Packers Financials

[letekro]

What I was trying to say is a "non profit" is a legal matter. I always thought they were some sort of trust that sold "shares" so people can say they were part "owners".

There was show done on this about 15 years ago. They had a guy who had his certiciate framed in his office.

Plenty of "for profits" don't make distributions...or make profits.

I'm not sure what you're saying now? Yes, whether a corporation is nonprofit is a legal matter, but it has NOTHING to do with taxes or the IRS. The Packers "owners" have no economic interest in the corporation--they are what is generally referred to as "members" - a lot of the confusion is coming from their symbolic title of "shareholder", which of course, is not a term compatibile with nonprofits. Really, they are state law members. Many corporations, including the NFLPA, are structured as nonprofit entities that operate to benefit their members. From what I can tell from my Google machine, the Packers are the same.

You're also confusing for-profits that don't pay dividends with nonprofits. A nonprofit not only doesn't make distributions, it is bound not to distribute its assets to its members or any other individual or for-profit corporation at dissolution. Therefore, its members have no economic interest in the corporation. That's why they are better referred to as members, rather than "owners" or "shareholders".

 

[IcyPatriot]

Profit or non profit really means nothing here ... all that matters is the ratio of income to expenses higher or lower? What is done with the residual money is irrelevant - what is important is the trend. Business expenses are trending higher than income in almost every business in this country.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Unless you two think the Packers are lying about their corporate status, on their own website, you're going to have to accept that the Packers are a nonprofit corporation:



Packers.com | Shareholders

Tomato, tomahto, I should have worded that differently, earlier I said they were a non profit but not in the sense of what we normally think.
My point was they still have to have a positive cash flow and their expenses should be similar to what other NFL teams are, and they appear to be rising.
You could look at the Patriots books and the raiders books and see vastly different numbers also.

 

[Deus Irae]

Profit or non profit really means nothing here ... all that matters is the ratio of income to expenses higher or lower? What is done with the residual money is irrelevant - what is important is the trend. Business expenses are trending higher than income in almost every business in this country.

This is incorrect, because it's a woefully incomplete analysis.

 

[IcyPatriot]

This is incorrect, because it's a woefully incomplete analysis.

The analysis has already been done by the owners. they have been analyzing this since the last deal which was not good for them and that's why they are willing to sit it out for a year. when sitting out represents a better option than the present .... the present cannot be very good - this is not just a stage show here.

Also is anyone analyzing the increased expenses of the athlete's here ...is any current player losing money.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Lambeau was recently upgraded and rebuilt.

As a finance guy, here is what I would review

Player costs as a percentage of revenue and how it cuts across the league. In the Packers case, were the signing bonuses were fully expensed? Is that normal? What period do they cover because that essentially brings expenses forward and means higher future profit.

What would a rookie cap limited in years do for this number.

Stadium costs and amortization schedules. This has to be reviewed with future capital costs and expansions. Is the recent drop in Packer profits the result of Lambeau improvements? If so, when is it paid off and when is the next capital program required?

The one thing players should consider is future facility activity financed by the public will be met with increased hostility.

What are total coaching costs? Could we see some sort of coaching "cap"?

Changes is additional revenue streams. Has merchandising been maxed out? Hot dogs? My guess is the best thing to do is go 17 games with the 17th played overseas at a neutral site. The last major revenue source is international.

The cash flow statements would be quite interesting.

Could the costs of upgrading the stadium be reflected in the relatively high maintenance costs the Packers recently incurred? But in that case the upgraded stadium will result in bigger profits in the long term at the costs of short term profitability. That's something to consider when looking at the Packers' recent financials.

 

[Deus Irae]

The analysis has already been done by the owners. they have been analyzing this since the last deal which was not good for them and that's why they are willing to sit it out for a year. when sitting out represents a better option than the present the present cannot be very good - this is not just a stage show here.

The analysis has not been given to the players. The analysis ignores the single biggest issue in the NFL, and that's not player salaries. The biggest issue in the NFL is the revenue disparity between individual teams as it impacts the generalized revenue sharing scheme with the players, just as it was in 2006, and the owners have managed to remove that from the minds of people like yourself.

You've been suckered, and you've fallen for it completely.

 

[IcyPatriot]

The analysis has not been given to the players. The analysis ignores the single biggest issue in the NFL, and that's not player salaries. The biggest issue in the NFL is the revenue disparity between individual teams as it impacts the generalized revenue sharing scheme with the players, just as it was in 2006, and the owners have managed to remove that from the minds of people like yourself.

You've been suckered, and you've fallen for it completely.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

The owners are making a profit. There's no "right" to make the profit you 'expect'.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, if you think capitalism gives such a right.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I'm not sure what you're saying now? Yes, whether a corporation is nonprofit is a legal matter, but it has NOTHING to do with taxes or the IRS. The Packers "owners" have no economic interest in the corporation--they are what is generally referred to as "members" - a lot of the confusion is coming from their symbolic title of "shareholder", which of course, is not a term compatibile with nonprofits. Really, they are state law members. Many corporations, including the NFLPA, are structured as nonprofit entities that operate to benefit their members. From what I can tell from my Google machine, the Packers are the same.

You're also confusing for-profits that don't pay dividends with nonprofits. A nonprofit not only doesn't make distributions, it is bound not to distribute its assets to its members or any other individual or for-profit corporation at dissolution. Therefore, its members have no economic interest in the corporation. That's why they are better referred to as members, rather than "owners" or "shareholders".

Hey HR Block

So the Patriots and Packers use the same forms to file their taxes?

 

[letekro]

Hey HR Block

So the Patriots and Packers use the same forms to file their taxes?

No idea. Depends whether the Pack are tax-exempt and have no UBTI (990), whether they are exempt but have UBTI (990-T), or whether are not exempt (1120). As for the pats, could be 1120-S (possible), 1120 (extremely unlikely), or 1065 (likely) depending on their structure. Why is this relevant to anything being discussed here?

 

[IcyPatriot]

The owners are making a profit. There's no "right" to make the profit you 'expect'.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, if you think capitalism gives such a right.

I have a masters degree in finance ... I think I know something.

The players should make whatever the market will bear, owners should expect revenue from TV, tickets and apparel for whatever the market will bear. A fixed percentage of the revenue does not work in an economy that is in flux. Owners can prove their expenses have gone up ... players cannot prove the same.

 

[Deus Irae]

I have a masters degree in finance ... I think I know something.

Apparently not, since you claim a right to expected profits in a capitalist system

 

[Deus Irae]

...Owners can prove their expenses have gone up ...

This is what the players have been asking the owners to do since 2009, when Smith first requested the financial data.

 

[Ring 6]

You know what you call a corporation that never distributes profits to its owners? A nonprofit corporation. The fact that they paid taxes is neither here or there. They may not be tax-exempt, or they may have unrelated business taxable income, which is taxable even to corporations otherwise exempt from federal income tax.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

The analysis has not been given to the players. The analysis ignores the single biggest issue in the NFL, and that's not player salaries. The biggest issue in the NFL is the revenue disparity between individual teams as it impacts the generalized revenue sharing scheme with the players, just as it was in 2006, and the owners have managed to remove that from the minds of people like yourself.

You've been suckered, and you've fallen for it completely.

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.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Apparently not, since you claim a right to expected profits in a capitalist system

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.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Technically speaking, the Packers are a non-profit. However I think we're getting side-tracked by the definition and in this case, it's irrelevant. Just as the Packers are not your usual franchise (community-owned), they're also not your usual non-profit. What other non-profits pay out over $125M to roughly 75 employees?

There are certain aspects of this that are unusual, but the ticket and TV revenues, along with NFL shared revenues are representational, as are the employee costs. Neither the owners or players have considered this data as not representational. They've both used it to argue their points. I'm not suggesting you can multiply everything by 32 to get the total picture. It's a part of the puzzle is all.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

This is incorrect.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

No idea. Depends whether the Pack are tax-exempt and have no UBTI (990), whether they are exempt but have UBTI (990-T), or whether are not exempt (1120). As for the pats, could be 1120-S (possible), 1120 (extremely unlikely), or 1065 (likely) depending on their structure. Why is this relevant to anything being discussed here?

Deus

Are you lurking in drag again?

Seriously do you follow a thread? Look at my post to which you "responded"

Points

A non profit will be legally organized as a non profit.

The IRS has rules governing this type of organization and how they file taxes. Many "non profits" post their tax data on the internet so if it's posted and filed on a Form 990......it's most likely some sort of non profit. If you have tax returns, you can kinda figure out what type of organization it is,....right?

I had zero idea what their legal status was.

Since it appears they are a non profit, the tax rules are going to be different. You do realize tax considerations are considered when these types of organizations are setup?

Care to compare JP Morgan to the Bullfrog County Credit Union? How about General Electric to the Red Cross?

As such, comparing the Packers to the other 31 teams needs to be done with caution.