Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal

[NEGoldenAge]

The packers are for profit. They are just a publicly traded co.

Read the end of the first paragraph.

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ring 6]

Read the end of the first paragraph.

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically true, but tremedously misused. The connotation that the Packers ignore the financial aspects of NFL football is insane.
There are enormous expenses involved in running a football franchise, and the future expenses including capital improvements, stadium maintenance, and expansion, and the need to have cash on hand to be competitive in free agency, or just retaining your own players are smothering.
When Aaron Rogers is eligible for free agency, the Packers will have to pay 10s of millions in a signing bonus. That is real cash money. Their cash expenditures will be siginificantly higher than the amount charged to the cap. If they are not making 'profit' in prior years that is reinvested into the franchise they lose Rogers. Clearly their history in retaining players and signing free agents indicates they are not zeroing out the books every year.
PROFIT is not defined, in this case, as income exceeding outgo, but by DISTRIBUTION of profit, which in the Packers case, there is none.
To compare them to a church, charity or aid organization as non-profit is simply ignorant.

Secondly, of all 32 teams there is absolutely no question that the one sole team that MUST NOT be in the red is the Packers. Why? Because they have no owner to funnell cash in from his personal wealth to cover the loss. If the PAtriots lose money, Bob Kraft writes a check. If the PAckers lose money the bank account is empty and the bills don't get paid. To impy that the Packers operate without profitability in mind, is inane. The fact that they do not distribute that profit is a far different issue than not operating in order to make it.

 

[Ring 6]

I work for a non-profit. Having very stringent rules on captial vs. operational budgets, they spend money very differently than their for profit counterparts. Are you really going to try to argue that because teams can have fans in other parts of the country, there are no small market teams?

I am familiar with many non-profits who pay ridiculous salaries and bonusses to the executives of the companies in order to not make a profit. Non-profit is not really what people think it is.
I know of one non-profit where their director of SALES makes over $200,000 a year, and receives bonusses of $30,000-$50,000 twice a year, based on his share of what profits would be if they were for profit.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This was never about owners vs. players but rather owners vs owners as it pertains to revenue sharing and revenue keeping. The players were not the ones that opted out of the original deal, and the players were not the ones asking for more money up front as well as more money off the remaining pie.

Several NFL owners resisting deal to end lockout, sources say - ESPN

Well, yes and no... you're oversimplifying a bit

Collectively both the players and owners want as big a piece of the pie as possible.

Sure, well run organizations like the Patriots that effectively subsidize organizations that don't maximize revenue aren't happy about it

But that doesn't mean that the previous CBA arrangements were deemed acceptable by either the haves or the have-nots in the NFL ownership ranks.

 

[plk]

Ownership is the quantitative difference between for- and not-for-profit organizations. For-profit organizations can be privately owned and may re-distribute taxable wealth to employees and shareholders. By contrast, not-for-profit organizations do not have private owners. They have controlling members or boards, but these people cannot sell their shares to others or personally benefit in any taxable way.

Nonprofit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shares of stock [in the Green Bay Packers] include voting rights, but the redemption price is minimal, no dividends are ever paid, the stock cannot appreciate in value (though private sales often exceed the face value of the stock), and stock ownership brings no season ticket privileges.

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Packers seem to be quite a curious case that does not fit either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. The Packers clearly have owners, but the owners cannot benefit financially.

 

[Ring 6]

Nonprofit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Packers seem to be quite a curious case that does not fit either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. The Packers clearly have owners, but the owners cannot benefit financially.

The key word in there is PRIVATE owners, which they do not have.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Technically true, but tremedously misused. The connotation that the Packers ignore the financial aspects of NFL football is insane.
There are enormous expenses involved in running a football franchise, and the future expenses including capital improvements, stadium maintenance, and expansion, and the need to have cash on hand to be competitive in free agency, or just retaining your own players are smothering.
When Aaron Rogers is eligible for free agency, the Packers will have to pay 10s of millions in a signing bonus. That is real cash money. Their cash expenditures will be siginificantly higher than the amount charged to the cap. If they are not making 'profit' in prior years that is reinvested into the franchise they lose Rogers. Clearly their history in retaining players and signing free agents indicates they are not zeroing out the books every year.
PROFIT is not defined, in this case, as income exceeding outgo, but by DISTRIBUTION of profit, which in the Packers case, there is none.
To compare them to a church, charity or aid organization as non-profit is simply ignorant.

Secondly, of all 32 teams there is absolutely no question that the one sole team that MUST NOT be in the red is the Packers. Why? Because they have no owner to funnell cash in from his personal wealth to cover the loss. If the PAtriots lose money, Bob Kraft writes a check. If the PAckers lose money the bank account is empty and the bills don't get paid. To impy that the Packers operate without profitability in mind, is inane. The fact that they do not distribute that profit is a far different issue than not operating in order to make it.

You interpet much much more from my statements than what was actually said. Non-profit organizations are run differently than their for-profit counterparts because they are treated differently under the law. Using the Packers, a small market team that is a non-profit organization is an aweful example to support his argument. If you disagree, fine, but please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Technically true, but tremedously misused. The connotation that the Packers ignore the financial aspects of NFL football is insane.
There are enormous expenses involved in running a football franchise, and the future expenses including capital improvements, stadium maintenance, and expansion, and the need to have cash on hand to be competitive in free agency, or just retaining your own players are smothering.
When Aaron Rogers is eligible for free agency, the Packers will have to pay 10s of millions in a signing bonus. That is real cash money. Their cash expenditures will be siginificantly higher than the amount charged to the cap. If they are not making 'profit' in prior years that is reinvested into the franchise they lose Rogers. Clearly their history in retaining players and signing free agents indicates they are not zeroing out the books every year.
PROFIT is not defined, in this case, as income exceeding outgo, but by DISTRIBUTION of profit, which in the Packers case, there is none.
To compare them to a church, charity or aid organization as non-profit is simply ignorant.

Secondly, of all 32 teams there is absolutely no question that the one sole team that MUST NOT be in the red is the Packers. Why? Because they have no owner to funnell cash in from his personal wealth to cover the loss. If the PAtriots lose money, Bob Kraft writes a check. If the PAckers lose money the bank account is empty and the bills don't get paid. To impy that the Packers operate without profitability in mind, is inane. The fact that they do not distribute that profit is a far different issue than not operating in order to make it.

Exactly. Being a non-profit doesn't mean they must only pay a fraction of the true market value of a coach, player - or VP in charge of sales.

You want the best people, you have to pay what the market demands - in football or the non-profit sector.

 

[mgteich]

1) We have no information regarding any details of the negotiations. We are discussing this because the agreement is apparently close to being signed.

2) I don't know why it should be a surprise that many of us believe that the problem is (as it was last time) with the amount of welfare to be given to the weak teams. Sure, the owners would like all the teams to be profitable. In the current environment, that would likely mean that some teams would be very, very, very profitable. It SEEMS that some teams just are not very profitable for a variety of reasons, including incompetent ownership that relies on welfare instead of improving their operations.

Perhaps the solution for the weak teams is to allow them to fail or to move or to be sold to different ownership. But then, THAT would be the American solution. Sports teams are not to large to fail.

 

[plk]

The key word in there is PRIVATE owners, which they do not have.

Can you explain what you mean? The Green Bay Packers sold stock. How is their ownership any different from your average publicly traded company?

In 1950, the Packers held a stock sale to again raise money to support the team. In 1956, area voters approved the construction of a new city owned stadium. As with its predecessor, the new field was named City Stadium, but after the death of founder Curly Lambeau, the stadium was renamed Lambeau Field on September 11, 1965.

Another stock sale occurred late in 1997 and early in 1998. It added 105,989 new shareholders and raised over $24 million, money used for the Lambeau Field redevelopment project.

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ring 6]

Can you explain what you mean? The Green Bay Packers sold stock. How is their ownership any different from your average publicly traded company?



Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private owners are individual such as Bob Kraft who own the company.
The Packers are a publicly traded company, owned by share holders.
The Packers charter states that they cannot pay dividends to shareholders, and that shares cannot appreciate, among other things. They have voting rights, but financially cannot profit from their ownership.

 

[Ring 6]

1) We have no information regarding any details of the negotiations. We are discussing this because the agreement is apparently close to being signed.

2) I don't know why it should be a surprise that many of us believe that the problem is (as it was last time) with the amount of welfare to be given to the weak teams. Sure, the owners would like all the teams to be profitable. In the current environment, that would likely mean that some teams would be very, very, very profitable. It SEEMS that some teams just are not very profitable for a variety of reasons, including incompetent ownership that relies on welfare instead of improving their operations.

Perhaps the solution for the weak teams is to allow them to fail or to move or to be sold to different ownership. But then, THAT would be the American solution. Sports teams are not to large to fail.

Don't you find it unrealistic that owners will agree to a CBA that is likely to force some of the frnachises to fail?

Which franchises do you feel are being incompetantly managed?

 

[Ring 6]

You interpet much much more from my statements than what was actually said. Non-profit organizations are run differently than their for-profit counterparts because they are treated differently under the law. Using the Packers, a small market team that is a non-profit organization is an aweful example to support his argument. If you disagree, fine, but please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Yes, I did use my answer to address the topic, not just the narrow part of it you cited.
In any event, the Packers actually do make a good example, because they are the only example that exists.
My point was their non-profit status really doesnt affect how they OPERATE. They still are motivated to be 'profitable' they just reinvest that money into the growth of the frnachise rather than distributing it. That is really the only difference under the law. (As I said many non profits just pay ridiculous salaries and bonusses to their executives and operate just like a for profit company until it comes to doling out whats left after paying the bills)

If you feel there are things that the Packers actually do that make them operate differently than other franchises, thereby making them a bad example, feel free to list them and we can discuss. But to call them a bad example because of their nonprofit status is simply wrong.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that the owners will include corporate welfare in the new agreement. The open question is how to encourage poorly performing organization to improve or move or change ownership. An orderly transition out of a unprofitable situation is difficult if the others owners do little to effect change. If the owners need to hand out welfare, then at very least there should be some strings attached to the money.

When the patriots need a new stadium or imporvements, Kraft pays for it. When others have similar needs, they look first to their state, then to their city, and finally to the other owners.

I do not have the financial details, so I will not comment on particular teams. There has been much written on the lack of marketing efforts of many of the teams.

Don't you find it unrealistic that owners will agree to a CBA that is likely to force some of the frnachises to fail?

Which franchises do you feel are being incompetantly managed?

 

[plk]

Private owners are individual such as Bob Kraft who own the company.
The Packers are a publicly traded company, owned by share holders.
The Packers charter states that they cannot pay dividends to shareholders, and that shares cannot appreciate, among other things. They have voting rights, but financially cannot profit from their ownership.

Can you resolve something that I am uncertain about. Do the Packers fit the legal definition of a "non-profit" company, or are they simply a company that is being run for the benefit of the team and not for profit. Thank you.

The packers are for profit. They are just a publicly traded co.

The Packers are a public, technically for profit company that has in it's charter that they cannot make a profit for distribution. They are not a non-profit company nor receive the benefits of true non-profit companies.

EDIT: I may be wrong about this. They may be a legal non-profit after doing some research.

Read the end of the first paragraph.

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonprofit organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Green Bay Packers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Packers seem to be quite a curious case that does not fit either for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. The Packers clearly have owners, but the owners cannot benefit financially.

This is the context in which I made my remarks, and in which they should be interpreted. Whether the owners are "private" or "public" is not relevant to the question of whether to characterize the Packers as a nonprofit or as a public company. It seems that neither characterization is really accurate.

 

[Deus Irae]

This is the context in which I made my remarks, and in which they should be interpreted. Whether the owners are "private" or "public" is not relevant to the question of whether to characterize the Packers as a nonprofit or as a public company. It seems that neither characterization is really accurate.

The Packers are a non-profit. This has been gone over in another thread, actually:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/741957-packers-financials.html

 

[DaBruinz]

I work for a non-profit. Having very stringent rules on captial vs. operational budgets, they spend money very differently than their for profit counterparts. Are you really going to try to argue that because teams can have fans in other parts of the country, there are no small market teams?

I don't care who you work for. My dad worked for a "Non-Profit" Government Contractor. Guess what. They still, technically, made a profit on the work they did. It just got turned around back into the company.

Not all "Non-Profits" are the same. You'd know that if you knew anything about them.

As for what I am arguing, you are the one who opened your mouth on a subject you clearly know little to nothing about. So, instead of guessing at what I am saying, just read the words. There is no hidden meaning. There is no double meaning.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Yes, I did use my answer to address the topic, not just the narrow part of it you cited.
In any event, the Packers actually do make a good example, because they are the only example that exists.
My point was their non-profit status really doesnt affect how they OPERATE. They still are motivated to be 'profitable' they just reinvest that money into the growth of the frnachise rather than distributing it. That is really the only difference under the law. (As I said many non profits just pay ridiculous salaries and bonusses to their executives and operate just like a for profit company until it comes to doling out whats left after paying the bills)

If you feel there are things that the Packers actually do that make them operate differently than other franchises, thereby making them a bad example, feel free to list them and we can discuss. But to call them a bad example because of their nonprofit status is simply wrong.

Who is narrowing? I said that it was two-fold. The Packers are a small market team and a non-profit organization.

Not all non-profits pay huge salaries to their execuctives. In fact, there are many where the CEOs and other top executives make nothing or close to nothing. I don't know much about the Packers specifically, but generally speaking, most non-profits will have multiple "extra" programs that can be easily cut when times start getting tougher. I would suspect, in the Packers case, that these fluff programs would usually directly benefit fans and their fan experience.

You can try to argue all day that there is no difference in the way that non-profits are run vs. for-profits, but I'm really not interested in hearing it. I've seen both sides of that fence, and it's not even similar.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

I don't care who you work for. My dad worked for a "Non-Profit" Government Contractor. Guess what. They still, technically, made a profit on the work they did. It just got turned around back into the company.

Not all "Non-Profits" are the same. You'd know that if you knew anything about them.

As for what I am arguing, you are the one who opened your mouth on a subject you clearly know little to nothing about. So, instead of guessing at what I am saying, just read the words. There is no hidden meaning. There is no double meaning.

Your example was a piss poor one whether you have the ability to accept it or not.

 

[Ring 6]

This is the context in which I made my remarks, and in which they should be interpreted. Whether the owners are "private" or "public" is not relevant to the question of whether to characterize the Packers as a nonprofit or as a public company. It seems that neither characterization is really accurate.

I was responding to your post, where you said there is a conflict because they have owners but they cannot benefit financially, with the part you quoted which distinguished PRIVATE owners, a distinction you appeared to miss in saying there was a conflict.

You were the one who quoted the passage that said not for profit do not have PRIVATE owners. That distinction solves your confict.

They are both nonprofit and public, not one or the other.