts. You're gifting them using book value or a very advantageous interpretation of FMV at the time the gifts are made rather than FMV now. These types of trusts have been cracked down on, but many have already been grandfathered in. This is how my ex's family has maintained their wealth. My guess though is that this is how the McCaskeys have managed their wealth since they've been in this position for a long time and are probably grandfathered in before the crackdown. My guess is that Virginia herself probably no longer even owns a single share of the Bears. Trusts for her grandchildren probably do, while the kid beneficiaries have absolutely no say so unless they're appointed to the Board.

The second is through the use of a Charitable Remainder Trust. As far as I know, these are still completely legal. In order to avoid Capital Gains Tax, you can gift your stock into this CRT. You don't have to pay any tax on the asset if you put it into this. You retain the right to control that asset for your life and when you die, the charity (usually a foundation) is established. This is what I guess Warren Buffet was doing when he made all those supposed charitable donations a while back. So somebody like Gates can set up a CRT at the time of a realization event and still control that asset for his life before it goes into a foundation in his name. Or his heirs can set up a CRT at the time of his willing his assets to them and not realize any inheritance tax while they can manage that asset for their life at the end of which it becomes a charity that they can have their heirs appointed to the board of.

In Virginia doesn't own at least 30%, my understanding is that the Bears would not be in compliance with NFL ownership rules. So any transfer games are limited in nature already. But I've seen at least some reporting to indicate she doesn't own the full ~80% that the McCakseys are said to represent.

[Yogi da Bear]

Do you really think the league is going to dig into what Virginia knows when many other owners are in the same boat? Do you think they're going to check how many of her shares are in trust for her kids versus owned personally by her? I don't think they're going to be too hell bent on checking all the owners like this. Not only that, since it would be a family board controlling those shares, the league would be hard press to say the McCaskeys didn't own it.

There's also a third way I forgot about on how to pass on assets: A Life Insurance Trust. This is a good way to avoid Generation Skipping Tax. What you do is set up a Trust for your grandkids and take out life insurance for yourself in the trust's name. You use your annual gift exemptions to pay the premium on the life insurance. Since the life insurance is in their name (or in the name of the trust for them) there are absolutely no estate taxes on the payout of that life insurance. The trust then uses the proceeds from that insurance when you die to pay the estate taxes.

I'm not sure how many of these tactics are still viable. I did get a 98% on my Estate Tax Planning exam in law school, but that was thirty years ago. Not sure exactly what the laws are now, but I haven't seen that they've changed much. And if they had, I'm sure there are other schemes that the uber wealthy have devised to avoid many of the estate taxes.

[The Cooler King]

Short answer is yes, the NFL is absolutely paying attention to ownership requirements.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... s-broncos/

So there's still flexibility there, but Virginia better be holding at least 30% and she better have not split it more than 21 other ways. Or transferred any interest to a publically traded Corp. Nor I believe a non profit.

[Yogi da Bear]

Short answer is yes, the NFL is absolutely paying attention to ownership requirements.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... s-broncos/

So there's still flexibility there, but Virginia better be holding at least 30% and she better have not split it more than 21 other ways. Or transferred any interest to a publically traded Corp. Nor I believe a non profit.

Nice of you to post that link. It illustrates what I'm saying about trusts:

The Broncos, as one source explained it to PFT, have a potential problem that will become relevant after the three-person trust who has been running the team for several years selects one of the seven children of Pat Bowlen to take over. If, as it is believed, ownership has been divided among the seven children equally, the winner of this intra-family Willie Wonka contest (presumably, Brittany Bowlen) would need the other six siblings to permanently surrender to the winner the power to run the team

This is what I was talking about in first option where you have the assets divided among trusts for the various beneficiaries and then that conglomerate of trusts being managed by an elected Board of Trustees. This Board would then elect a Chairman as their representative owner to the league. In this scenario, I don't think you'd need unanimous approval from each of the children. Nor do I think it would need to be permanent. It would act just like any Board of Directors and Chairman of the Board would. The Chairman would act as the owner to the league so long as the majority of the Board approves. If Brittany Bowlen does something really stupid, the Board would be able to vote her out and somebody else in. I don't think the league has any say in the inner workings of Team Ownership other than to have one voice as the one accountable. Admittedly though, just my presumption. But the language of trusts in this article I don't think is merely coincidental.

[The Cooler King]

That trust situation quoted explicitly was the result of the death of the principal owner. While the league is obviously going to allow some estate matters to get settled over time, they're going to penalize teams for it because they are monitoring it. And they probably won't approve it as a living trust matter while the principal is still living, but rather an estate issue.

[Yogi da Bear]

I don't think it's so much a Living Trust Issue as it is a stability/continuity issue. The NFL wants a single, answerable voice to represent its teams over time. If these trusts are set up like I expect, with a Board of Trustees governing them, then the other siblings really can't personally surrender anything as they don't really own anything. The trust does, and it's governed by a Board. I don't think the NFL is against this per se. They just want a single responsible voice. So if Brittany Bowlen assumes that voice the league is going to be okay with that. But the other siblings really can't "permanently" surrender anything to her.

Now if the Board of Trustees is constantly changing who the Chairman is, I'm sure the League would not be happy about it. But say if Brittany runs the team for 5-10 years and then the Board decides to make a change, I don't think the League would have a problem with it. That's continuity/stability enough for them I believe.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part as I have no idea what the Bowlen family's trust documents say. But that's how I would have set it up. And remember, all these Uber Rich families have a whole host of estate lawyers. Really, really good ones. It explains why the NFL hasn't already moved against them if they don't like it. Remember how often Al Davis successfully fought against the league. The League does. As long as there is a single stable figurehead the NFL can point to as owner over a substantial period of time, I don't think the league really cares if the Broncos moved on from Brittany to one of her siblings down the road any more than if the Bears moved on from Virginia to George when she died (as if it hasn't happened already).

Incidentally, I think the NFL would be really hesitant in trying to force the sale of the Bears, as the founding franchise in the league, in any event.

[The Cooler King]

While you may have a few legacy families like the Hunts and Rooneys who'd likely fall on the pro-Bears side in allowing some other structure that doesn't require a sale, I think a vast majority of the owners probably could care less about a forced Bears sale.

It's been well reported that the league has ownership requirements and they've had them for a long time. It's pretty clear they want individual answerable owners not boards and trusts.

[Cartman]

I hate Bezos, but I hate the McCaskeys so kind of a wash. But Bezos would bring ungodly money to the table.

Not sure if that would matter with an NFL team. There's a salary cap so he can't go out and spend money like the Yankees used to. And if he was to build a new stadium, he wouldn't pay for it out of his own pocket. It's still going to get funded by tax payer money, sadly. So, other than his name, not sure what he brings to the table. I'm not necessarily against the rumor. He can't be worse than the McCaskey's. But then again, maybe he could be the next Daniel Snyder. Who knows? All I know is I have no idea what makes a competent owner. So, if it happened I guess I'd just have to wait and see how it played out.