Raiderstation

How much did it help or did it?

Toast wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:27 pm It's a bit more complicated than that. Politics aside there are reasons why Jeff Bezos, Starbucks, Boeing and a multitude of corporations are leaving or are planning on leaving. In terms of revenue some of these players command earnings that exceed smaller corporations. A NFL franchise is a billion dollar operation. This will continue to be a factor players and agents consider.

This is personal income not company income.
Don't buy their fear. If Jeff has to leave, let him go.
Do you make sound policy or policy on fear of retaliation from a few?

Only 4 states have no income tax, how can that be much of a consideration. I don't see those states getting the grade A FA's.
I'm not saying it's a zero, but it's very low from what I see with player movement.

Xramfan wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2026 7:52 pm So who gets taxed when you run out of millionaires and billionaires?

California is going to find out very soon... all the Billionairs just left and had their attorneys help transfer everything. Now Gavin Newsom is likely to get a 5% tax on all savings and checking accounts. So its the middle class will get fvkced, and its to help pay for the illegal immigrants free health care, free loaded debit cards, and subsidized rent. Time to get the hell out of Cali

RaiderFan1 wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:34 pm California is going to find out very soon... all the Billionairs just left and had their attorneys help transfer everything. Now Gavin Newsom is likely to get a 5% tax on all savings and checking accounts. So its the middle class will get fvkced, and its to help pay for the illegal immigrants free health care, free loaded debit cards, and subsidized rent. Time to get the hell out of Cali

Lol turn off the fox news for a bit my man

SkullCrusher wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:26 pm He seems somewhat worried about millionaires and billionaires taxes, if he's one that's cool.

If not, they will always vote in their best interest, we should study that phenomenon for personal use.

Everyone should be worried about millionaires and billionaires taxes, because they go to where their money is treated best. If they get taxed heavily then they just leave and the tax doesnt get collected. but what doesn't change is the politicians spending , so there's only two choices you either print the money then everyone Gets hit by inflation, or they tax the rest of the citizens more since the billionaires left.

RaiderFan1 wrote: Sun Mar 15, 2026 9:34 pm California is going to find out very soon... all the Billionairs just left and had their attorneys help transfer everything. Now Gavin Newsom is likely to get a 5% tax on all savings and checking accounts. So its the middle class will get fvkced, and its to help pay for the illegal immigrants free health care, free loaded debit cards, and subsidized rent. Time to get the hell out of Cali

That tax you are talking about for the billionaires isn't even a thing yet. It's still gathering signatures (democracy) to make it on the '26 ballot.

Gavin Newsom is actually against the initiative. But democracy can over ride him, aka the will of Californian's.
He's not even governor after Jan, from the Nov vote.

I think a lot of people don't understand all the above, probably because the other side wants to sell it that way. I can't find anything on savings/checking account taxes and he'll be long gone. Edit: What you mentioned is the Billionaire tax, it's not on all accounts and again that's working to get on the ballot. Some start their wording like you mention, but then go into the same Billionaire Tax details.

Storm the castles and eat the rich!!!

Back on subject, I doubt it was part of the pitch, and I doubt it was much of a factor.

And this went highly political fast

It’s a consideration, unlikely a deal breaker. If it gets that far, agents can negotiate either higher compensation or there are many other ways to get around the issue. I imagine a team can even offer paying the added tax themselves, but they aren’t offering it, it would be an ask. How bad does the team want the player? I would think bigger considerations would be, how stable is the franchise for the player? Are they perennial contenders? Different teams in different scenarios can affect a player’s future contract A great player on a bad team may not be able to put up the numbers that a better run franchise could give them. Who knows how many consider these things, but one would think a good agent would bring them up.

Find yourself a finance guy that, by the end of your career, he’s set you up to be able to say the only thing you’re going to run out of is time. It doesn’t matter how much you make, it’s how much you can put away.

Going out there a bit, I believe it would be beneficial for the players to attend functions that teach these kids how to be financially responsible, before handing out pockets full of cash. Not many can resist the temptation of living for today only.

Viper wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:52 am It’s a consideration, unlikely a deal breaker. If it gets that far, agents can negotiate either higher compensation or there are many other ways to get around the issue. I imagine a team can even offer paying the added tax themselves, but they aren’t offering it, it would be an ask. How bad does the team want the player? I would think bigger considerations would be, how stable is the franchise for the player? Are they perennial contenders? Different teams in different scenarios can affect a player’s future contract A great player on a bad team may not be able to put up the numbers that a better run franchise could give them. Who knows how many consider these things, but one would think a good agent would bring them up.

Find yourself a finance guy that, by the end of your career, he’s set you up to be able to say the only thing you’re going to run out of is time. It doesn’t matter how much you make, it’s how much you can put away.

Going out there a bit, I believe it would be beneficial for the players to attend functions that teach these kids how to be financially responsible, before handing out pockets full of cash. Not many can resist the temptation of living for today only.

ActuallyI believe the NFL has a mandatory Rookie Symposium (maybe they call it something else) that amongst other things has financial people speak and a few players that provide cautionary tales.

Toast wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 5:15 am ActuallyI believe the NFL has a mandatory Rookie Symposium (maybe they call it something else) that amongst other things has financial people speak and a few players that provide cautionary tales.

They do have that financial rookie Symposium bringing in ex players.

They should do a presentation of all the players who blew their money and ended up broke.

And use Grok as an example of how to be smart with your money. As dumb as he's portrayed he's been smart with his money.

Its mind boggling how stupid they are with their money.

Toast wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 5:15 am ActuallyI believe the NFL has a mandatory Rookie Symposium (maybe they call it something else) that amongst other things has financial people speak and a few players that provide cautionary tales.

Wasn’t aware, thanks

Viper wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 5:50 am Wasn’t aware, thanks

There are a lot of subjects they cover. But finances is a big one.

Rabidraider wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 5:35 am They do have that financial rookie Symposium bringing in ex players.

They should do a presentation of all the players who blew their money and ended up broke.

And use Grok as an example of how to be smart with your money. As dumb as he's portrayed he's been smart with his money.

Its mind boggling how stupid they are with their money.

I believe Beastmode is another who is very smart with his money. I may be misremembering but I think he saved his contracts and used endorsement income to live off.

This topic has to be about the actual signings and not about the taxation policies. No politics.

It's been discussed before - it has an impact for some players for sure, it's not as big of an impact as it sounds because road games played in states with income tax see the player taxed anyway. So the impact is still there, but it's potentially cut in half. Some of the FAs probably really liked the coaching staff or loved the facilities, or like the idea of playing in Vegas.

However the biggest reason we got the FA haul is that we just paid more, with more guaranteed money than the other teams bidding on players.

As usual, it's not one factor - it's a number of factors but bigger and more guaranteed contract numbers are the main reason.

Again, no politics. Expect any future post with any political slant to it to be deleted. Thanks.

It should be a data point for any player who has decent advisors.

They will still pay taxes to the sates where they play games (goes back to an old baseball case...maybe Maury Wills?) The difference is they won't have to pay for home games and they won't pay the extra marginal tax when their home state has a higher tax rate than the state where they played a game.

CA has a highest marginal rate of 13.3% (12.3% + 1% mental health tax). So if you make $10mm/yr that's $1.33mm in tax...a number that moves the needle for anyone paying attention.

Of course, this is just one data point for a player. Still, it is enough to be considered when making a decision.