|
RJReynolds
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2012, 05:00:37 PM » |
|
I have no clue where the profit number for 2009 is coming from, since those statements were not released. Here is a good Q&A done at Pirates Prospects with an expert on these things. I do not know why accounting loopholes or accounting practices was brought up. The financials that are available were audited by Deloitte. I highly doubt they would risk destroying their entire business for the Pirates. There really is no reason to use those loopholes for financial reporting anyways, why would they intentionally decrease their revenues? Amortizing the PNC cost is not done to decrease the bottom line in 2007/8. It was done to increase the bottom line in 1999 or 2000 or whenever the cash was used. http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/08/the-pirates-finances-from-a-cpas-perspective.htmlThe higher the revenue reported the more $$ each partner needs to show on his/her own tax return. The more they show there, the more the PBC has to reimburse them. Thus the reason they would want to reduce their "profits" as much as possible. And I am not talking about loopholes in the context of shady accounting. Just in terms of their bottom line in actuality being better than the balance sheet is showing using writeoffs, amortization, or other gaap. Perhaps if their profits were not so large they would not have to reimburse the partners for the resulting taxation quite so much. I have a great way to make sure that doesn't happen to such a large extent in the future. SPEND MONEY ON THE @@$^^%%$@@$ TEAM!!! RJR |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 05:08:44 PM by RJReynolds »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gamecckfn
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2012, 08:45:15 PM » |
|
I have no clue where the profit number for 2009 is coming from, since those statements were not released. Here is a good Q&A done at Pirates Prospects with an expert on these things. I do not know why accounting loopholes or accounting practices was brought up. The financials that are available were audited by Deloitte. I highly doubt they would risk destroying their entire business for the Pirates. There really is no reason to use those loopholes for financial reporting anyways, why would they intentionally decrease their revenues? Amortizing the PNC cost is not done to decrease the bottom line in 2007/8. It was done to increase the bottom line in 1999 or 2000 or whenever the cash was used. http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/08/the-pirates-finances-from-a-cpas-perspective.htmlThe higher the revenue reported the more $$ each partner needs to show on his/her own tax return. The more they show there, the more the PBC has to reimburse them. Thus the reason they would want to reduce their "profits" as much as possible. And I am not talking about loopholes in the context of shady accounting. Just in terms of their bottom line in actuality being better than the balance sheet is showing using writeoffs, amortization, or other gaap. Perhaps if their profits were not so large they would not have to reimburse the partners for the resulting taxation quite so much. I have a great way to make sure that doesn't happen to such a large extent in the future. SPEND MONEY ON THE @@$^^%%$@@$ TEAM!!! RJR There is only so much you can do though, the Pirates do not exactly have a complicated balance sheet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Moose
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2012, 09:01:13 PM » |
|
I have no clue where the profit number for 2009 is coming from, since those statements were not released. Here is a good Q&A done at Pirates Prospects with an expert on these things. I do not know why accounting loopholes or accounting practices was brought up. The financials that are available were audited by Deloitte. I highly doubt they would risk destroying their entire business for the Pirates. There really is no reason to use those loopholes for financial reporting anyways, why would they intentionally decrease their revenues? Amortizing the PNC cost is not done to decrease the bottom line in 2007/8. It was done to increase the bottom line in 1999 or 2000 or whenever the cash was used. http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/08/the-pirates-finances-from-a-cpas-perspective.htmlThe higher the revenue reported the more $$ each partner needs to show on his/her own tax return. The more they show there, the more the PBC has to reimburse them. Thus the reason they would want to reduce their "profits" as much as possible. And I am not talking about loopholes in the context of shady accounting. Just in terms of their bottom line in actuality being better than the balance sheet is showing using writeoffs, amortization, or other gaap. Perhaps if their profits were not so large they would not have to reimburse the partners for the resulting taxation quite so much. I have a great way to make sure that doesn't happen to such a large extent in the future. SPEND MONEY ON THE @@$^^%%$@@$ TEAM!!! RJR There is only so much you can do though, the Pirates do not exactly have a complicated balance sheet. Just a minute... GCF, I've seen you post before that you want the Pirates to spend money this offseason, to bring in a solid starting 1B man, and/or another decent SP. In fact, I've seen you say that you want the team payroll kicked up to ~$60M. So, plainly, you believe that the Pirates could afford a $60M payroll, without going into the "red", or mortaging the future, in any way. So, what is the crux of your argument, here, exactly? Because it seems to me, once you get down to it, that you and RJR want the same thing. Which is a better Pirates team than the one currently constructed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gamecckfn
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2012, 10:51:11 PM » |
|
I have no clue where the profit number for 2009 is coming from, since those statements were not released. Here is a good Q&A done at Pirates Prospects with an expert on these things. I do not know why accounting loopholes or accounting practices was brought up. The financials that are available were audited by Deloitte. I highly doubt they would risk destroying their entire business for the Pirates. There really is no reason to use those loopholes for financial reporting anyways, why would they intentionally decrease their revenues? Amortizing the PNC cost is not done to decrease the bottom line in 2007/8. It was done to increase the bottom line in 1999 or 2000 or whenever the cash was used. http://www.piratesprospects.com/2010/08/the-pirates-finances-from-a-cpas-perspective.htmlThe higher the revenue reported the more $$ each partner needs to show on his/her own tax return. The more they show there, the more the PBC has to reimburse them. Thus the reason they would want to reduce their "profits" as much as possible. And I am not talking about loopholes in the context of shady accounting. Just in terms of their bottom line in actuality being better than the balance sheet is showing using writeoffs, amortization, or other gaap. Perhaps if their profits were not so large they would not have to reimburse the partners for the resulting taxation quite so much. I have a great way to make sure that doesn't happen to such a large extent in the future. SPEND MONEY ON THE @@$^^%%$@@$ TEAM!!! RJR There is only so much you can do though, the Pirates do not exactly have a complicated balance sheet. Just a minute... GCF, I've seen you post before that you want the Pirates to spend money this offseason, to bring in a solid starting 1B man, and/or another decent SP. In fact, I've seen you say that you want the team payroll kicked up to ~$60M. So, plainly, you believe that the Pirates could afford a $60M payroll, without going into the "red", or mortaging the future, in any way. So, what is the crux of your argument, here, exactly? Because it seems to me, once you get down to it, that you and RJR want the same thing. Which is a better Pirates team than the one currently constructed. They could go up to $70 million if they wanted to. No debt would be repaid, which is ok, they can afford the interest still. My point is, getting into long term contracts with random FAs is not the way to go. There are a few high profile guys left, but signing Edwin Jackson to a $15 million a year deal does not seem like the smartest idea. Signing someone to a one year deal seems to fit into what the Pirates have done recently, and guys like Pena and Lee fit into that right now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Moose
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 07, 2012, 02:03:48 AM » |
|
Signing someone to a one year deal seems to fit into what the Pirates have done recently, and guys like Pena and Lee fit into that right now.
Agreed. Furthermore, I'd say Oswalt, Kuroda, and possubly Saunders also fit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gamecckfn
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2012, 10:44:31 AM » |
|
Signing someone to a one year deal seems to fit into what the Pirates have done recently, and guys like Pena and Lee fit into that right now.
Agreed. Furthermore, I'd say Oswalt, Kuroda, and possubly Saunders also fit. Hopefully they do sign one of them. Saunders is the one I like best. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mouse
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2012, 01:13:28 PM » |
|
We are approaching the time of year when pitchers start to get antsy and more one year deals at more reasonable prices come into play. That will be the case even more so as we approach the end of January.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TNbucs
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2012, 01:35:04 PM » |
|
Though there were not at the top of my list, I thought bringing back Maholm or signing Chen would be good options to add to the rotation depth. But Chen is evidently signing with the O's and Maholm with the Cubs. Hopefully our front office is working on something better.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
izzman
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2012, 02:02:41 PM » |
|
Though there were not at the top of my list, I thought bringing back Maholm or signing Chen would be good options to add to the rotation depth. But Chen is evidently signing with the O's and Maholm with the Cubs. Hopefully our front office is working on something better.
what. BS... That pissies me off. I am losing faith. Chen seemed perfect for the Pirates. Maybe they know better  and his arm falls off in May. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RJReynolds
|
|
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2012, 02:24:52 PM » |
|
Though there were not at the top of my list, I thought bringing back Maholm or signing Chen would be good options to add to the rotation depth. But Chen is evidently signing with the O's and Maholm with the Cubs. Hopefully our front office is working on something better.
Sure. Because they have such a great history of that. I'm not going to hold my breath. RJR |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Moose
|
|
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2012, 09:22:00 PM » |
|
Though there were not at the top of my list, I thought bringing back Maholm or signing Chen would be good options to add to the rotation depth. But Chen is evidently signing with the O's and Maholm with the Cubs. Hopefully our front office is working on something better.
The Pirates FO is down in Bradenton, working on improving their golf games. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
