How Is Camden Yards Holding Up?

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

Now I am probably going to found like an old fart, but just how big does a stadium video screen have to be to satisfy people?   I was looking at the Phillies’ screen last night while watching the game and thought it looked TOO big in the context of the stadium.   I feel like the OPACY screen provides the information I need or want, is easily visible and readable, and I don’t need or want a screen that dominates the stadium.   

Now, if they were designing the whole stadium from scratch, might a bigger screen have been fit in?   Maybe, but I think it would be hard to do now and not necessarily worthwhile.  

This from a guy who doesn’t have a TV screen larger than 50” in his house.  

 

The Orioles' video board fits the architecture of the stadium.  It doesn't need to be any bigger.  The whole idea of a video board space race is silly.  You're going to watch a baseball game at a ballpark, it's not a movie theater.  The scoreboard is for ancillary information.

[baloriole4]

Well, the other thing with the video boards are that they are 2009 technology.   Too low resolution, grainy, for what they should be at this point in time, now over a decade later

[baloriole4]

12 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The Orioles' video board fits the architecture of the stadium.  It doesn't need to be any bigger.  The whole idea of a video board space race is silly.  You're going to watch a baseball game at a ballpark, it's not a movie theater.  The scoreboard is for ancillary information.

And a new (slightly, not massively) larger one can still fit the architecture of the stadium.... you get rid of those static ad panels on the scoreboard and make that bottom board longer and it still fits on that same overall structure.   Its just like what the Angels did

[DrungoHazewood]

3 hours ago, baloriole4 said:

And a new (slightly, not massively) larger one can still fit the architecture of the stadium.... you get rid of those static ad panels on the scoreboard and make that bottom board longer and it still fits on that same overall structure.   Its just like what the Angels did

That's fine, but I've never gone to OPACY and thought "this slightly too small video board has negatively impacted my experience." 

[foxfield]

On 9/21/2021 at 3:56 PM, MurphDogg said:

From a financial standpoint it would make very little sense to sell before Peter Angelos dies. If they sell before he dies, his investment in the Orioles would realize a capital gain and he would owe taxes on that capital gain. If the team is sold after he dies, the heirs would get a stepped up basis on the investment in the Orioles and would not owe taxes on capital gains upon selling the team.

The heirs will owe inheritance taxes, whether those inheritance taxes can be paid without selling the team is the big question. The amount of the inheritance tax depends on their estate planning strategy. Likely, Peter Angelos' interest in the team was moved into a trust which froze the value owed for inheritance tax purposes to the value of his interest at the time the team was moved into the trust.

I believe all of the above is correct, except for the caveat which I alluded to but didn't get into, that at the current tax rates a sale would be better now.  And at the current rates, a sale would clearly be better at after the death of Peter Angelos.

While no changes have been made to the tax code, the proposals for doing away with step up in basis, a doubling of capital gains taxes, and the increase of death or estate taxes, could wreck the astute planning of many wealthy people.  And while my post was meant to highlight the pipe dream of all Orioles fans that one day there might be good ownership, which means different ownership, I have no doubt there are people watching closely the current situation in regards to what those potential changes might mean.  

I feel that the proposed tax increases would make it much more likely, if not certain, that the taxes due at Angelos' death would result in a sale.  IMHO

[spiritof66]

23 hours ago, Ruzious said:

I agree about your observations, except for the comments about an inheritance tax.  The estate would pay the tax based on the value of the assets, and there is no inheritance tax that I'm aware of.  

I was doing this from memory, which was a mistake. What I recalled from when I looked at this a few years ago were statements that MD is the only state that imposes both estate and inheritance taxes. But the MD inheritance tax does not apply to an inheriting spouse or child (among others), so it's not relevant here. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/maryland-inheritance-tax.html

 

[Ruzious]

8 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I was doing this from memory, which was a mistake. What I recalled from when I looked at this a few years ago were statements that MD is the only state that imposes both estate and inheritance taxes. But the MD inheritance tax does not apply to an inheriting spouse or child (among others), so it's not relevant here. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/maryland-inheritance-tax.html

 

I think that is correct, and like I said - everything else you said was spot on.