BB Goes On A Rant re: NFL Crying Poverty (goal line camera proposal rejected)

Deus Irae said:

No team in the NFL is losing money, and no team in the NFL is a bad investment.

Click to expand...

Making the statement does not make it true. There are financial measure of profitability and of what makes a good financial investment.

mgteich said:

Making the statement does not make it true. There are financial measure of profitability and of what makes a good financial investment.

Click to expand...

We went over this some time back. Green Bay is the only team that has to open its books. So the Forbes article you cited, besides being out of date, is nothing more than guesswork at a one year snapshot.

In the meantime, in that same 2013 season, every NFL team took home more than $187 million in just the national monies, with an NFL Salary cap of $123 million.

robertweathers said:

The problem is that while we don't know the total acquisition, implementation or operational costs involved, for a company that generates $9B annually w/ and operating margin of approx 15.4% (2013 numbers). Double-check my math but according to my calculations, the NFL generated a profit of ~$1.39B.

Click to expand...

A lot of owners have made significant profits on their investments, certainly including DAL, NE and the NYG.

My calculations are that the total net worth is $45.69B (you can check my arithmetic).

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

If the the annual profit is $1.39B, then owners are earning 3% on their investment. Few good businessmen would consider this return adequate. From a business perspective , they would sell the team, and expect more than 3% in other business ventures. Of course, I haven't added the increased value of the franchises. If they are say increasing at say 3% a year (a WAG), then the total returns are more reasonable.

All of this analysis has to do with NFL as a whole. Clearly, individual teams are more or less profitable. IMHO, there are clearly many teams that are not viable as a business. IMHO, as long as they are making some money, they can be justified as a hobby, even though the owners could likely earn more money elsewhere.

Deus Irae said:

We went over this some time back. Green Bay is the only team that has to open its books. So the Forbes article you cited, besides being out of date, is nothing more than guesswork at a one year snapshot.

In the meantime, in that same 2013 season, every NFL team took home more than $187 million in just the national monies, with an NFL Salary cap of $123 million.

Click to expand...

We disagreed then and now. Obviously, there are other costs in addition to salaries, as well as other revenues.

mgteich said:

We disagreed then and now. Obviously, there are other costs in addition to salaries, as well as other revenues.

Click to expand...

You certainly know that I understand that player salaries are not 100% of an NFL team's costs, so enough with the passive-aggressive nonsense. Also, with regards to your "Making the statement does not make it true" line, remember that it also applies to your claims, such as:

DET is losing money. MIA is a pathetic investment.

Click to expand...

I'll leave it at that.

mgteich said:

A lot of owners have made significant profits on their investments, certainly including DAL, NE and the NYG.

My calculations are that the total net worth is $45.69B (you can check my arithmetic).

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

If the the annual profit is $1.39B, then owners are earning 3% on their investment. Few good businessmen would consider this return adequate. From a business perspective , they would sell the team, and expect more than 3% in other business ventures. Of course, I haven't added the increased value of the franchises. If they are say increasing at say 3% a year (a WAG), then the total returns are more reasonable.

All of this analysis has to do with NFL as a whole. Clearly, individual teams are more or less profitable. IMHO, there are clearly many teams that are not viable as a business. IMHO, as long as they are making some money, they can be justified as a hobby, even though the owners could likely earn more money elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Keep going man. This is hysterical.

mgteich said:

A lot of owners have made significant profits on their investments, certainly including DAL, NE and the NYG.

My calculations are that the total net worth is $45.69B (you can check my arithmetic).

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

If the the annual profit is $1.39B, then owners are earning 3% on their investment. Few good businessmen would consider this return adequate. From a business perspective , they would sell the team, and expect more than 3% in other business ventures. Of course, I haven't added the increased value of the franchises. If they are say increasing at say 3% a year (a WAG), then the total returns are more reasonable.

All of this analysis has to do with NFL as a whole. Clearly, individual teams are more or less profitable. IMHO, there are clearly many teams that are not viable as a business. IMHO, as long as they are making some money, they can be justified as a hobby, even though the owners could likely earn more money elsewhere.

Click to expand...

You are looking at the #s differently than I am.

Revenue from gate receipts, sponsors, etc is kept by the team. In these areas, teams like DAL, NE and NYG are outstanding. They know how to run a business. On the other hand, there are teams that because of their market, business/financial/marketing acumen, lack of winning or sub-standard infrastructure are incapable of generating substantial revenue and are not as profitable.

For example, in 2013, the Cowboys generated $539m in revenues, had costs of $289m and a net income of $250m. This calculates roughly of having a profit margin of ~46%. Pats were 33%and #2 in revenue. Those two were the class of the league.

In 2013, 49ers had a 1% profit. Tampa made $2.2m. The Lions made $3.5mi 2013. How are these teams making money beyond what they generate individually? I'm not 100% sure how the league divides up the profits but revenue from TV is shared across all franchises so w/ $6B in 2014 revenue, divide that by 32 teams.....not bad.

See below...The Pack did just fine. Figure the Lions, Bucs, 49ers, Bills and Cinci- all who pretty much break even, pulled in $190m each from TV revenues plus other shared revenues that I may not be aware of (licencing?).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...evenue-according-green-bay-packers-financials

The Packers said they received $187.7 million in national revenue, which is mostly derived from the league's television rights. The Packers' total represents 3.1 percent, or 1/32nd, of the overall pie.

Click to expand...

Local revenues for the Packers were $136.3 million, up 6.4 percent from last season. Factoring in expenses of $298.5 million, the Packers pulled in a $25.5 million profit, down nearly 53 percent from last season.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

A lot of owners have made significant profits on their investments, certainly including DAL, NE and the NYG.

My calculations are that the total net worth is $45.69B (you can check my arithmetic).

http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

If the the annual profit is $1.39B, then owners are earning 3% on their investment. Few good businessmen would consider this return adequate. From a business perspective , they would sell the team, and expect more than 3% in other business ventures. Of course, I haven't added the increased value of the franchises. If they are say increasing at say 3% a year (a WAG), then the total returns are more reasonable.

All of this analysis has to do with NFL as a whole. Clearly, individual teams are more or less profitable. IMHO, there are clearly many teams that are not viable as a business. IMHO, as long as they are making some money, they can be justified as a hobby, even though the owners could likely earn more money elsewhere.

Click to expand...

You do realize that those amounts listed aren't their "investments" right? Kraft paid about $175m for the Patriots. He is making nearly that much every year according to that site. Many of the other owners are also long term holders and are also raking in money. Even the Dolphins which you labeled a bad investment appreciated in value 21% in one year according to that site. I think its fair to say that for many of these owners, their franchise is their single greatest investment.

mgteich their net worth is NOT = their football investment as in most cases they were close to or already billionaires before buying their teams

I mean isn't he right, this is absolutely ridiculous, what gong show is running this joint?

I tell you man the NFL should be falling on their feet and thanking their lucky stars for the Sabols...they made a lot of rich people by glorifying a sport that people can not get enough of, irrespective of logic like a catch or end zone cameras.

It just boggles my mind. I mean I myself am hooked by the game but some of their reasoning just makes me wonder how all these folks got so rich...

I completely understand why BB is so annoyed all the time. The game he loves is run by a bunch of buffoons...

Halifax_Pats_Fan said:

I mean isn't he right, this is absolutely ridiculous, what gong show is running this joint?

I tell you man the NFL should be falling on their feet and thanking their lucky stars for the Sabols...they made a lot of rich people by glorifying a sport that people can not get enough of, irrespective of logic like a catch or end zone cameras.

It just boggles my mind. I mean I myself and hooked by the game but some of their reasoning just makes me wonder how all these folks got so rich...

I completely understand why BB is so annoyed all the time. The game he loves is run by a bunch of buffoons...

Click to expand...

NFL teams are so strapped that they can only afford to pay the Ommissioner a paltry $40+m per season.

Times are tough.

My point is, if they WANT to make it happen they can. Crying about not having enough money is ridiculous and utterly untrue. Each owner could pony up a fraction of a percent of their net worth a piece and still be billionaires and get it done. Hell the new angles alone would pay for the cameras through NFL films and other media outlets.

As there have said, this is more about BB and the Patriots than anything else.

mgteich said:

And by what measure is the NFL "killing the game"?

attendance? TV audience? profit? popularity of the NFL compared to the other sports?

How much posters like to whine?

Click to expand...

Money has not done any sport any good. They are changing the game with rules to protect their $ and promote Fantasy football (not for the better) and are slowing the game down with cramming commercials everywhere they can. THEN they have the gall to try to use "slowing the game down" and "money" as excuses (you see this a LOT in the MLB). Money is killing sports in America.

PatsWickedPissah said:

mgteich their net worth is NOT = their football investment as in most cases they were close to or already billionaires before buying their teams

Click to expand...

Yes, football teams are primarily hobbies for billionaires.

For a few, these investments have greatly increased their net worth.

BSR said:

I think its fair to say that for many of these owners, their franchise is their single greatest investment.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

I don't think that the football team is the primary source of revenue for very many of the owners. As someone else posted, they were billionaires long before they bought football teams.

Ivan said:

So you think that more viewers and money is what determines whether the game is getting better or worse?

Click to expand...

No.

A poster said that the NFL is a failure and getting worse. I asked what by what measure was that so. And yes, I do think that the NFL is a business, and the game is measured by how many watch and hoe many are willing to pay.

Deus Irae said:

We went over this some time back. Green Bay is the only team that has to open its books. So the Forbes article you cited, besides being out of date, is nothing more than guesswork at a one year snapshot.

In the meantime, in that same 2013 season, every NFL team took home more than $187 million in just the national monies, with an NFL Salary cap of $123 million.

Click to expand...

OK, from what has been posted, I understand that GB is worth $1.375B and that its annual profit is $25.5M. That is a return of investment of less than 2%. My position is that from a financial perspective, this is not a particularly good investment, unless the investor is counting on lots of appreciation in total value.

Do you disagree?

are you seriously trying to push this agenda that the owners won't use cameras on the EZ lines because it's too expensive?

I'd bet that each owner has HOME SECURITY cameras that cost 10,000 times what it would cost to put four cams on the EZ lines. Krist, what's next, a clothing drive to keep the Krafts warm?

This ludicrous idea in defense of the owners is nothing but smoke. They don't WANT absolute transparency at the goal line. They WANT controversy. It's good enough for the WWE, it's good enough for the NFL.

Joker said:

are you seriously trying to push this agenda that the owners won't use cameras on the EZ lines because it's too expensive?

I'd bet that each owner has HOME SECURITY cameras that cost 10,000 times what it would cost to put four cams on the EZ lines. Krist, what's next, a clothing drive to keep the Krafts warm?

This ludicrous idea in defense of the owners is nothing but smoke. They don't WANT absolute transparency at the goal line. They WANT controversy. It's good enough for the WWE, it's good enough for the NFL.

Click to expand...

No one is pushing the agenda that the NFL can't afford cameras. No one believes their reasoning in rejecting Belichick's proposal. There may be many reasons for their rejection; money is NOT one of them.

mgteich said:

OK, from what has been posted, I understand that GB is worth $1.375B and that its annual profit is $25.5M. That is a return of investment of less than 2%. My position is that from a financial perspective, this is not a particularly good investment, unless the investor is counting on lots of appreciation in total value.

Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

First, your "unless" is a big "unless".
Second, the Packers do not make an annual profit of $25.5m. $25.5m is just the declared profit of one specific year. Note the following article:

The Packers' net income soared to $42.7 million -- up $25.6 million from the previous year -- according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Net profit from operations totaled $27.9 million, which was up $20.1 million.

Click to expand...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...n-bay-packers-made-record-profits-during-2011