Packers Financials

[Deus Irae]

You have a connection on the players side ... not for nothing but to expect a rational discussion with you would be impossible - you cannot side with the owners in this forum - I know that and you know that. There are a few others here also who have an axe or a connection where they have to be careful what they say.

Don't try spinning this back on me. There is no right to make expected profits in a capitalist system. Someone with a master's degree in finance should know this.

 

[Ring 6]

This is incorrect.

No it is not.
The players receive a percentage of the revenue.
What the owners do with their share has nothing to do with the calculation.

 

[Deus Irae]

No it is not.
The players receive a percentage of the revenue.
What the owners do with their share has nothing to do with the calculation.

Your initial statement:

The players recieve a share of the revenues. How revenue is divided or shared among the franchises is certainly an issue for the league but not one that affects the players and the cap.

The reality is that the way revenues are counted for salary cap purposes, in comparison with how local revenues are shared/not shared, is having an enormous impact on the owners and the players, precisely because of how it impacts the cap v. income for low revenue teams.

Super Bowl XLV could be NFL's last game in quite some time | Super Bowl XLV News - Sports News for Dallas, Texas - SportsDayDFW

SportsWatch: NFL owners fighting players ? and each other

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Just to boil down the OP's point: Owners GOOD. Players BAD.

 

[Ring 6]

Your initial statement:



The reality is that the way revenues are counted for salary cap purposes, in comparison with how local revenues are shared/not shared, is having an enormous impact on the owners and the players, precisely because of how it impacts the cap v. income for low revenue teams.

Super Bowl XLV could be NFL's last game in quite some time | Super Bowl XLV News - Sports News for Dallas, Texas - SportsDayDFW

SportsWatch: NFL owners fighting players ? and each other

Did you read these, or just not understand them?

There are 2 different issues at work here.

1) The NFL generates revenues, and they are shared with the players.
2) The revenues generate are not equal among teams

Since (1) creates an equal cap for all teams, the fact that (2) exists means the additional revenue of the 'rich' teams makes the cap a larger burden on the 'poor' teams that there own revenue would support.
Therefore the teams share their revenue from sources that are not already shared.

The sharing between teams has absolutely nothing to do with the level of the cap.
The cap is set by total revenue.
The cap is made affordable to the 'poor' teams by revenue sharing among teams.

The revenue sharing among teams does not impact the salary cap other than making the cap that is INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED BY TOTAL REVENUE closer to an equal percentage of revenues to each team.

You are missing the boat entirely on this one. I think you are confusing the revenue sharing between ownership and players and the revenue sharing among teams which are totally separate.

If you google Supplemental Revenue Sharing Plan you should be able to find some articles that will explain it to you.

 

[Ring 6]

Just to boil down the OP's point: Owners GOOD. Players BAD.

No. That would be YOUR point. I just reported what the financials say, I did not judge them. YOU concluded it makes the owners look good and the players look bad, not me, I didnt even imply it.
But feel free and tell me what is in the financials that show I painted a biased picture. You cant because there was no bias.

 

[Ring 6]

Get over yourself ... business owners have a right to earn the profits they expect --- everything else is socialism and our country is a capitalist system. Players are way to overpaid and the reigns need to be pulled in ... the dog needs to wag it's own tail again, not the tail wagging the dog.

You left yourself open for your words to be twisted out of meaning by a literal meaning.

I think what you meant to say was that owners have a right to set their profit expectations whereever they choose and operate in a manner designed to achieve them.
When you said they had the right to earn the profits they expect, our resident disident decided to hold it literally that you meant they are entitled to be given whatever they expect profits to be.

Clearly everyone who read that knew what you meant, but one individual chose to create an argument by pretending to think you meant something else and argue that strawman, and blame the straw on you.

 

[Deus Irae]

Did you read these, or just not understand them?

There are 2 different issues at work here.

1) The NFL generates revenues, and they are shared with the players.
2) The revenues generate are not equal among teams

Since (1) creates an equal cap for all teams, the fact that (2) exists means the additional revenue of the 'rich' teams makes the cap a larger burden on the 'poor' teams that there own revenue would support.
Therefore the teams share their revenue from sources that are not already shared.

The sharing between teams has absolutely nothing to do with the level of the cap.
The cap is set by total revenue.
The cap is made affordable to the 'poor' teams by revenue sharing among teams.

The revenue sharing among teams does not impact the salary cap other than making the cap that is INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED BY TOTAL REVENUE closer to an equal percentage of revenues to each team.

You are missing the boat entirely on this one. I think you are confusing the revenue sharing between ownership and players and the revenue sharing among teams which are totally separate.

If you google Supplemental Revenue Sharing Plan you should be able to find some articles that will explain it to you.

Andy, it's clear that I know more about this than do you. It's clear because you've been wrong time and again. Now, as I stated, and you seem to be ignoring, your claim was incorrect. The reason why is simple, and it could be seen all the way back in 2006, when the CBA was extended:

The crux of the debate over the last few days has centered on revenue sharing and the disparity between high- and low-income teams. Low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say that high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights.

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN

Now, again referring to your initial words:

he players recieve a share of the revenues. How revenue is divided or shared among the franchises is certainly an issue for the league but not one that affects the players and the cap.

Now, if you can't get a handle on how lower teams having to pay more of their money to make payments as the cap goes higher, and how that would put them in position to either sacrifice profits or spend less money (AFFECTING PLAYERS), I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't see how such a situation has led to some teams claiming that the increase in expenses if outrunning revenues, when high end teams will be putting in hundreds of millions of extra dollars into the cap number because of local revenues, while still forcing lower end teams to pay according to the cap, I don't know what to tell you.

Then again, given your insistence that Green Bay is not a nonprofit, pretty much nothing you post on this issue is either surprising or worthwhile. Therefore, I'm done with you. Back to the land of ignore.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Now, if you can't get a handle on how lower teams having to pay more of their money to make payments as the cap goes higher, and how that would put them in position to either sacrifice profits or spend less money (AFFECTING PLAYERS), I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't see how such a situation has led to some teams claiming that the increase in expenses if outrunning revenues, when high end teams will be putting in hundreds of millions of extra dollars into the cap number because of local revenues, while still forcing lower end teams to pay according to the cap, I don't know what to tell you.

Then again, given your insistence that Green Bay is not a nonprofit, pretty much nothing you post on this issue is either surprising or worthwhile. Therefore, I'm done with you. Back to the land of ignore.

Theres more to it than that Deus, some of these new stadiums cost a fortune to build and they thought they would sell so many PSL and luxury boxes for a certain price, the recession hit and that didnt happen. The owners want more off the top to spread this risk out since a lot of the teams laid out a lot of their own money to build these stadiums.

 

[smg93]

You left yourself open for your words to be twisted out of meaning by a literal meaning.

I think what you meant to say was that owners have a right to set their profit expectations whereever they choose and operate in a manner designed to achieve them.
When you said they had the right to earn the profits they expect, our resident disident decided to hold it literally that you meant they are entitled to be given whatever they expect profits to be.

Clearly everyone who read that knew what you meant, but one individual chose to create an argument by pretending to think you meant something else and argue that strawman, and blame the straw on you.

Bingo and Bullseye.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, it's clear that I know more about this than do you. It's clear because you've been wrong time and again. Now, as I stated, and you seem to be ignoring, your claim was incorrect. The reason why is simple, and it could be seen all the way back in 2006, when the CBA was extended:/quote]
It is clear to you that you are right because you think you are right
And the cap hasnt affected teams for years. You knew more than me about that one too, which is why you are still hiding from being proven worng on that. Same thing here, just earlier in the process.

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN

That is about sharing between teams to even their burdens. The cap is based upon the revenues. Where they come from does not matter.

Now, again referring to your initial words:

Now, if you can't get a handle on how lower teams having to pay more of their money to make payments as the cap goes higher, and how that would put them in position to either sacrifice profits or spend less money (AFFECTING PLAYERS), I don't know what to tell you.[/quoe]
That has zero impact on where the cap is set.
The problem was addressed by SRSP. The point is moot.
This is not even a topic in the current negotitions.

If you can't see how such a situation has led to some teams claiming that the increase in expenses if outrunning revenues, when high end teams will be putting in hundreds of millions of extra dollars into the cap number because of local revenues, while still forcing lower end teams to pay according to the cap, I don't know what to tell you.

It affects the profitability of the teams. The cap is based on revenue. Changing the revenue sharing among teams would add zero cents to the cap.

Then again, given your insistence that Green Bay is not a nonprofit, pretty much nothing you post on this issue is either surprising or worthwhile. Therefore, I'm done with you. Back to the land of ignore.

My insistence? You mean to the point I admitted I was wrong on?
Funny that I posted your owns words proving you were wrong in another thread and you can't admit it, but you are assaulting my character for being unable to admit I am wrong when I already did.

Of course you are going to out me on ignore because you are wrong about everything you are debating with me and cannot handle the challenge.
Typical Deus.
Be wrong, tiwst, insult, run away.
You lose, so you quit.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, it's clear that I know more about this than do you. It's clear because you've been wrong time and again. Now, as I stated, and you seem to be ignoring, your claim was incorrect. The reason why is simple, and it could be seen all the way back in 2006, when the CBA was extended:



NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN

Now, again referring to your initial words:



Now, if you can't get a handle on how lower teams having to pay more of their money to make payments as the cap goes higher, and how that would put them in position to either sacrifice profits or spend less money (AFFECTING PLAYERS), I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't see how such a situation has led to some teams claiming that the increase in expenses if outrunning revenues, when high end teams will be putting in hundreds of millions of extra dollars into the cap number because of local revenues, while still forcing lower end teams to pay according to the cap, I don't know what to tell you.

Then again, given your insistence that Green Bay is not a nonprofit, pretty much nothing you post on this issue is either surprising or worthwhile. Therefore, I'm done with you. Back to the land of ignore.

By the way nice job using an article from 2006 to reference an issue that you claim is central to the disagreement today.
Would you like to show me all of the articles, quotes and examples from this decade about how the sides are at a standstil on revenue sharing between teams?
On a separate note maybe we can argue later about the impact of the Federalist Parties policies on our ecomony today, and I can find some articles from the 1700s to show you why it is pertinent.

 

[letekro]

Looks like I was wrong about that.
But really it doesnt change the relevance of the Packers financials.
They strive to maximizes 'profits' to retain and reinvest them rather than disburse them.
They still operate under all the same rules as the other teams, and are motivated similarly. They are accountable to their shareholders to increase the value of the franchise even if they never declare a dividend.

Andy, this is not quite right. The Packers' "owners" are only owners in a symbolic sense--they have no economic interest in the corporation--they are merely members of a nonprofit corporation. Their board is tasked to benefit the members, which is essentially the fans of the Green Bay Packers, which is essentially the entire city of Green Bay. Therefore, while they want to be profitable to pay for stadium improvements and other programs, they do not have profitability as their sole purpose, as a for-profit corporation would have. For example, the Packers might have a preference to use local vendors even when it may be cheaper to use a national vendor, because their primary purpose is to benefit the residents of Green Bay. As such, it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, this is not quite right. The Packers' "owners" are only owners in a symbolic sense--they have no economic interest in the corporation--they are merely members of a nonprofit corporation. Their board is tasked to benefit the members, which is essentially the fans of the Green Bay Packers, which is essentially the entire city of Green Bay. Therefore, while they want to be profitable to pay for stadium improvements and other programs, they do not have profitability as their sole purpose, as a for-profit corporation would have. For example, the Packers might have a preference to use local vendors even when it may be cheaper to use a national vendor, because their primary purpose is to benefit the residents of Green Bay. As such, it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

We can split hairs, but the Packers financials are going to be representative of the rest of the league.
The Packers may make some different decisions on minor issues, but they aren't going to have the effect of making their financials incomparable to the other teams.
You create a possible example of how they could have a different type of expense is no less faulty than saying they are identical, unless you have any evidence as such.

At the outset I said, they are instructive in that they are the only ones we have. I have not tried to say they are 1/32 of the leagues financials and you can extrapolate it out.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, this is not quite right. The Packers' "owners" are only owners in a symbolic sense--they have no economic interest in the corporation--they are merely members of a nonprofit corporation. Their board is tasked to benefit the members, which is essentially the fans of the Green Bay Packers, which is essentially the entire city of Green Bay. Therefore, while they want to be profitable to pay for stadium improvements and other programs, they do not have profitability as their sole purpose, as a for-profit corporation would have. For example, the Packers might have a preference to use local vendors even when it may be cheaper to use a national vendor, because their primary purpose is to benefit the residents of Green Bay. As such, it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

What is quite interesting though is this:

Many posters on this board are claiming the owners turning over their financials would offer a step forward.
Here we have one teams, and a bunch of posters with nothing at stake, and there is argument and disagreement about how to analyze it and interpret the numbers. Already someone has stated the profit of 5mill is great, others have claimed marketing expense increases are nefarious and need to be explained, etc.
If we put out all 32 teams, and the debate over it swung millions of dollars one way or the other in the negotiation, can you see how the debate over agreeing on what the financials truly say or mean would only drive the sides further apart.
That is why I have been asking since the beginning of this what result would you expect to see if the financials were released, what would happen next and how would it help.
IMO, it would just move the debate from how to share revenues to how to share profits, yet the players will refuse to participate in expense.
Its no pro-owner or anti-player, its reality. The debate of what to play the players should focus on what they contribute, not the side of the equation they have nothing to do with, unless they want to be accountable to that side.

 

[letekro]

We can split hairs, but the Packers financials are going to be representative of the rest of the league.
The Packers may make some different decisions on minor issues, but they aren't going to have the effect of making their financials incomparable to the other teams.
You create a possible example of how they could have a different type of expense is no less faulty than saying they are identical, unless you have any evidence as such.

At the outset I said, they are instructive in that they are the only ones we have. I have not tried to say they are 1/32 of the leagues financials and you can extrapolate it out.

Using nonrepresentative information because its the only info you have is not sound reasoning. Another thing to consider--nonprofits have very different financial accounting rules than for-profits.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What is quite interesting though is this:

Many posters on this board are claiming the owners turning over their financials would offer a step forward.
Here we have one teams, and a bunch of posters with nothing at stake, and there is argument and disagreement about how to analyze it and interpret the numbers. Already someone has stated the profit of 5mill is great, others have claimed marketing expense increases are nefarious and need to be explained, etc.
If we put out all 32 teams, and the debate over it swung millions of dollars one way or the other in the negotiation, can you see how the debate over agreeing on what the financials truly say or mean would only drive the sides further apart.
That is why I have been asking since the beginning of this what result would you expect to see if the financials were released, what would happen next and how would it help.
IMO, it would just move the debate from how to share revenues to how to share profits, yet the players will refuse to participate in expense.
Its no pro-owner or anti-player, its reality. The debate of what to play the players should focus on what they contribute, not the side of the equation they have nothing to do with, unless they want to be accountable to that side.

Andy proves here his assertion that releasing 32 teams' numbers will NOT help lead to resolution and agreement. Instead it is a clever way for the union to exacerbate the already apparent great divisions between the fans, I mean the owners, big market vs small market. Divide and conquer worked last CBA, why not this time too? Infinite combinations and permutations of pissing contests over a myriad line items would arise, drawing attention far away from the fundamental issue. Clever.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Since the major point of contention seems to be the initial $1 billion off the top for capital expenditures; it's somewhat odd that the players haven't hired any consulting or engineering group to verify financial needs and required expenditures.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Since the major point of contention seems to be the initial $1 billion off the top for capital expenditures; it's somewhat odd that the players haven't hired any consulting or engineering group to verify financial needs and required expenditures.

Bad idea. Impractical as every stadium is different and owners' plans and desires are different. People spend millions on design studies. End result is a massive pissing contest. The NFPLA is too smart to waste $ doing this.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Bad idea. Impractical as every stadium is different and owners' plans and desires are different. People spend millions on design studies. End result is a massive pissing contest. The NFPLA is too smart to waste $ doing this.

I highly doubt Dominque Foxworth and Charlie Batch are qualified to review a facility master plan. Besides all stadiums have common problems. I doubt field turf replacement has infinate variables.

Besides the real point is if they are serious about reviewing why owners want the $1 billion; they should have someone qualified to determine if it's feasible.
Who exactly is telling them $1 billion is too much besides lawyers and agents?

Maybe the NFLPLA has a facilities review committee with qualified personnel. Maybe the bench warmers can give unique input of facility requirements.