PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal


Status
Not open for further replies.
Then why did you post 20 times that you believe they are a 'hybird'?

I referred to the Packers as a hybrid because it was not clear to me how to characterize them. "Publicly owned, nonprofit corporation" is certainly an oxymoron. Have you come up with any other examples? They may well exist, and it would be interesting to know what they are.

W could have solved this a long time ago if you accpeted my first post where I pointed out that your comment that they were neither non profit or for profit because they had owners...... was a misread on your part.

Your first post did not make any sense then, and it does not make any sense now. Most of your subsequent posts don't make any sense either.

At this point you seem to have accepted your incorrectness,

Well, no, since what I said was that the Packers do not fit either of the categories in the Wikipedia article. That is certainly true.

but choose to still blame it on Wikipedia not knowing how to write rather than you misunderstanding what you read.

The Wikipedia authors know how to write. You do not know how to read words in their context.

The Wikipedia article did not mention an extremely unusual case. This is to be expected in encyclopedia articles.
 
Have any of you heard of "**** house lawyers"? Not many MBAs here I see. I wouldn't let most of the ones in this thread handle my kids lunch money never mind try to explain corporate status. It's a shame this thread got bogged down in so much drivel, only to watch the peanut gallery keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper.

For the sake of Baby Jesus who weeps every time an idiot speaks, stop making him cry.:eek:
 
I referred to the Packers as a hybrid because it was not clear to me how to characterize them. "Publicly owned, nonprofit corporation" is certainly an oxymoron. Have you come up with any other examples? They may well exist, and it would be interesting to know what they are.
Do you understand now what they are?
How can I give you examples of something that doesnt exist? There is no 'hybird' of for profit and non profit.



Your first post did not make any sense then, and it does not make any sense now. Most of your subsequent posts don't make any sense either.
Of course it didnt, because you still fail to accept how you misunderstood the part you copied in.
Mine don't make sense and you think there is a hybrid between non profit and for profit?



Well, no, since what I said was that the Packers do not fit either of the categories in the Wikipedia article. That is certainly true.
No, they fit non profit, and they ARE non profit. The only way they do not fit is if you do not understand the wikipedia article, like you.
Or are you now saying Wikipedia is wrong?

The Packers are non profit. You said according to your interpretation of Wikipedia they are not. Is Wikipedia wrong, or are you interpreting it wrong? It has to be one or the other.



The Wikipedia authors know how to write. You do not know how to read words in their context.
I know the Packers are non profit and I read Wikipedia to say that they are. You say Wikipedia does not say that. If Wikipedia 'knows how to write' then you would have to be wrong in your interpretation correct?
I am right, that is indisputable because the Packers are in fact non profit.
You attribute your being wrong to Wikipedia. Did they write it wrong or do you misunderstand what they wrote?

The Wikipedia article did not mention an extremely unusual case. This is to be expected in encyclopedia articles.
You just made this up. Wikipedia does not make any reference to unusual cases, or to excpetions. Wikipedia does not think Microsoft is privately owned. Wikipedia did not say that it created a new definition for 'private owners'. You did.
 
According to Florio, word is that it isn't that some of the owners don't like the deal, but there are a couple of owners who feel that they have the players over the barrell and they can get a much better deal if the players start to lose game checks and don't want to make a deal now. If the owners do that, then they are totally wrong.

Florio also said that Goodell is working to convince these owners that it is horrible idea and is expected to get enough owners to not follow this strategy.
 
Last edited:
According to Florio, word is that it isn't that some of the owners don't like the deal, but there are a couple of owners who feel that they have the players over the barrell and they can get a much better deal if the players start to lose game checks and don't want to make a deal now. If the owners do that, then they are totally wrong.
I wouldn't get overly excited about anything Florio says. Even if it isn't made up, it is certainly slanted.

The big thing is for owners and players to do a deal they both can live with. Caving in to save one season, like the owners did in 2006, only gets us back here when one side or the other opts out.

Get an 8-10 year CBA that all parties agree to.

We all want it done fast, when we should be wanting it done right. The two rarely line up.

There is nothing wrong with letting the negotiations play out until one side or the other realizes they are losing more money than they are comfortable with. Then they compromise. The side that needs it more, the side that really IS suffering monetarily, will prefer to sit rather than agree.

That is as it should be. The side who isn't that bad off, who is posturing, will gve in first.

Let the scenario play out to that point.

Do it right, not the fastest way.
 
Last edited:
We can't judge reactions -- owners, players, retirees -- until we know details of the deal. Which we don't.

When we do, we'll know whether the owners gained enough to justify their lockout.
 
Details have emerged of the deal.

Even if they somehow get this passed, I'm not seeing it as dramatically different from the deal the owners opted out of. The entire issue has always been between the owners themselves, more so than with the players.

As for the past 10 pages of discussion about public or non-profit, the bottom line is that the small town Packers, probably the least profit seeking franchise in the league, still finished at a healthy 10% profit margin, so it's highly unlikely that any other franchise is losing money as the owners originally and continue to claim. They wanted more share of money but won't open their books to prove they are in fact losing money. We only know about the Packers since their financial info must be public based on how they're set up.
 
Last edited:
Details have emerged of the deal.

Even if they somehow get this passed, I'm not seeing it as dramatically different from the deal the owners opted out of. The entire issue has always been between the owners themselves, more so than with the players.

As for the past 10 pages of discussion about public or non-profit, the bottom line is that the small town Packers, probably the least profit seeking franchise in the league, still finished at a healthy 10% profit margin, so it's highly unlikely that any other franchise is losing money as the owners originally and continue to claim. They wanted more share of money but won't open their books to prove they are in fact losing money. We only know about the Packers since their financial info must be public based on how they're set up.



Right on the money.
 
So before we get too far off on the non-profit/for profit tangent weren't we talking about the owners? Regardless of the structure of the new CBA, and undoubtedly it will be more favorable to owners than the previous one, the underlying problem still remains that FAIL owners or FAIL teams will need help from the more successful owners and successful teams.

Now you can debate until you're blue in the face on why teams are failing to turn profits or why they're not doing well enough. Maybe it's a small market, maybe the owner is a poor businessman, maybe they're not promoting well enough, maybe the FO is poorly run and hands out bad contracts, maybe the fan support isn't there, maybe they have a poor stadium and can't sell tickets, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Bottom line - if the money you make is less than the money you spend, you are in the FAIL category.

Revenue sharing is not a new concept, it's been done in baseball for a long time. What the NFL owners need to do is to come to some kind of revenue sharing plan that is sufficient to keep even the FAIL teams profitable. There are all sorts of wrinkles that can be done by creative people to make this happen, like luxury taxes, tweaking cap floors, etc. I won't get into them all because there are a lot of possibilities. But bottom line the OWNERS need to get it done between themselves.

At this point the impending CBA which has mostly been hammered out has become a secondary issue. Instead of pointing the fingers of blame, there's really nobody left for the owners to point at now except themselves. Get creative and get your act together owners. The NFL is a cash cow. The real problem is equalizing out the cash so that all teams can remain on the positive side of the ledger. The new CBA is ONLY THE START of this.
 
Details have emerged of the deal.

Even if they somehow get this passed, I'm not seeing it as dramatically different from the deal the owners opted out of. The entire issue has always been between the owners themselves, more so than with the players.

As for the past 10 pages of discussion about public or non-profit, the bottom line is that the small town Packers, probably the least profit seeking franchise in the league, still finished at a healthy 10% profit margin, so it's highly unlikely that any other franchise is losing money as the owners originally and continue to claim. They wanted more share of money but won't open their books to prove they are in fact losing money. We only know about the Packers since their financial info must be public based on how they're set up.

Sounds great, townes certainly thought so, only as usual it's factually dead wrong...

In the team’s latest financial report, a preview of which was released to the media this week, the Packers’ operating profit for the 2010 fiscal year (ending March 31, 2010), was $9.8 million, down from $20.1 million the year prior. The primary reason for the decline, despite a $10.1 million increase in overall revenue, was a $22.1 million jump in player costs, which increased 15.9 percent from $138.7 million to $160.8 million. It marked the third consecutive year that operating profits declined, from $34.2 million (2007) to $21.4 million (2008) to $20.1 million (2009) to $9.8 million (2010).

That’s the trend the Packers have pointed to as unsustainable – declining operating profits, which reduce club incentives to make investments necessary to grow the game – and is the key issue in the league’s ongoing negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union.


Over the four-year period since 2006, the Packers have generated $132 million in incremental revenue, and $123 million of that, or 94 percent, has gone to player salaries. Comparing the most recent fiscal year to 2006, the Packers’ revenues are up $50 million, from $208 million to $258 million, while player costs have gone up $58 million, from $103 million to $161 million.

Seen another way, the Packers’ revenues have grown 5.5 percent annually over the past four years while player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually, or more than double the rate.

“We’re working hard to contain the expenses that are in our control,” said treasurer Larry Weyers, who noted the rest of the franchise’s operating expenses, outside of player salaries, actually decreased this past year, from $89.1 million to $87.3 million. “Those have remained flat or gone down in recent years.”



Finances Show Profit, But Troubling Trends Remain
 
Sounds great, townes certainly thought so, only as usual it's factually dead wrong...





Finances Show Profit, But Troubling Trends Remain



Yep, sure did, and the truth of the matter is that pretty much everyone other than the shills for the owners have come to the same realization. If record TV deals and revenues are a "troubling trend" then you are right, but otherwise you are 100% full of crap.
 
Here's another troubling trend-----The NFL is looking to get 1 billion for a 16 game Thursday Night Football deal.

Those poor owners, only 1 billion for 16 games, they are getting screwed.


I wonder what the next overall deal will look like if they are getting 1 billion for 16 games? I'm sure the owners won't be able to suffer through such profits. Some of their grandkids won't be getting GulfStreams this year. My heart is breaking for them.
 
Here's another troubling trend-----The NFL is looking to get 1 billion for a 16 game Thursday Night Football deal.

Those poor owners, only 1 billion for 16 games, they are getting screwed.


I wonder what the next overall deal will look like if they are getting 1 billion for 16 games? I'm sure the owners won't be able to suffer through such profits. Some of their grandkids won't be getting GulfStreams this year. My heart is breaking for them.

They get $1.1B for 16 games now from ESPN. The players are thrilled they did because they've been getting 59% of it in the form of salary cap...

Going forward the split will apparently be 52/48 in favor of the owners. Think the players want them to shoot for less?

Some of you seem to be so inherently spiteful of an ownership that has the best growth performance track record of any sports league you'd just as soon see their employees (or local taxpayers) all suffer just to screw them over.

The people who wanted the players to screw the owners at all cost are not better than the ones who wanted the owners to screw the players over at all cost. Thank god all of you occupy the minority lunatic fringe of sportsfans.
 
They get $1.1B for 16 games now from ESPN. The players are thrilled they did because they've been getting 59% of it in the form of salary cap...

Going forward the split will apparently be 52/48 in favor of the owners. Think the players want them to shoot for less?

Some of you seem to be so inherently spiteful of an ownership that has the best growth performance track record of any sports league you'd just as soon see their employees (or local taxpayers) all suffer just to screw them over.

The people who wanted the players to screw the owners at all cost are not better than the ones who wanted the owners to screw the players over at all cost. Thank god all of you occupy the minority lunatic fringe of sportsfans.



If by "lunatic fringe" you mean those of us who wanted a fair deal for both sides because they are making huge money then by all means include me, because i have been saying a fair deal is what is needed all along, and suggested a deal similar to what is being agreed to a long time ago. i realize that conflicts with your need to be as big a douchebag as possible but it's still the truth. Nothing in my comment suggests screwing owners it just lacks empathy for billionaires making money hand over fist.
 
Some of you seem to be so inherently spiteful of an ownership that has the best growth performance track record of any sports league you'd just as soon see their employees (or local taxpayers) all suffer just to screw them over.

.


You were just fine with local football communities getting screwed by the lockout as long as it meant the owners crushed the players and won their money grab, so don't try to pretend you give a crap about them now. you also need to make up your mind, either the owners are hugely successful or they are suffering from a terrible deal requiring them to lock out players. like the other owner shills you want it both ways, you want to crow about what great businessmen they are while simultaneously crying about how bad a deal they signed the last time around, an argument that flies directly in the face of the record deals they have been signing and one that none of you ever backed up with anything more than if the owners want it they should get it.


Fortunately it looks like moderate ownership is winning out, and those taking the extremist position you support aren't. Tough luck.
 
You were just fine with local football communities getting screwed by the lockout as long as it meant the owners crushed the players and won their money grab, so don't try to pretend you give a crap about them now. you also need to make up your mind, either the owners are hugely successful or they are suffering from a terrible deal requiring them to lock out players. like the other owner shills you want it both ways, you want to crow about what great businessmen they are while simultaneously crying about how bad a deal they signed the last time around, an argument that flies directly in the face of the record deals they have been signing and one that none of you ever backed up with anything more than if the owners want it they should get it.


Fortunately it looks like moderate ownership is winning out, and those taking the extremist position you support aren't. Tough luck.

I haven't been supporting extremes any more than you wanted a fair deal for all involved. You wanted the government to take over teams and hand them to genius fans like youself to run into the ground so former players wouldn't be the the only ones with a shot at bankrupting themseves a couple of years post tail wagging the dog...whole franchises could.

You don't get that the only team in a position to assess the situation from that vantage point is on the record saying that the present model is unsustainable due to player costs outstripping record revenues.
 
Details have emerged of the deal.

Even if they somehow get this passed, I'm not seeing it as dramatically different from the deal the owners opted out of. The entire issue has always been between the owners themselves, more so than with the players.

As for the past 10 pages of discussion about public or non-profit, the bottom line is that the small town Packers, probably the least profit seeking franchise in the league, still finished at a healthy 10% profit margin, so it's highly unlikely that any other franchise is losing money as the owners originally and continue to claim. They wanted more share of money but won't open their books to prove they are in fact losing money. We only know about the Packers since their financial info must be public based on how they're set up.

In what business is a 10% profit margin healthy?

You are telling me that if I sink my life savings into a company and it generates $1,000,000 of revenue, it costs me $900,000 of expense to generate that revenue and I make $100,000, a 10% profit, that my company is doing great?
Lets assume, as is often the case, that payroll is 60% of my expenses, or $540,000. My employees will want 5% raises annually, since I am making a HEALTHY profit, right? There goes $27,000. Out of my other $360,000 of expenses if I experience a 4% increase due to inflation, that is another $14,000+.
Times are tough, and my sales revenues decline by 2%. That is $20,000.

Those minor and reasonable changes now mean that my live's savings and my full time, 24/7 job of running my business results in me being paid $39,000. Another year like that and I am contributing my savings to have no income and be allowed to own a business that you think is cleaning up.


Want to reconsider the thinking that a business making a 10% profit margin is HEALTHY?
 
FYI do no evil Google makes ~38% profit margins while the evil oil companies make 9-11%
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots News 4-28, Draft Notes On Every Draft Pick
MORSE: A Closer Look at the Patriots Undrafted Free Agents
Five Thoughts on the Patriots Draft Picks: Overall, Wolf Played it Safe
2024 Patriots Undrafted Free Agents – FULL LIST
MORSE: Thoughts on Patriots Day 3 Draft Results
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots Head Coach Jerod Mayo Post-Draft Press Conference
2024 Patriots Draft Picks – FULL LIST
TRANSCRIPT: Patriots CB Marcellas Dial’s Conference Call with the New England Media
So Far, Patriots Wolf Playing It Smart Through Five Rounds
Wolf, Patriots Target Chemistry After Adding WR Baker
Back
Top