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

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


Status
Not open for further replies.
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:

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

So, GB has set record for income and profit, with annual profits of 3.1% of assets.

Yes, the unless is a bid unless. I agree that someone could invest in a team where he expected appreciation in spite of low annual income. As with any business, this could most likely happen if a team was being run poorly (from a financial perspective).
 
So, GB has set record for income and profit, with annual profits of 3.1% of assets.

Mg, we're wasting our time here, since you argue that teams are losing money while Goodell is getting $40+m a year, but so be it. If you want to discuss this, let's discuss it honestly and accurately. I cited one year, back several years ago. I made no claim that such is the current record. Also, G.B. is run differently from the other 31 teams, given its special status.

Yes, the unless is a bid unless. I agree that someone could invest in a team where he expected appreciation in spite of low annual income. As with any business, this could most likely happen if a team was being run poorly (from a financial perspective).

Appreciation has been significant for well run teams just as it has for poorly run teams. To stick to Forbes, since it's where this all started, here's a 2013 article's claim:

To the contrary: The average NFL team is currently worth $1.43 billion, the highest value in the 17 years Forbes has tracked professional football team finances. The $1.43 billion average is 23% more than a year ago, the biggest year-over-year increase since 1999.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/08/20/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams/
 
Last edited:
Mg, we're wasting our time here, since you argue that teams are losing money while Goodell is getting $40+m a year, but so be it. If you want to discuss this, let's discuss it honestly and accurately. I cited one year, back several years ago. I made no claim that such is the current record. Also, G.B. is run differently from the other 31 teams, given its special status.



Appreciation has been significant for well run teams just as it has for poorly run teams. To stick to Forbes, since it's where this all started, here's a 2013 article's claim:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/08/20/the-nfls-most-valuable-teams/

I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE NFL AS A WHOLE
I agree that there was a huge increase in valuation between 2013 and 2014, after values being flat for 5 years. Since the average value has almost tripled in 14 years, your position that the appreciation is significant is correct.

QUESTION
Do you believe that all NFL have been profitable ventures? Do you believe that every team is a good financial investment. This "argument" seemed to start when I suggested that some teams seemed to be in financial trouble.

I never indicated that the NFL wasn't making money, and certainly not that the NFL couldn't afford cameras. As a whole, the owners are doing very, very well. And yes, they can afford to pay their commissioner $40M a year.
 
QUESTION
Do you believe that all NFL have been profitable ventures?

The Redskins were bought by Snyder for $750m. They are currently valued (again, by Forbes) at more than twice that amount. Are they being run well?

Do you believe that every team is a good financial investment. This "argument" seemed to start when I suggested that some teams seemed to be in financial trouble.

Do you seriously think the Lions wouldn't be screaming blue murder if they were losing money year after year, as is being claimed? Remember, they've been claiming to be losing literally millions since at least as far back as 2006.

If you want to argue about what you consider an acceptable level of profit, you'll have to find someone else for that. The issue of just how good a good investment happens to be is going to come down to a specific, almost 100% guaranteed, profit percentage that does, or does not, get you excited, not whether or not your money is in any trouble. At the moment, NFL teams are easy profit making ventures, with a lot of cost and revenue certainty. What will happen with the next CBA and TV contracts? I doubt that either of us has studied those enough to even give a particularly educated guess at this point: I certainly haven't.

I never indicated that the NFL wasn't making money, and certainly not that the NFL couldn't afford cameras. As a whole, the owners are doing very, very well. And yes, they can afford to pay their commissioner $40M a year.

They can afford to pay their Ommissioner $40m a year because they are making big coin, and the amount of coin being made is basically guaranteed to continue to rise for years, because of the TV contracts.
 
Last edited:
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.

What the poster you quoted said was "killing the game," and it was obvious that they were referring to the changes being made not profitability. And yes, the NFL is prostituting the game for ratings and money and doing so makes the game worse not better.
 
They should be stripped of their tax exempt status.
 
They should be stripped of their tax exempt status.
Damn straight. Thats the problem w/ some of these stadium funding deals and the hidden trush howthese teams are able to hide revenue-debt service.

The other, bigger mystery is on the expense side of the ledger. The biggest cost is player payroll, which can be tracked. The collectively bargained salary cap for this season is $133 million. (To arrive at that figure, the league combines 55 percent of TV money with 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue and 40 percent of projected local revenue, then divides by 32 teams.) But aside from the players’ take, the NFL’s costs are a dark box, even when team financial statements are leaked. And teams have every incentive to disguise profits and claim poverty.

Beyond the normal tax concerns, profit squeezes can be used to negotiate downplayer costs and convince lawmakers to pay for new stadiums. Operating expenses, according to Vrooman, are where teams tend to “blow the most smoke,” when outside parties have been able to look at their books. “The non-player costs are highly irregular to say the least,” he says. “The scams range from owners employing themselves to disguising taxable return on equity as tax-sheltered interest on club debt.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-09-04/nfls-secretive-finances-a-nearly-10-billion-mystery
 
If they NFL is so effing poor, maybe they should move their offices out of frickin Manhattan to somewhere more cost effective like FL, TX or Az.
 
So don't read it if it offends you. Also, if it offends you, then why the hell are you posting a thread about it on a website where, LITERALLY, thousands of people will go and search it out thus giving the writer clicks and ad traffic? I mean, really, that makes no god damn sense whatsoever. It's unbelievable. Team wins the Super Bowl and some of you are still hypersensitive about any potential Spygate reference. Watch this thread span multiple pages now when a lot of people, me included, would have had no idea that this article even existed had you not posted about it.

That happens all the time here. It's why I don't click on or even read the comments of some threads that start off with 'this guy is a clueless twit, but...

But it still can't dampen what the Pats have accomplished. It might even help to weed out and identify the worst of the bunch.
 
I remember when the NBA claimed they were losing money and then the clippers sold for 2 billion dollars and the kings for 535mill lmao why do the player associations fall for that crap?
 
Who would be responsible for paying for the cameras? The individual teams or the League?
 
I wonder if anything is stopping individual franchises from implementing the cameras on their own and then offering their use to the broadcast crews. It's my understanding that currently all replays come from broadcast crew cameras anyways.

Do you seriously think the Lions wouldn't be screaming blue murder if they were losing money year after year, as is being claimed? Remember, they've been claiming to be losing literally millions since at least as far back as 2006.

We're not thinking about this in the right frame of mind. In finance and big business "losing money" rarely means losing money. It means losing money in comparison to expected or historical gains. If the Lions made $20 million in 2014 and only $19 million in 2015 then they have "lost" $1 million; more after inflation. Or, if they were expecting to make $24 million, then they have lost $5 million. This lost money is frequently recovered by controling costs.

If such a financial asset or business were ever actually losing money it would be publicly described as profitable and would be sold off as quickly as possible.

I think its totally plausible that the Lions have been losing money every year since Ford Field opened, given Detroit paid $200 million to help build it. Given the increasing money the league pulls in each season, they've probably been losing more and more each year.
 
Hasn't it been established that belichick did not have a "profanity laced rant" at the owner's meetings, yet patsfans still has a 5 page thread about it?
 
I've never seen Belichick angry before...... probably shouldn't even want to :eek:
 
I think the money in attorneys' fees they are spending on this witch hunt would have paid for cameras in all of the endzones.
 
I wonder if anything is stopping individual franchises from implementing the cameras on their own and then offering their use to the broadcast crews. It's my understanding that currently all replays come from broadcast crew cameras anyways.



We're not thinking about this in the right frame of mind. In finance and big business "losing money" rarely means losing money. It means losing money in comparison to expected or historical gains. If the Lions made $20 million in 2014 and only $19 million in 2015 then they have "lost" $1 million; more after inflation. Or, if they were expecting to make $24 million, then they have lost $5 million. This lost money is frequently recovered by controling costs.

If such a financial asset or business were ever actually losing money it would be publicly described as profitable and would be sold off as quickly as possible.

I think its totally plausible that the Lions have been losing money every year since Ford Field opened, given Detroit paid $200 million to help build it. Given the increasing money the league pulls in each season, they've probably been losing more and more each year.

In financial world "losing money" is usually a situation where the investor is earning less that what he might be earning in other investments of equal risk. For example, someone who invests in a sports franchise might expect to earn 10% annually on his money. If he were to earn 5-6% a year for awhile, he might think that he is "losing money" in the sense that he could have earned more elsewhere, or that he might sell his position and invest his money elsewhere. In the NFL, there was almost no appreciation for 5 years and earnings were under 4% for the average team. There were lots of better investments. HOWEVER, last year the additional value (earnings plus appreciation) was about 25%, a pretty good deal.

The BOTTOM line is that last year was a very good year, and that the future is likely to be very good, given the contracts with players and networks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/19: News and Notes
TRANSCRIPT: Eliot Wolf’s Pre-Draft Press Conference 4/18/24
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/18: News and Notes
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/17: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/16: News and Notes
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Back
Top