Republican Tax Bill Carries Poison Pill That Could Kill Minnesota Twins Sale

[Western SD Fan]

11 minutes ago, Craig Arko said:

Or, the people doing the commenting driving this narrative could have taken a moment to think about the implications. 

Trolls and troll-adjacent always need to be fed.  Easiest way not to feed the trolls is to avoid creating content that attracts the trolls.  Unfortunately, the way the article was written was not anti-troll friendly and that begins and ends with the author pressing submit.  Don't blame the trolls when they arrive.  Hopefully this will be a lesson learned for the editors to be better as a robust discussion about how this would affect the sale of the Twins would have been nice.

[Major League Ready]

What would have been valuable in writing this article would have been an accounting of the actual impact on the sale.  Corporate tax rate (fed + state) is 30.8 percent.  How much do the twins have in terms of depreciable assets.  I don't know the entirety of the tax code for sports teams but based on what I have read, the salaries of Correa, Buxton, and Lopez are the biggest contributors.  The three contract are about $260M after this year which makes the tax break about $80M or 5% at $1.5B.  The Pohlad's offers just went down by 5%.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

1 hour ago, Craig Arko said:

And how would we go about doing that?

That’s me wishcasting that it will create a sense of urgency for the Pohlads to sell the team.   I don’t care at all how much they get from the sale, I just want it to go through and provide a little ray of sunshine for fans.  As a fan, there is nothing we can do, unfortunately.  

[LastOnePicked]

1 hour ago, Craig Arko said:

And how would we go about doing that?

Easy. It's garage sale season. Lots of people are out looking for local bargains.

[Mike Sixel]

You know it's not fair when MLR is not on the owner's side. Which is an exaggeration, they are sometimes on the players side. It's outrageous that they can deduct these expenses twice, effectively. I won't comment on the rest of the article.

[Mike Sixel]

59 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

What would have been valuable in writing this article would have been an accounting of the actual impact on the sale.  Corporate tax rate (fed + state) is 30.8 percent.  How much do the twins have in terms of depreciable assets.  I don't know the entirety of the tax code for sports teams but based on what I have read, the salaries of Correa, Buxton, and Lopez are the biggest contributors.  The three contract are about $260M after this year which makes the tax break about $80M or 5% at $1.5B.  The Pohlad's offers just went down by 5%.

I was going to do the math, so thanks for saving me time! That's a big delta. 

[terrydactyls]

6 hours ago, Rod Carews Birthday said:

Bills like that (on both sides of the aisle) pass all the time and it is only after the fact that people realize what has happened (when it is too late).  Without an article like this, I would probably not have known that this was out there.  Now I do, and I'm glad the article was written. 

This reminds me of when the Texas state legislature passed a massive state government reorganization that proclaimed it would save the state millions.  The net effect was that thousands of workers were laid off.  One state legislator commented on this by saying:  "If I knew that the bill would cause this much harm, I would have read the dang thing before I voted on it."  

[Twinsrtheworst]

6 hours ago, NYCTK said:

MAGA loves politics infecting everything so much there is literally MAGA specific sports sites. They've turned massive sports loser Clay Travis into a political thought leader. Not to mention some loser swimmer that tied for 5th in some collegiate swimming event is now a hero of MAGA because, as it turns out, they love making sports political. 

 

Why do your feel the need to start calling people losers.  Is it the safety of the internet?  

[TheLeviathan]

I mean, if you don't like the first two paragraphs and it offends your politics, then you might want to consider how well your politics are aligned with reality.  

I have no doubt the very rich people will grease the wheels to make sure they keep their advantage.  Much to my chagrin.

[olerud]

I thought politics was strictly off limits?

[olerud]

I disagree

[NYCTK]

36 minutes ago, se7799 said:

Why do your feel the need to start calling people losers.  Is it the safety of the internet?  

Those two specifically? I can go into detail but I won't for the sake of keeping this board cleaner. Like I said, it's very explicitly NOT because of the safety of the internet and due to their actions. I would gladly tell them what I think of them to their face.

If you're offended that I think very poorly of two massive losers that lie and sensationalize to their audiences for monetary gain, I frankly don't care. 

 

[NYCTK]

8 minutes ago, se7799 said:

I highly doubt your opinion matters outside of your parents basement though. And contrary to what you believe, 99 percent of this sight doesn’t care either.  However, please keep your derogatory remarks to yourself.  I am not offended at all.  If you want to keep the board “clean” as you stated then please do so before hitting submit not after.

Cool. Anyways, happy Pride Month to all! 

[olerud]

1 hour ago, olerud said:

I thought politics was strictly off limits?

I got banned for talking about it,  because of my veiws

[Western SD Fan]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

I mean, if you don't like the first two paragraphs and it offends your politics, then you might want to consider how well your politics are aligned with reality.  

I have no doubt the very rich people will grease the wheels to make sure they keep their advantage.  Much to my chagrin.

Let's assume all of the first two paragraphs are true.  What business do they have in an article reporting on a page of the bill that could affect the sale of the Twins?  That isn't me trying to check someone's politics.  My conversation in this thread has been clear that politics shouldn't have been introduced into the article and has thus ruined the article of its potential value of a robust discussion among fans.

Edited June 3, 2025 by Western SD Fan
Grammatical errror

[Craig Arko]

I suspect it will be the “things getting personal” aspect of the commentary that will get this thread into hot water.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

24 minutes ago, DKrz56 said:

Sure, except the article failed in epic proportions to only focus on that and injected their own political views on a number of other items in the bill. 

I prefer to focus on the point of the article, so I don’t really care about the rest of that stuff.  I wish more people would join me in that.  
From a completely selfish standpoint, I don’t want anything to get in the way of a sale and new ownership. This bill could do that, so it commands my attention.   I don’t care how much or how little the Pohlads make from the sale, I just want it to happen.  Let’s go billionaires!  Get busy and buy the Twins!

[LyleCole]

The economic reason why sports teams are so valuable is the absolute favorable tax treatment they get from the amortization of the assets.   It is hilarious that you wrongfully condemn the bill because it favors the rich (a very poor analysis that you allow partisans to undertake) especially since the tax provisions removed many of the deductions that rich tax payers enjoyed:  reducing the SALT exclusions (which liberals from high tax states begged to increase) and limitations on mortgage deductions.  

Relative to their taxes paid, the lower income tax payers received much more benefit including the 12% tax rate, the massive increase in the standard deduction, and in the new bill "no taxes on tips" and "overtime" which are huge tax benefits given to the working class income groups.

But then, you apparently complain about eliminating tax breaks for sports franchise owning billionaires.  I totally favor the basis adjustments which corrects the massive giveaways to these owners.

[Mike Sixel]

This thread depresses me on so many levels. 

[mnfireman]

29 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

This thread depresses me on so many levels. 

It certainly didn't lead to much discussion about the possible repercussions of buying/selling a professional sports franchise, if that was the author's intent.

[glunn]

As a moderator I accept responsibility for letting this thread get off track.

IMO, the original post was too political, then predictably things spun out of control.

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM FURTHER PERSONAL ATTACKS AND POLITICAL DISCOURSE, AND FOCUS ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE TAX LAW ON THE SALE OF THE TWINS.

 

 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Fezig said:

The story does belong. Political commentary and opinions by the author doesn't, unless of course, we can also be political in our commentary. 

People kind of just need to grow up. Peter is a writer on this website. This isn't the AP so there is going to be commentary in addition to the facts presented. Peter is entitled to write what he wants, using his voice to say what he wants to say, and if at some point the people that run this website disagree they can step in or relieve of him his duties. 

There is no 'no politics' rule. There is a rule against inserting politics into irrelevant conversations, or in a way intended to inflame. There's nothing to suggest Peter was disrespectful to anyone or intended on inflaming anyone. 

You, anyone not you specifically, are allowed to disagree with Peter. You can even write why you disagree with Peter. But to suggest he can't write something because you don't agree is just infantilizing stuff. If you don't like something don't read it, or engage in respectful conversation describing why you don't like it. 

This is really no different than people complaining about there being so many Royce Lewis articles. OK. So...just click away then. 

[Squirrel]

2 hours ago, Fezig said:

The story does belong. Political commentary and opinions by the author doesn't, unless of course, we can also be political in our commentary. 

The point of the article was clear. It’s a huge tax bill that has major ramifications for many, including how this might affect MLB and the Twins and their potential sale. Just stick to that last part. That’s what this discussion is about and was made clear in the article. Should the author have mentioned the other things? They obviously felt it was necessary to illustrate how some points get buried in these all-encompassing bills and that we may not have noticed or realized; the editors obviously thought it was necessary, so there it is. Do I think it was? No, I think they could have still made their point without it but big deal. Focus on what is pertinent for this website and just ignore the rest. If you and others are so offended by it that you can’t understand the point of the article to stay on track, then just walk away. It’s that simple. It’s unfortunate that real discourse can’t happen, but that’s the way of it, so stick to baseball. As a moderator I sometimes cringe when I see articles like this, especially if I think points could have been made without it and wonder if there is an agenda. I don’t know, I don’t know Peter so I can’t say, and neither do any of you. You are making assumptions and then accusations based on assumptions. Every time I think maybe we can all be adult about this, for once, and every time I am disappointed. Stick to baseball despite what you may feel is an overstep by the author.

I have let a lot of comments slide despite my earlier warning. Further conversation that isn’t specifically discussing the baseball points of this article will be removed. 

[Western SD Fan]

How will this bill potentially affect a future sale of the Twins?

In my hour worth of research, I read about six articles about the bill and came to this one being the most honest and had the least bias.  That link will be here:  Costly loss for sports team owners embedded in Trump tax bill | Fortune

In reading this article I found:

1. This deduction was intended for intangible assets.  For sports teams, these things include items like Goodwill, team logos, team branding, reputation, brand recognition, intellectual rights, radio and TV rights, etc.
2. The current deduction allows these assets to be deducted up to 100%, amortized over 15 years.  The administration originally wanted this deduction to be reduced to 0%, or eliminated, but settled on 50% to get the bill through Congress.
3. Other provisions the administration considered was not allowing tax-exempt bonds for stadium buildouts.  For example, had the MN Legislature hypothetically created a tax-exempt bond to pay for the requested upkeep or upgrades of US Bank Stadium by the Vikings, it could have been possible that those bonds would not have been given tax-exempt status.  This provision was already dropped in the bill that passed the House.
4. The deduction was originally put into legislation as part of the 2004 tax bill sponsored by then President George W. Bush, who was a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers before becoming President.
5. This reduction only applies to owners who purchase teams after the law takes effect.
6. Varying experts opine on both sides of the argument that this could create a disincentive to purchasing sports teams or very little effect will be shown due to the fact that there are only so many sports franchises.

Opinions/Observations:

1. A Newsweek article covering this topic also wrote that the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that reducing this deduction would raise up to $991 million over 10 years.  As we can all likely agree, that's barely a rounding error in federal budgets so it's possible this doesn't make it to the final bill if it creates too much of a sticking point with Senators.
2. The Math: For discussion, let's use the Forbes valuation of the Twins of $1.5 billion and assume that 50% of this valuation are comprised of intangible assets as referred to above.  I'm likely low on my percentage, but it makes the number easy.  That's leaves us $750 million to be amortized at 50% ($375 million) over 15 years, resulting in a yearly deduction of $25 million instead of the $50 million the current law would give them.  Tax accounting for sports franchises are incredibly complex so this could very well be off by millions, but this is an exercise to give some perspective.
3. Timing:  We still do not know when this bill will actually take effect, if passed.  For reference, most tax bills have an effective date of January 1st, but what year will be the question.  If it is retroactive to January 1, 2025, the new owners will be subject to the new law, regardless of when the bill is passed or the sale is finally finished.  If the law takes effect January 1, 2026, then a new owner will have incentive to get the sale done before 2026 so they can still take advantage of the old laws.  As much as we are concerned about how this law will affect whether the Pohlads will actually sell, this law could actually INCREASE the value of the Twins as potential buyers could become more motivated to buy as to take advantage of the old law prior to it changing in 2026.
4. Opinion:  This will be another issue which will have to be negotiated through if the bill passes with this provision in it.  I'm reasonably certain that the Pohlads and the interested buyers already have developed contingency plans on how they think this affects the value of the team.  I'm also certain that all involved parties have contacts, lobbyists, etc. working on this provision and probably know in real time where this provision stands on making it through the final bill where we are just guessing with a couple short news articles.  Ultimately, I do believe that the Pohlads, as a group, are finished having their name dragged through the media and will likely sell regardless of this law passing.  It just complicates the negotiations.

Writing was never a strength of mine.  I hope that this will jumpstart the thread back towards the subject at hand and further the discussion.